The Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) (MCL 37.1101 et seq.); “Hostile work environment” claim based on disability harassment; Radtke v. Everett; Downey v. Charlevoix Cnty. Bd. of Rd. Comm’rs; Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.; Marsh v. Department of Civil Serv.; Claim that being called “dumb” and “stupid” was evidence of discrimination when viewed in light of the fact that plaintiff has cerebral palsy; Whether defendant-Walmart took prompt remedial action; Respondeat superior hostile work environment claim; Notice; Chambers v. Trettco, Inc.; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

The court reversed the trial court's order denying defendants-Ledbetter and Walmart’s motion for summary disposition in this employment-dispute case and remanded for entry of judgment in their favor. “Plaintiff has had cerebral palsy since birth. It affects his coordination, ability to write legibly, speech patterns, and gait.” The appeal concerned his claims against Ledbetter and against Walmart on a respondeat superior theory. He alleged a hostile work environment based on disability harassment contrary to the PWDCRA. He asserted that, because of his disability, “Ledbetter yelled at him and badgered him, refused to give him earned days off, prevented him from performing his job, and removed personnel from his department.” On appeal, defendants argued that plaintiff could not establish that “Ledbetter’s conduct or communications were based on his disability.” The evidence showed that “Ledbetter had a difficult management style and had received coachings” as to her management style because “employees other than plaintiff had complained about her." However, no evidence indicated that “Ledbetter’s treatment of plaintiff was based on his disability.” The court also concluded that plaintiff’s IIED claim against Ledbetter was not viable.