Earlier this year, Jennifer Lossia McManus of Fagan McManus, P.C. lent her considerable knowledge of Michigan employment law to two articles published in Michigan Lawyers Weekly, the independent newspaper covering the legal profession. One piece discussed a rising trend of people turning to AI for legal advice, while the other covered a federal judge’s decision that could be an important victory for victims of workplace whistleblower retaliation.
Retaliation Claim Allowed to Continue Post-Retirement
In a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a retired St. Clair County sheriff’s deputy was allowed to continue his retaliation claim even though he had “voluntarily” retired. The court ruled that the sheriff’s department violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it threatened to investigate and fire him if he did not retire. The investigation had to do with leaked information to Facebook that claimed the sheriff used his power to give his brother special treatment following a DWI arrest. The alleged retaliation appears to have been triggered by the plaintiff’s conversation with HR about the sheriff’s alleged abuse of power.
Ruling against the defense’s motion to dismiss, the judge found the plaintiff’s complaint to HR to be protected speech. She also found there still remained a question of fact whether the sheriff’s department was motivated to investigate the plaintiff to punish him for speaking up about the sheriff’s brother.
“As a plaintiff’s attorney myself, I’m always happy to see other plaintiffs’ attorneys take on these more difficult cases because opinions like this really do open the door and encourage other attorneys,” Jennifer, who was not involved in the litigation, said. “Certain claims are more difficult to bring when you’re dealing with a public entity and a public employee.”
Plaintiffs Turning to AI, Not Employment Lawyers, for Legal Help
As people increasingly rely on AI tools like Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT for information, instruction, and advice, it might not be a surprise to hear that more and more workers who believe they have a claim against their employer are turning to AI instead of a Michigan employment attorney. An MLW cover story noted that in over 16% of federal employment lawsuits filed in 2025, the plaintiffs were pro se, meaning they represented themselves. In 2021, under 10% of plaintiffs filed without an attorney representing them.
Observers believe a big reason for this jump is the availability of AI chatbots. Whether they went pro se to save money on legal fees, because they could not find a lawyer to take their case, or some other reason, these plaintiffs did badly in court. They lost on the merits 40 times more often than they won against the defendants. Many others were defeated on procedural grounds, which isn’t surprising when the plaintiff has no experienced consul guiding them through the steps of making a valid claim in federal court.
As Jennifer told MLW, one flaw in relying on an AI chatbot instead of a flesh-and-blood attorney is that the latter will tell you the truth, even if it isn’t what you want to hear.
“The thing about AI is that it aims to please. So, when people are feeding their own scenarios into AI, first of all, they’re feeding their scenarios in [and] shining the best light on themselves and what they believe their claims to be,” she said. “And then AI is spitting out something that it thinks will please you.”
Another issue is the user’s inability to view own case objectively. Someone asking AI if they have a strong case for a lawsuit is likely to only give it information from their own perspective, and the chatbot’s responses will reflect that.
“If you’re using AI, you’re only telling it what you want it to know,” Jennifer said. “You might not tell AI … about the defenses that the company is raising, which will weigh into the sort of the risk assessment that a lawyer can do for you.”
