Governmental immunity; MCL 691.1407(1); Ultra vires activity; Absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5); Petipren v Jaskowski; Age discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; Direct & circumstantial evidence; Stray remarks; The McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green framework; Pretext; Disability discrimination under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; Malicious prosecution; Invasion of privacy–false light; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Civil conspiracy; Westland Police Department (WPD)

The court held that defendants-city and police chief (Jedrusik) were entitled to governmental immunity on plaintiff-former police officer’s tort claims, and that he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to his tort claims against the other individual defendants. Further, he did not “establish a genuine issue of material fact whether age” or his alleged disability was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff was terminated from the city’s police department (the WPD) “for violating numerous policies and regulations during an incident involving a jail detainee while plaintiff was the supervising sergeant responsible for overseeing the jail and its detainees.” He alleged claims for age discrimination, disability discrimination, malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy–false light, civil conspiracy, and IIED. He asserted the trial court erred in ruling that the city was “entitled to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407(1) because the city and its officers were engaged in a corrupt investigation, which is not a governmental function” and in ruling that Jedrusik was entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5). The court disagreed. “The city had legal authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether discipline or termination of any of its officers was warranted as a result of the” incident, and it could not “be held liable for the individual defendants’ alleged tortious actions during the investigation.” As to Jedrusik, he “testified that he was the only one with the authority to establish policies and procedures for the WPD.” In addition, he “has the ultimate authority to determine” employee discipline. The court noted “the plain language of MCL 691.1407(5) does not contain a ‘malevolent-heart’ exception to the broad grant of absolute immunity.” As to plaintiff’s age discrimination claim, “nonparties’ references to [him] as ‘old man’ was not sufficient to prove a direct case of age discrimination.” Assuming he established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, “the trial court did not err by concluding that defendants made a sufficient showing that they had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating” him. As to his disability discrimination claim, the court rejected his assertion that he created a genuine issue of material fact whether the reasons proffered “for his termination were merely pretextual.”