 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larson v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections9/15/2005
0, 432; 653 NW2d 415 (2002). When direct evidence is offered to prove discrimination, a plaintiff is not required to establish a prima facie case within the McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792; 93 S Ct 1817; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973), framework, which is utilized in cases where there is circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence of discrimination. Bachman, supra at 432; DeBrow, supra at 537-538. 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. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich 124, 133; 666 NW2d 186 (2003); Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 462; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). In a case involving direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both the discriminatory animus and its causal nexus to the challenged employment decision. Id.; Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 613; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
Where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff may base an age discrimination case on circumstantial evidence, in which case the McDonnell Douglas framework applies. Bachman, supra at 432-433. The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he was a member of the protected class, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, (3) he was qualified for the position, but (4) that he was replaced by a younger person. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 172-173; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). Once the plaintiff has sufficiently established a prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises. The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination. Id. at 173. Once the defendant produces such evidence, the presumption drops away, and the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of admissible direct or circumstantial evidence, that there was a triable issue that the employer's proffered reasons were not true reasons, but were a mere pretext for discrimination. Id. at 174. Therefore, in the context of summary disposition, a plaintiff must prove discrimination with admissible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that discrimination was a motivating factor for the adverse action taken by the employer toward the plaintiff. Id.
In this case, plaintiff argues that he submitted sufficient direct evidence of discrimination. He relies on evidence that William Cantinella (1) referred to "you old guys" five to ten times over a ten-year period when addressing him; (2) suggested to him that his poor performance was due to his age; and (3) told him he was not as efficient or hard-working as some of the younger workers. These comments do not require a conclusion that age was a reason that plaintiff was terminated. Vague comments such as these, sporadically made over the course of several years, and that are not made in relation to the employment decision at issue, are not probative of an employer's discriminatory motivation. Sniecinski, supra at136 n 8; Krohn v Sedgwick James of Michigan, Inc, 244 Mich App 289, 300; 624 NW2d 212 (2001). That these comments were not related to plaintiff's termination was confirmed by plaintiff himself, who testified that he had no evidence that age was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.
The trial court also correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination with circumstantial evidence, because the evidence established that plaintiff was
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.
|
|