Law advise please - possible work place discrimination in Michigan?

Question

2 employees related to owner were
caught stealing - tottaling approx $4500.
They were repremanded by paying back
the $4500. they didnot physically pay $ back,
they have a very large "running acct" that
includes mortgages / cars etc with
the owners there family and it was added
to that. They have recently been accused
of doing additional side jobs again and the owners
are deciding what to do.

Employee 3 (not related) has worked there for
3 years has also taken from the company by overpaying themselves by 80 hrs. This employee had to payback the
hrs at a rate of 30 hrs per week and was fined $500 to be
paid back to the company. The owners (not related to this employee) are deciding to press charges against the employee for theft.

Does employee #3 have a discrimination case if charges
are brought up against him and not the other employees?
The employee guidlines state theft is grounds for termination
on the 1st offence.

I'm H.R and think it is discrimination

Michigan is an at will state. will it be
discrimination if employee 3 has charges
brought against him for theft and employee
1 & 2 (relatives of owner) do not?

Employee 3 was fined by the company,
not any court case. No one has gone
to court yet, but only employee 3 will have
a court case or charges brought against
him

Answer 1

OK.

First of all nepotism is alive and well in your work place. The owner as long as he/she is sole owner gets to decide what will happen to the employees in his/her employ. Family comes first obviously so as to discrimination...uh no...you can get fired for wearing red shoes...c'mon there is no way it will fly. waste of money and time.

As for them going to prosecution...uh they have already punished him...but then again that was his employer...there is no double jeopardy of any kind that can only happen if he was already in court and your question does not indicate so.

He can be brought up to charges and all he would have to do is tell the prosecutor that he paid a fine and was forced to make up the hours and that it was an oral agreement with the owner ..the prosecutor more than likely, if you have a good DA over there and not one that is good friends with employer, will not file because the man would have already paid his debt. Or is paying his debt.

While I would love to say it is discrimination it isn't...like I said welcome to the world of nepotism.

Answer 2

If you're HR, you've got some homework to do. What would be the grounds for the discrimination? "Related to the owner" is not a protected class under Title VII or ADA or any other anti-discrimination legislation that I am aware of. If Michigan is an "at will" work state, the owners can treat employees preferentially all they want, as long as the differences are based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, disability, and the other classes protected by law.

Answer 3

was employee #3 in a court of law already for this? in other words why did he have to pay back? if not/ he shouldnt have payed back 1 dime./ so if he did then that shows that he is definetely guilty of the crime. so if they prosecute then they have every right to do so. because you said he was fined 500 dollars.

so if he was fined then they have no right doing so cause that would be [double jeopardy] which is illegal in all states.
as far as the other two/ maybe they [turned states evidence] on employee #3. which would put the pressure on #3 drastically.

this case really sounds suspicious to me. and yes it sounds worse than disc./ so after it is all over #3 could re-open the case and sue the h--/ out of them.