Michigan Court of Appeals Unpublished Case Summaries: February 7, 2014.

Byline: Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff

(January 30, 2014) Employment Court did not misconstrue evidence when dismissing bias claims The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claims of harassment and constructive discharge because her subjective complaints, without more, were insufficient to send her workplace discrimination claims to a jury. Facts Plaintiff, a school district employee, claimed that Schwark, her supervisor, mocked her and transferred plaintiff's job responsibilities to Urbanek, a younger worker. Defendant school district's board of education was considering budget cuts. Plaintiff wrote the board a letter urging them to cut Urbanek's position, claiming that plaintiff did the better job of the two. Both plaintiff's and Urbanek's positions were retained. Urbanek learned of plaintiff's letter. Plaintiff claimed that the board or the administration shared the letter with Urbanek, and that this was evidence of animosity toward plaintiff. Plaintiff complained to Beck, the superintendent, that Schwark and Urbanek were harassing her. Beck investigated, found no evidence of this but hired a mediator to provide sensitivity training to plaintiff's and her co-workers. Plaintiff claims that Schwark and Urbanek stepped up their campaign against her. Plaintiff's position survived a second round of budget cuts but, she claimed, she couldn't deal with the stress and took a medical leave. Marriott was hired on an interim basis to fill plaintiff's position. Plaintiff then filed a claim for workers' compensation and a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging defendant repeatedly tried to eliminate her position because of her age. Schwark and Beck retired while plaintiff was on leave. Dixon was hired to replace Schwark. Campbell was hired as the new superintendent. Dixon gave Marriott accounting and computer responsibilities that Schwark had never required plaintiff to perform. When plaintiff returned from leave, she claims she was immediately notified that more budget cuts were in the works and that she had to perform the additional duties given to Marriott. Plaintiff alleged that her co-workers, Dixon and Campbell all began bullying her. Several days after she returned, plaintiff took a vacation that Dixon said had not been approved. When she returned, she claimed Dixon harassed her, and she complained she was given additional duties in retaliation for her unsuccessful workers' comp and EEOC claims. She asked for a second, stress-related leave of absence. Defendant offered long-term disability. Plaintiff refused the offer. Plaintiff left work for good a few days later. She claimed her doctor told her she needed to be removed from a "hostile" work environment. She submitted a retirement letter 10 days later, characterizing her retirement as "forced." Plaintiff filed two more EEOC complaints, based on discrimination, retaliation and disability claims. She applied for, and was denied, unemployment benefits. In the trial court Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint alleging harassment, discrimination and retaliation theories. Defendant moved for summary disposition. "(D]efendant argued that it was beyond factual dispute that plaintiff was not subjected to an adverse employment action, terminated, or constructively discharged. "Defendant also argued that, even if plaintiff subjectively felt she had been harassed or exposed to intolerable working conditions, there was simply no evidence that this had occurred, that it was done in retaliation, or that it was related to her age or alleged disabilities. Defendant pointed out that the repeated proposals to do away with plaintiff's position all stemmed from across-the-board budget cuts, and plaintiff's position had never been eliminated despite these proposals. ... Defendant noted that while plaintiff had kept her position, salary, and benefits throughout this period, other positions - including other secretarial positions - had been eliminated. ... "The circuit court concluded that ... defendant had not been terminated by defendant. "The circuit court also concluded that although plaintiff might have subjectively felt harassed or criticized, there was no evidence to suggest that any of defendant's complained-of actions were sufficiently intolerable to constitute adverse employment actions or to demonstrate a constructive discharge." The Court of Appeals affirmed. Analysis Plaintiff "contends that the circuit court improperly construed facts in favor of defendant when it concluded that her claims of harassment relating to the threatened elimination of her position were belied by the fact that her position was never actually eliminated. ... "Moreover, plaintiff misrepresents the circuit court's actual ruling. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not rule that because plaintiff's position was never eliminated, she necessarily suffered no harassment. "Instead, the court ruled that there was an insufficient evidentiary nexus between plaintiff's subjective complaints of harassment and defendant's proposals to eliminate the secretarial position as a result of necessary budget cuts. ... "(The court] properly reviewed the admissible documentary evidence and concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff's subjective complaints of harassment and mistreatment were insufficient to support a jury-submissible claim of workplace discrimination. ... "Plaintiff points out in her brief on appeal that she "stated in her resignation letter that she was forced to retire" and 'she indeed felt compelled to resign.' However, in general, such subjective complaints are legally insufficient to demonstrate a constructive discharge. ... "The instances of harassment and mistreatment cited by plaintiff are largely subjective and insignificant, and there is little or no documentary evidence to prove that they even occurred. Indeed, the undisputed record evidence suggests that defendant went to great effort to preserve plaintiff's job while other positions around the district were being eliminated due to substantial budget cuts. "We do recognize that plaintiff might have been stressed and concerned for her job in light of the repeated budget cuts that defendant was forced to make. But it is preposterous to suggest that defendant intentionally carried out these budget cuts for the secret purpose of harassing plaintiff and forcing her to resign." Affirmed. Hensley v. Romeo Community Schools. (MiLW No. 08-84231 - 9 pages) (Michigan Court of Appeals) (unpublished per curiam) (Meter, Jansen and Wilder, JJ.) On appeal from the Macomb County Circuit Court; Maceroni, J.

Employment Doctor's discharge from practice group not motivated by race The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff doctor's claim that her discharge from defendant practice group was racially motivated. Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, and, even assuming she had, there was sufficient evidence that she was discharged for nondiscriminatory reasons. Practice concerns Santino, the president of defendant practice group, hired plaintiff under an agreement that provided either party could terminate the agreement with or without cause after one year. Plaintiff "was expected and encouraged by defendant's doctors to cultivate her own practice. "During the employment relationship, plaintiff believed that she was assigned a disproportionate number of uninsured and Medicaid patients. ... "Plaintiff was told that defendant's St. Clair Shores office did not accept Medicaid, so any Medicaid patient that plaintiff treated at the hospital should be directed to follow up with defendant's Oakwood office, where Medicaid was accepted. "Therefore, plaintiff believed she was disadvantaged because she was unable to follow up with her Medicaid patients and could not develop a practice. Plaintiff believed that her race 'could have been' the reason she was assigned more Medicaid patients than other doctors on staff. "Plaintiff further claimed that numerous Medicaid patients had been turned away from defendant's Oakwood office. Because plaintiff began to believe that her patients were not getting adequate care when she sent them to defendant's Oakwood office, plaintiff began accepting Medicaid patients at defendant's St. Clair Shores office. "Although plaintiff believed that defendant's doctors may have been violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ... plaintiff never voiced her concerns regarding the legality of the doctors' actions to anyone employed by defendant, or to any state or federal authorities." Demeanor "During her employment with defendant, defendant received numerous complaints about plaintiff from other doctors, medical assistants, and patients. "Because of these complaints, defendant's practice manager and defendant's executive committee president met with plaintiff to discuss the problems and to explain that the unprofessional behavior in question was unacceptable. "Despite this meeting, complaints about plaintiff's unprofessional behavior continued. In September of 2010, the members of defendant's executive committee were polled, and voted in favor of terminating plaintiff's employment. "However, upon Santino's request, the executive committee president gave plaintiff one last chance to rectify her behavior. In November of 2010, plaintiff again yelled at a medical assistant. Santino terminated plaintiff's employment in December of 2010." The trial court dismissed plaintiff's civil rights and whistleblower claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Discussion "We hold that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was discharged from her employment with defendant for nondiscriminatory reasons. "First, plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination...