Race-based claims under the Civil Rights Act (CRA); Employment status

The court concluded that at a minimum, plaintiff “established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of his employment,” and the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff was unable to assert a viable claim under the CRA. Defendant is an apartment complex. “Plaintiff, who is African American, lived at the complex and also worked there performing maintenance duties and painting apartments.” He asserted race-based claims under the CRA. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by holding “that he was an independent contractor and that the CRA is applicable only to employees and not to independent contractors.” The court held that his “employment status was not determinative of whether he could assert a viable claim under the CRA.” It found “plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of his employment.” Defendant’s manager “testified that before plaintiff quit working for defendant in the Spring 2021, she assigned plaintiff his job duties, and, if he refused to perform a certain assignment, she gave him an alternative assignment. If he refused to perform the alternative assignment, she sent him home for the day. Defendant prohibited plaintiff from subcontracting his assignments. Defendant required plaintiff to work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and provided the painting supplies that plaintiff needed. Defendant also required plaintiff to punch a time clock and controlled his hourly pay rate.” In addition, the record indicated “that, after plaintiff returned to work as a contractor in the Fall of 2021, defendant continued to control a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. Defendant advised plaintiff which apartments needed painting and the timeframe within which the apartments needed to be painted. Plaintiff continued to use defendant’s painting supplies, and defendant continued to prohibit plaintiff from subcontracting the work. In addition, plaintiff testified that defendant sometimes told him the order in which to paint the apartments.” Reversed and remanded.