 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edick v. Country Fresh11/16/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on plaintiff's claim of retaliatory discharge brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. We affirm.
Plaintiff was terminated from her position as a secretary at defendant company. Plaintiff alleges that she was fired because she had complained about being sexually harassed by defendant's sales manager. Defendant contends that plaintiff was discharged because on two separate occasions plaintiff breached the duty of confidentiality required of her position.
Plaintiff argues that this reason was merely a pretext for her unlawful discharge. Plaintiff asserts that her termination, therefore, constituted a violation of her rights under MCL 37.2701(a). We disagree.
"On appeal, an order granting or denying a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo." Walters v Bloomfield Hills Furniture, 228 Mich App 160, 162; 577 NW2d 206 (1998).
A motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual basis underlying a plaintiff's claim. MCR 2.116(C)(10) permits summary disposition when, except for the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact and the moving party is entitled to damages as a matter of law. A court reviewing such a motion must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other evidence in favor of the opposing party and grant the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the opposing party. [Stehlik v Johnson (On Rehearing), 206 Mich App 83, 85; 520 NW2d 633 (1994).]
The Civil Rights Act provides that " n employer shall not . . . discharge . . . an individual with respect to employment . . . because of . . . sex . . . ." MCL 37.2202(1)(a). "Discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment." MCL 37.2103(i)(iii). The Civil Rights Act also prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions in order to retaliate against people who exercise their civil rights under the Act. MCL 37.2701(a); Feick v Monroe Co, 229 Mich App 335, 344; 582 NW2d 207 (1998).
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must show (1) that [plaintiff] engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by defendant; (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. [DeFlaviis v Lord & Taylor, Inc, 223 Mich App 432, 436; 566 NW2d 661 (1997).]
In the present case, plaintiff established both the first and third element of her prima facie case. Plaintiff believed that defendant's sales manager was making comments to her which were sexually harassing. Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity when she complained about these comments to defendant's Controller. McLemore v Detroit Receiving Hosp & Univ Medical Ctr, 196 Mich App 391, 396; 493 NW2d 441 (1992). Further, it is undisputed that plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action. DeFlaviis, supra at 436.
However, plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish the second element of her prima facie case, i.e., that the person who decided to terminate her was aware of her engagement in a protected activity at the time the termination decision was made. Id.. Plaintiff's supervisor was the individual responsible for the decision to discharge plaintiff. To establish that plaintiff's supervisor had knowledge of plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff relies on testimony by defendant's Controller that he informed plaintiff's supervisor of plaintiff's complaint. However, defenda
Page 1 2 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|