Age & race discrimination claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Circumstantial evidence; Prima facie case; Hazle v Ford Motor Co; Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; Retaliation; Causation; Motion to compel the production of documents

The court held that plaintiff-former employee failed to establish her prima facie case as to her age and race discrimination claims or the causation element of her retaliation claim. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendants. The court concluded she did not establish the fourth element of her ELCRA discrimination claims — “that her job was given to another person under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination—because the evidence instead shows that her job was entirely eliminated.” While she stated in an affidavit that she was replaced by a young white woman (H), her assertion that this was so “was the only evidence she produced and it was based on hearsay from” another employee of defendant-MSU. “Plaintiff also presented a staff list that referred to [H’s] job as ‘Student Office Support/Program Presenter,’ which is not the same as plaintiff’s job of office assistant/secretary. Importantly, plaintiff did not present any statement from [H] herself about her position or duties. Because plaintiff failed to show that her job was given to another person, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” The court added that even if she “could establish a prima facie case, she could not survive a motion for summary disposition on her” discrimination claims because “defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s position was eliminated for budgetary reasons.” Thus, she would have had the burden “to show that the budget issues were actually a pretext for a discriminatory firing” and she did not offer “any evidence that the department budget cuts were not the true reason she was terminated.” As to her retaliation claim, the court concluded she failed to establish “a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” There was no dispute that she “filed discrimination complaints in 2014” and that she brought informal complaints to a supervisor. But she “was terminated approximately four years after the formal complaint was filed, and plaintiff did not present evidence of when she raised any other complaints.” As to the trial court’s denial of her motion to compel the production of documents, the court found that she failed to show defendants did not produce documents.