 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Linzy v. St. Mary's Medical Center6/4/2002
treatment theory, plaintiff must establish that she was treated more harshly than similarly situated employees for the same or similar misconduct. Alspaugh, supra at 564, citing Wolff v Automobile Club of Michigan, 194 Mich App 6, 11; 486 NW2d 75 (1992); see also Town v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 455 Mich 688, 695; 568 NW2d 64 (1997).
Plaintiff asserts that she was treated more harshly than the younger nurses, including Wilson, the nurse who administered the drug, and Lillistierna, the nurse who was similarly disciplined for the alleged identical misconduct. However, to establish that the other younger nurses were "similarly situated," plaintiff must show that all relevant aspects of their employment situations were "nearly identical" to those of plaintiff's situation. Town, supra at 699-700; Smith v Goodwill Industries of West Michigan, Inc, 243 Mich App 438, 449; 622 NW2d 337 (2000). Because plaintiff was Wilson's superior, plaintiff failed to establish that Wilson was "similarly situated." In contrast, Lillistierna was "similarly situated," but we find that he and plaintiff received the same discipline.
Though plaintiff received a letter of termination when Lillistierna did not, the record is clear that the employer advised plaintiff that the letter was mistakenly, prematurely sent and thereafter, both Lillistierna and plaintiff were offered the same opportunity to stay as nursing assistants during the state's investigation of their alleged misconduct.
Lillistierna accepted the employer's offer, while plaintiff resigned. Had plaintiff accepted her employer's offer, as Lillistierna did, the record suggests that she, like Lillistierna, would have been reinstated to her position as a registered nurse. Therefore, there is simply no evidence of disparate treatment. The trial court properly granted defendant's summary disposition motion on plaintiff's age discrimination claim.
IV. Race Discrimination
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition on her race discrimination claim, and asserts that the trial court ignored evidence that other similarly situated individuals received either no discipline or more lenient discipline. Again, we disagree.
Plaintiff's race discrimination claim is also based on MCL 37.2202(1)(a). Plaintiff provided no direct evidence of racial bias. See Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 610; 572 NW2d 679 (1997). Plaintiff also provided no evidence of intentional discrimination because she presented no evidence that defendant was predisposed to discriminate against plaintiff and acted on that predisposition. See Graham v Ford, 237 Mich App 670, 676; 604 NW2d 713 (1999).
To survive summary disposition, plaintiff must first offer a prima facie case of race discrimination. Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 463; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). Plaintiff was required to present evidence that (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position, and (4) was disciplined under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination, i.e., that other similarly situated persons outside the protected class were treated differently. Id., citing Lytle, supra at 172-173; Town, supra at 695. Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that similarly situated employees were treated differently. As discussed, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that any similarly situated employees, including Lillistierna, was treated differently for any reason, including race. Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendant's summary disposition motion on plaintiff's race discriminatio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|