The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2101 et seq.); Race discrimination; MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.; Inference of unlawful discrimination; Hecht v. National Heritage Acads., Inc.; Determining whether employees are similarly situated; Ledbetter v. Gilley (6th Cir.); Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff’s discharge; Sniecinski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; Pretext; Feick v. Monroe Cnty.; Dubey v. Stroh Brewery Co.; Retaliation; MCL 37.2701; Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc.; Roulston v. Tendercare (MI), Inc.; Causation; West v. General Motors Corp.; Abandoned argument; Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. Berkley; Seifeddine v. Jaber; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); Performance-enhancement plan (PEP)

Concluding that plaintiff abandoned her race discrimination claim by inadequately briefing it, the court found that defendant-former employer was properly granted summary disposition in any event because plaintiff did not offer direct or indirect evidence of race discrimination. It also upheld summary disposition for defendant on her retaliation claim, again concluding that the issue was abandoned and determining that there was no evidence of a causal connection between her complaints to defendant or the EEOC and any adverse employment action. She asserted that one of her former supervisors made two racially insensitive comments, However, he had not exercised “authority over plaintiff for more than 18 months by the time of” her discharge, and the court found that, at worst, his comments were “ambiguous and did not indicate any discriminatory bias against African-Americans in general or against plaintiff in particular.” Thus, at most, his comments constituted “stray remarks, which do not constitute direct evidence of discriminatory intent.” As to indirect evidence, she could not make out the fourth element of her prima facie case – she did not “identify any similarly situated employee outside the protected class who was treated differently.” There was no evidence of any other employee “working in Vehicle Integration who had attendance or performance deficiencies similar to plaintiff or who” had to be placed on a PEP. Further, no one replaced her – her duties were reallocated after her discharge. The court also concluded that defendant offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her discharge – she had “numerous attendance and performance deficiencies.” When defendant’s efforts at informal coaching to improve those issues failed, “plaintiff was placed on a formal PEP.” She still did not make any improvement “and instead argued that she should not be on the PEP and blamed others for her deficiencies. Defendant extended the PEP period beyond the original expiration date,” and there was still no improvement. She was discharged at the end of the extended PEP period. Further, the denial of her “transfer to Project Management was based on a freeze on hiring persons outside that department.” The court held that these facts established “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for any adverse employment action.” Affirmed.