 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymal v. Baergen6/8/2004
tween the two." Barrett, supra at 315. In West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 184-187; 665 NW2d 468 (2003), our Supreme Court analyzed the requirements to establish a "causal connection" between protected activity and an adverse employment action. The Court concluded that a plaintiff "must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action." Id. at 186.
In this case, there was no genuine issue of fact that plaintiff's telephone calls to Fraser were a significant factor in the employment actions taken against plaintiff. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence clearly shows a long-term negative reaction to plaintiff's refusal to engage in a sexual relationship with Baergen. This activity did not cease after plaintiff called Fraser -- it continued in a similar and like fashion. There is absolutely no evidence that the call to Fraser had anything to do with the subsequent adverse employment action. Rather, the evidence indicates that the adverse employment action was directly attributable to plaintiff's rejection of Baergen's initial proposition as she specifically alleges in paragraph 23 of her complaint.
V. Individual Liability
Finally, in the context of employment discrimination, the CRA does not provide a cause of action for retaliation against individuals under either article 2 or article 7.
"We construe an act as a whole to harmonize its provisions and carry out the purpose of the Legislature." (Emphasis added). Macomb County Prosecuting Attorney v Murphy , 464 Mich 149, 159; 627 NW2d 247 (2001). The CRA is composed of eight articles that serve distinct purposes. Article 1 consists of definitions that apply to the entire act. The discriminatory actions prohibited by the CRA are set forth in articles 2 through 5, which individually contain definitions and rules only applicable to the type of discrimination addressed in that particular article: article 2 prohibits employment discrimination; article 3 prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation; article 4 prohibits discrimination in educational institutions; and article 5 prohibits housing discrimination. There are three remaining articles: article 6 establishes the civil rights commission and its procedures; article 7 prohibits retaliation against a person who has taken action in opposition to a violation of the CRA; and article 8 provides additional rules for claims brought under the CRA.
The majority correctly asserts that this Court has construed article 2 to permit claims of employment discrimination to be brought only against employers, not individuals. Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464; 652 NW2d 503 (2002) . I agree that despite being strewn with references to the CRA generally, Jager only construes the language in article 2. Thus, its holding does not extend to any other article in the CRA, including article 7 that is at issue here. Nonetheless, Jager affects the application of article 7 within the context of employment discrimination claims.
MCL 37.2701 provides:
Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not:
(a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.
(b) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act.
(c) Attempt directly or indirectly to commit an act prohibited by this act.
(d) Willfully obstruct or prevent
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|