Employment - Discrimination – Hostile work environment

Where a defendant employer moved for summary disposition on a plaintiff’s claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment, that motion should have been allowed as to the discrimination claim because the plaintiff did not satisfy the framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green , 411 US 792; 93 S Ct 1817; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973), and failed to present other

circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

“In this action under the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., defendant General Motors LLC appeals by leave granted the trial court’s June 9, 2022 opinion and order granting in part and denying in part its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff Aaron Minner’s ELCRA claims for race discrimination and hostile work environment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

“Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ruling that plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact concerning his race-discrimination claim, i.e., that plaintiff was terminated because of his race. We agree.

“In this case, the parties do not dispute that plaintiff did not present direct evidence that he was discharged ‘because of’ his race. Instead, the parties dispute whether the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff satisfied McDonnell Douglas framework. We agree with defendant that plaintiff did not satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework, specifically the element concerning a similarly-situated employee.

“Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff’s race-discrimination claim. Plaintiff did not satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework, and the other facts identified by the trial court in its opinion and plaintiff on appeal do not circumstantially show discrimination. We reverse the trial court to the extent that it concluded otherwise.

“In particular, with regard to the five elements of a hostile-work-environment claim, (1) plaintiff was black; (2) plaintiff, as a supervisor, was subjected to a subordinate [Menzo] Dodge refusing his request to train employees, allegedly because those employees were black; (3) that refusal by Dodge was unwelcome from the perspective of plaintiff as both a black man and a supervisor; and (4) that unwelcome conduct by Dodge interfered with plaintiff’s employment duties as a group leader. ... Finally, the fifth element, respondent superior, is satisfied because plaintiff testified that he discussed his concerns with his ‘immediate supervisor,’ presumably Hammett.

“For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to the hostile-work-environment claim.

“We conclude that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to the hostile-work-environment claim, but the court erred by denying the motion with respect to the race-discrimination claim. Therefore, we affirm the trial court in part, reverse in part, and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.”

Minner v. Gen. Motors LLC; MiLW 08-108099, 13 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Markey, J., Riordan, J., Cameron, J.; on appeal from Genesee Circuit Court; Joshua Lushnat for appellant; Cristine W. Rathe for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.