Employment discrimination action; Age, sex, ethnicity, & national origin discrimination; Direct evidence; Major v Village of Newberry; Circumstantial evidence; Hazle v Ford Motor Co; Breach of contract; Total Quality, Inc v Fewless

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-hospital summary disposition of plaintiff-doctor’s employment discrimination and breach of contract claims. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming it discriminated against him on the basis of his age, sex, ethnicity, and national origin by terminating his employment as a neurosurgeon in favor of a younger, less experienced, non-Egyptian female. He also alleged it breached his contract. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant because there was a genuine issue of material fact whether it discriminated against him on the basis of his age, nation of origin, ethnicity, and sex. First, “when viewed in context, it is clear that plaintiff failed to produce any direct evidence of discrimination and the trial court did not err in making this determination.” Second, plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that he was treated unequally compared to similarly situated employees who did not share his protected characteristics, and the trial court did not err by concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant regarding his breach of contract claim because there was a genuine issue of material fact whether it breached the terms of the Agreement by failing to pay him for on-call neurosurgical work. Under the “plain, unambiguous terms of the Agreement,” defendant was “required to pay plaintiff $1,500 for each day that he performed on-call neurosurgical services. The record shows [it] directed plaintiff not to ‘perform any work activity on'” its behalf commencing 11/3/20 through 2/1/21, “the date of termination. And plaintiff did not provide any on-call services during this 90-day notice period. Because plaintiff did not perform on-call services during that timeframe,” defendant was “not required to pay him under the Agreement’s terms.” Affirmed.