 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Michigan State University7/14/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the circuit court granting summary disposition to defendant. This case arose from a claim of disability discrimination under ยง 202 of the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq. We affirm.
Plaintiff, who is blind, applied for a position as an admissions counselor in defendant's admissions office. It is undisputed that plaintiff's disability did not disqualify him for the position. Defendant and eighteen others were interviewed, and approximately half of these interviewees, including plaintiff, were asked to return to give a recruitment presentation for the admissions staff. Defendant hired Charles Buckner for the job instead of plaintiff or the other interviewees.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant's decision to hire Buckner rather than plaintiff was substantially predicated on plaintiff's disability. Defendant responded that plaintiff's blindness did not affect its decision, that there were several qualified candidates for the position, and that the reason plaintiff was not hired was because Buckner was the most qualified applicant. After discovery, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant's decision was not discriminatory. In response, plaintiff argued that there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant's discriminatory animus to establish an issue of fact for a jury to determine. The trial court disagreed and granted defendant's motion.
Plaintiff's argument on appeal is that there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant's discriminatory intent and that the lawsuit therefore should have survived defendant's motion for summary disposition. We disagree. We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003).
MCL 37.1202(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall not:
(a) Fail or refuse to hire, recruit, or promote an individual because of a disability or genetic information that is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.
Discriminatory animus may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence. DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc, 463 Mich 534, 539; 620 NW2d 836 (2001). If a plaintiff produces direct evidence of bias, the plaintiff can go forward and prove unlawful discrimination in the same manner as a plaintiff would prove any other civil case. For purposes of the analogous federal Civil Rights Act, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "direct evidence" as "evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer's actions." [Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 462; 628 NW2d 515 (2001) (internal citations omitted).]
As part of the hiring process, defendant contacted plaintiff's references, including Dr. John Eulenberg, for whom plaintiff had worked in the past. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Eulenberg's testimony regarding his conversation with Dr. Gordon Stanley, the head of the admissions department and the individual charged with making the ultimate hiring decision, provides direct evidence of discriminatory animus. Dr. Eulenberg testified that he had the impression that Dr. Stanley was uncomfortable with plaintiff's blindness and that when Dr. Eulenberg brought up plaintiff's use of adaptive technologies, Dr.
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|