 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. Consumers Energy7/5/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Jansen and Hoekstra, JJ.
Plaintiff Charles Peterson appeals as of right from an order granting defendant Consumer Energy's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court determined that plaintiff's racial disparate treatment claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (CRA) were preempted by ยง 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under either a disparate treatment or hostile work environment theory. Although we find that the trial court improperly determined that plaintiff's disparate treatment claims under the CRA were preempted by federal law, we affirm the dismissal of these claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). However, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's hostile work environment claims, as we find that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff, an African-American, began working for defendant in 1986 as a temporary unskilled worker in the mechanical maintenance department at its Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. He held this temporary position for less than a year and was hired as a permanent janitor. In 1989, plaintiff transferred into the radiation waste department and was promoted to a senior radiation waste material handler (Radwaste Handler A) in 1995. Radwaste handlers undergo more direct, frequent, and continual exposure to radiation than most other positions at the plant. The handlers rotate positions to equalize radiation exposure among the employees and must continually monitor their dosage. Due to the dangers of radiation exposure, plaintiff, along with several other radwaste handlers, applied on several occasions for posted positions in the mechanical maintenance department. These positions were not only safer, but also provided higher pay and better advancement opportunities. According to the collective bargaining agreement, defendant was required to hire qualified applicants by seniority.
In 1999, a grievance was filed when defendant posted several temporary positions for "Mechanical Repair Worker B," hired workers from outside the company, and then immediately upgraded the positions to permanent tool keepers. In 2000, plaintiff applied for and was denied a position of stock keeper and denied a position of "Mechanical Repair Worker A." In response to a grievance filed by another complainant regarding the filling of the repair worker position, defendant indicated that plaintiff was only qualified for a "B" level position because he received a "cautionary" score on the required mechanical aptitude test and he lacked the requisite experience in a "B" mechanical position. Finally, in 2001, plaintiff was denied a position as a temporary tool keeper, which would have given him the necessary mechanical experience for future advancement. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant purposely promoted white employees into these desired positions and kept minorities in the radwaste department due to the higher level of danger and lower pay.
Plaintiff also alleged that defendant allowed for the existence of a racially hostile work environment. He first alleged that minority employees were harassed and reprimanded for taking time off for medical and family emergencies. Plaintiff asserted that he removed racially negative graffiti from the containment area and bathrooms in the past three to five years. He removed the graffiti upon management's orders and, therefore, did not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|