 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simpson v. Department of Corrections11/6/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court orders granting defendant summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) with regard to plaintiff's claims of race and gender discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and retaliation, and pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) with respect to those claims falling outside the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues that the circuit court erred in granting defendant summary disposition because she presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether defendant discriminated against her in failing to promote her because of her race and gender. We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Hanley v Mazda Motor Corp, 239 Mich App 596, 600; 609 NW2d 203 (2000). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Michigan Mutual Ins Co v Dowell, 204 Mich App 81, 85; 514 NW2d 185 (1994). The motion may be granted when, except with regard to amount of damages, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
An employer is prohibited from discriminating against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race or gender. MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 463; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). To establish a prima facie case of failure to promote based on race or gender, a plaintiff must 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) the job was given to another person under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. [Id.]
Once the plaintiff presents a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. at 463-464. To prevail, the employee must then present evidence that the employer's explanation was a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 465-466.
Here, defendant demonstrated that its decision to not promote plaintiff was based on non- discriminatory reasons; i.e., plaintiff was not as qualified as the individuals who received promotions. A plaintiff can establish that a defendant's articulated legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons are pretexts (1) by showing the reasons had no basis in fact, (2) if they had a basis in fact, by showing that they were not the actual factors motivating the decision, or (3) if they were factors, by showing that they were jointly insufficient to justify the decision. Feick v Monroe Co, 229 Mich App 335, 343; 582 NW2d 207 (1998). In this case, plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant's business decision had no basis in fact. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to present evidence establishing that differences between her qualifications and those of the individuals who were promoted were not the actual factors motivating defendant's decisions. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on plaintiff's discrimination claims.
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) with regard to her claim of racial harassment. Plaintiff contends specifically that defendant's decision to not promote her is evidence of racial harassment. The elements of a prima facie case of racial harassment are: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication
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.
|
|