 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stokes v. Greektown Casino6/22/2004
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Tyrone Stokes appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants Greektown Casino, L.L.C., ("Greektown") and John Hawkins on plaintiff's claims of racial and reverse gender employment discrimination pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Greektown hired plaintiff, an African-American male, as an assistant slot shift manager in September of 2000, as an at-will employee. On November 11, 2000, plaintiff was reprimanded by written warning for handling two customer machine disputes in a manner that violated Greektown's Code of Conduct. The warning, as well as the Code of Conduct, indicated that plaintiff could be terminated for further infractions.
On October 30, 2000, Greektown issued a written bulletin reminding employees that it was the policy of the casino that employees only be dropped off and picked up at the Greektown Casino Parking Facility. Plaintiff received a ticket on February 6, 2001, for blocking traffic while dropping off his immediate supervisor, Clivalee Mundle, at the Beaubien Street entrance, as opposed to the parking facility, per casino policy. Plaintiff demanded to speak to the issuing officer's supervisor regarding the officer's conduct. Sergeant Joseph Solomon arrived to handle the complaint. Sergeant Solomon reported the incident to the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB), describing plaintiff as "something of a hot head." The MGCB in turn contacted Mr. Hawkins regarding the incident.
As a result of the February incident, plaintiff was placed on an immediate investigative suspension. Greektown terminated plaintiff's employment a week later, citing the November reprimand, the current infraction, and concern over the negative attention from the MGCB pertaining to the incident. Plaintiff filed the current lawsuit alleging discrimination and defendants brought a motion for summary disposition. In granting defendants' motion, the trial court noted the lack of evidence of discrimination and the fact that plaintiff clearly violated Greektown policy in dropping off Mr. Mundle at the casino entrance.
II. Legal Analysis
This Court reviews a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition de novo. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff's claim. "In reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, or any other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists." Summary disposition is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
A. Racial Discrimination
Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary disposition on his claim of racial discrimination. We disagree. Michigan's Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual with respect to employment based on race. Absent direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must proceed under the shifting burdens of proof articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green . To establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas , a plaintiff must prove that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for the position; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, "a presumption of di
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|