TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Court of Appeals overturns lower court; grants summary disposition of employee's retaliation claim because she didn't claim improper comments were "illegal."

In Hensley v. Botsford Gen. Hospital, the trial judge denied the defendant's request for summary disposition of the plaintiff's gender discrimination and hostile work environment claim.  Hensley argued that she was subjected to illegal retaliation after complaining to her doctor-supervisor about inappropriate and offensive comments.  The trial judge rejected summary disposition, holding that she had raised a genuine material question of fact regarding retaliation.  The Hospital appealed. 

The Court of Appeals reversed and granted the Hospital summary judgment. It held that although the plaintiff objected to the improper comments, "she never expressed that she felt the comments were illegal or amounted to sexual harassment..."  Her "mere verbal objections"  were 'insufficient to convey that she was opposing a violation" of the civil rights act.  Her e-mail documenting and complaining about "a lot of unacceptable/inappropriate behavior that goes on" wasn't sufficient to "convey to an objective employer" that she was complaining about a Civil Rights Act violation.  She needed to consult an attorney, apparently, to cite the terms of the statute, in order to invoke the law's protection.  Disgusting.

Former State Senator is granted summary disposition of discrimination claim brought by secretary

Calvert v. Gleason involved a claim by a former State Senator's secretary that she had been promised a job if Gleason won election to county clerk.  She was not hired and filed suit against Gleason and the County claiming race and gender discrimination.  Her case against the County was immediately dismissed and she did not file any appeal of that decision.  Eventually, the judge also summarily dismissed her claims against Gleason.  She appealed that decision.

On appeal, the dismissal was affirmed.  The Court held that Calvert's Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act claims "lacked merit."  It explained that since Gleason hired a white female and the plaintiff was a white female, she could not argue that gender or race played a role in the employer's decision-making.

Judge's decision not to recuse herself is affirmed

In Ragozzine v. Youngstown State University, the plaintiff filed a gender discrimination claim after he was denied tenure.  The trial judge found ample evidence to support the decision to deny tenure and granted the university summary disposition.  The Plaintiff then learned that the judge was dating a tenured professor employed by the defendant and sought her recusal.  The judge denied the recusal motion and the plaintiff appealed both decisions.

On appeal the Sixth Circuit judges affirmed the lower court.  It concluded that the professor whom the judge was dating played no role in the denial of tenure, and therefore, "no reasonable person would have questioned the judge's partiality."

Sixth Circuit upholds verdict of sexual harassment and retaliation

The EEOC sued New Breed Logistics on behalf of three women and a male co-worker who complained about a supervisor's inappropriate conduct toward the women workers.  After the women objected to the suggestive remarks and an incident of inappropriate touching, they were transferred and terminated, as was the male fork lift driver who supported their objections. 

The EEOC achieved a verdict of 1.5 million dollars and New Breed appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the jurors' verdict and that the workers' activities were not "protected conduct."  The Sixth Circuit rejected the company's appeals.

Court rejects sex discrimination and retaliation claims as "mer inconvenience."

In Chojnowski v. Huron Clinton Metro. Auth., the plaintiff claimed that she was a victim of sex discrimination and retaliation after she allegedly rebuffed a "hug," that she could not prove "was sexual in nature."  The Court also found defective her arguments that she was retaliated against for potential EEOC complaints and that she was subjected to harassment and wrongfully denied promotion. 

Court affirms lower court's denial of immunity for supervisor who allegedly created hostile environment

In Cotton v. Banks, the plaintiff sued alleging a violation of the Civil Rights Act and retaliation; he claimed he was fired after rejecting a supervisor's demands for sexual favors.  The trial judge denied the supervisor's claim of immunity and he appealed.  The higher court affirmed the trial judge's decision, noting that the actions taken by the Supervisor were not protected activity, and therefore, he must defend the claims of hostile work environment and retaliation.

Sex discrimination claim dismissed where substantial allegations documented to justify dismissal

In Thompson v. Dep't of Corrections, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's summary dismissal of the male plaintiff's gender discrimination claim.  The Plaintiff had claimed that he and female corrections officers were treated differently in the management of allegations of inappropriate handling of confidential documents, insubordination, inappropriate behavior to another officer, and inhumane treatment of inmates. 

The Court concluded that the female officers whom the plaintiff considered to be "similarly situated" were not in fact comparable, because while the allegations against the plaintiff had been substantiated, the complaints against the female officers had not.  On that basis, the plaintiff could not prove that his firing was discriminatory.

Race and gender discrimination claim is summarily dismissed

In Anfield v. Secretary of State, the Court of Appeals upheld the summary disposition of a fired employee's claim that she was terminated in a situation where younger, white employees were not terminated.  The Secretary of State argued that "Anfield was terminated for her role in an acquaintance's fraudulently obtaining a commercial driver's license..."  She pointed to four co-workers who were not terminated for similar "misconduct" and argued that she was a victim of disparate treatment arising out of an employment "mistake."

The Court held that Anfield's anecdotal evidence of other, similar-yet-undisciplined errors was inadmissible hearsay in the form of office gossip and properly not considered in response to the employer's motion for summary disposition.  Therefore, her case was properly dismissed.

Court applies broad interpretation to "ministerial exception" to employee statutory rights

Alyce Conlon sued her employer, the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (IVCF), after she was fired for filing for a divorce.  Conlon was counselor for nearly 30 years for the Christian organization, when she was placed on paid leave after disclosing that her long-term marriage was in trouble.  Her supervisors concluded that she was not working hard enough to salvage the marriage and fired her.  When she sued, claiming a violation of her civil rights, the IVCF argued that she was a "minister" who could claim no protection under federal or state employment laws.  The Grand Rapids federal judge agreed with the employer.

On appeal, she argued that her counseling position did not give her employer the protection of the "ministerial exclusion."  She also argued that the IVCF wasn't a "church" and that applying civil employment rights to the IVCF would not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution.  The Court of Appeals rejected her appeal.  It noted that her position was "spiritual" in nature and the IVCF did not need to be an actual church to claim immunity from governmental regulation of its spiritual leaders.

Court of Appeals upholds summary disposition of woman's gender discrimination claim

After she was terminated by the City of Jackson, the plaintiff sued, arguing that her employer retaliated against her for alleging sex discrimination.  The Court of Appeals upheld the summary disposition of her claim, deciding that her complaints about the male employees leaving work to attend a golf league were not comparable to her own attendance record; particularly since she did not argue that she couldn't join the golf league and leave early with the men. 

The Court also discounted Konieczki's claim of retaliation, since the only connection between her complaint and her firing was the timing of the firing:  it is not adequate to prove a legal connection, the court held, to show that the alleged retaliation falls hard on the heels of a protected complaint.  Someone must admit to an illegal motive.