 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzalez v. St Mary's Medical Center of Saginaw7/12/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the opinion and order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) of plaintiff's claims for age and disability discrimination and wrongful discharge/breach of contract. We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition of her claim for discrimination under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), MCL 37.1101 et seq. We review a trial court's decision on a summary disposition motion de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). When reviewing a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court must examine the documentary evidence presented below and, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 361-362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).
The PWDCRA prohibits an employer from discharging, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating against an individual with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of a disability that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the job. MCL 37.1202(1)(a) and (b). Discrimination can be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich 124, 132; 666 NW2d 186 (2003). In the present case, plaintiff does not claim to have direct evidence of disability discrimination.
"In cases involving indirect or circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must proceed by using the burden-shifting approach set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792; 93 S Ct 1817; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973)." Sniecinski, supra at 133-134; see also Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 462; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). "This approach allows 'a plaintiff to present a rebuttable prima facie case on the basis of proofs from which a factfinder could infer that the plaintiff was the victim of unlawful discrimination." Sniecinski, supra at 134, quoting DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc (After Remand), 463 Mich 534, 538; 620 NW2d 836 (2001). This test applies to claims of disability discrimination as well as age discrimination. Hall v McRea Corp, 238 Mich App 361, 371; 605 NW2d 354 (1999), remanded for reconsideration in light of Hazle, 465 Mich 919 (2001).
"To establish a rebuttable prima facie case of discrimination [under McDonnell Douglas], 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) her failure to obtain the position occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination." Sniecinski, supra at 134. The elements of the test must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Id. n 7; Hazle, supra at 463 n 6. " plaintiff must [also] establish a causal link between the discriminatory animus and the adverse employment decision." Sniecinski, supra at 134-135. However, " ecause a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas test creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination, causation is presumed." Id. at 135.
A plaintiff cannot satisfy the third and fourth prongs of the McDonnell Douglas test "merely by showing that he was qualified for the position and that a nonminority candidate was chosen instead." Hazle, supra at 470; see also Matras v Amoco Oil Co, 424 Mich 675, 684; 385 NW2d 586 (1986). This is because, " s a matter of law, an inference of discrimination does not arise merely because an employer has chosen between two qualified candid
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.
|
|