 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pistorio v. Warner Electric9/27/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Gage and Wilder, JJ.
In this employment action alleging age discrimination, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff began working at defendant Formsprag Clutch (Formsprag) in 1960 and eventually worked his way into the position of purchasing manager. In March 2000, Formsprag was sold to defendant Colfax Corporation (Colfax). Plaintiff was terminated approximately two years later, at the age of fifty-nine, and subsequently commenced this action alleging discrimination on the basis of his age. On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to present direct evidence of age discrimination sufficient to survive a motion for summary disposition. We disagree.
A trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). When reviewing a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we 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).
Under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., employers are prohibited from discharging an individual because of the individual's age. MCL 37.2202(1)(a). If a plaintiff is able to offer direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the ELCRA, "the plaintiff can go forward and prove unlawful discrimination in the same manner as a plaintiff would prove any other civil case." Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 462; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). Direct evidence of discrimination is '"evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer's actions."' Id., quoting Jacklyn v Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corp, 176 F3d 921, 926 (CA 6, 1999).
Plaintiff first argues that Formsprag plant manager Joe Crist's comment that plaintiff had "old ideas and needed to change his way of thinking," constitutes direct evidence of a discriminatory motive behind plaintiff's discharge. We disagree. When a plaintiff claims that an employer's remark constituted direct evidence of discrimination, a court must examine the employer's remark in the context in which it was made and determine whether the challenged remark may be characterized as a mere "stray remark," or may properly be viewed as relevant, direct evidence of discriminatory animus. The factors to be considered in making this determination include: (1) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were made by the person who made the adverse employment decision or by an agent of the employer that was uninvolved in the challenged decision, (2) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were isolated or part of a pattern of biased comments, (3) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were made in close temporal proximity to the challenged employment decision, and (4) whether the alleged discriminatory remarks were ambiguous or clearly reflective of discriminatory bias. Krohn v Sedgwick James of Michigan, Inc, 244 Mich App 289, 292, 624 NW2d 212 (2001); see also DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc (After Remand), 463 Mich 534, 539-540; 620 NW2d 836 (2001).
Here, the evidence shows that although Crist was the plant manager at the time he made the subject statement, he was not involved in the decision to terminate plaintiff's position and was no longer working at the plant when plaintiff was t
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.
|
|