Filed Date: Sept. 28, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding in progress
On September 28, 2023, an 84 year old ophthalmologist filed this class action lawsuit against Henry Ford Health in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. The Judge presiding over this case is Judith Levy, an United States District Judge. She sought to represent a class of Henry Ford employees who were subject to undergo cognitive screening assessments and provide genetic information on the basis of their age. The plaintiff was represented by Nickelhoff & Widick, PLLC, and Bogas & Koncius, PC.
The plaintiff sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group (an agent of Defendant Henry Ford Health). Specifically, she alleged that the defendants had failed to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
Defendants had adopted a policy known as the “Henry Ford Medical Group Senior and Bioscientific Staff Fitness for Duty Policy'' that required employees over 70 years old to undergo a screening assessment. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant discriminated against employees over 70 by requiring them to undergo a cognition screening despite having no “reasonable basis” to perform such an evaluation. The plaintiff alleged that Henry Ford was depriving employees in the Plaintiff class of employment opportunities based on their age. She also claimed that this policy had an adverse effect on the plaintiffs’ status as employees.
Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that defendants had subjected members of the plaintiff class to an unauthorized acquisition of their genetic information, which violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).
Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the court state that Henry Ford’s policy would deprive employees and affect their employment opportunities or status as employees and violate the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She sought a declaratory judgment that the court declare that mandating the plaintiff class to undergo medical examinations that did not pertain to their job or relate to the needs of the business was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991. The plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment that the court declare that the acquisition of the plaintiff class’s genetic information violated GINA. Lastly, she sought a declaratory judgment that subjecting the plaintiff class to mental examinations not directly pertaining to the job requirements violated the Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiff sought compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. She sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin defendants from continuing to apply their Henry Ford Medical Group Senior and Bioscientific Staff Fitness for Duty Policy. She also sought damages for lost earnings, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and additional legal and equitable relief to which the class may be entitled.
On December 6, 2023, the Court stayed the case for a 90 day period to allow for mediation.
Summary Authors
Renuka Wagh (1/1/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67837189/parties/mogk-v-henry-ford-health/
Bogas, Kathleen L. (Michigan)
Runyan, John R. (Michigan)
Culberson, Elyse K. (Michigan)
Farr, Robert A. (Michigan)
Rubin, Allan S. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67837189/mogk-v-henry-ford-health/
Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 11:05 p.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 28, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Defendants
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis: