Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); 29 USC § 2612(a)(1)(D); § 2615(a)(2); Woodman v Miesel Sysco Food Serv Co; Distinguishing Schindewolf v City of Brighton (ED MI); Discrimination under the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA); Discrimination based on a medical disability; MCL 37.1102; MCL 37.1302; Comparing MCL 37.1103(d)(i)(A) & (B); At-will employment; Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc; Public policy exception; Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co; Civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983; Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp; Payton v Detroit; Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA)

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendants-city and supervisor summary disposition of plaintiff-employee’s FMLA and PWDCRA claims, and by failing to dismiss his claim that they violated public policy as to his decision to leave his position with the city. His § 1983 claim against the supervisor should also have been dismissed. Plaintiff sought an extended medical leave when his FMLA leave ended, but ultimately decided to retire from his position as Second Deputy Fire Commissioner (SDFC) instead of taking a blood test. He inquired about using his accumulated sick leave to remain off work until he reached his 25th work anniversary so he could retire with 25 years of service. The city’s HR department later informed him he was considered absent without leave for not appearing for the blood test. He was able to retire, but with less than 25 years of service, and he did not retire from the position of SDFC, resulting in a lower pension. Instead of using his accumulated sick leave to extend his years of service, he was paid for its value after he retired. Plaintiff alleged violations of the FMLA and the PWDCRA, age discrimination under the ELCRA, public-policy violations, and violation of his civil rights. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition as to his age discrimination claim, but denied it as to his other claims. On appeal, the court agreed with defendants that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of FMLA discrimination. There was “no evidence that the handling of plaintiff’s situation involved discrimination or retaliation related to plaintiff’s previous use of FMLA leave, particularly when defendants were expecting plaintiff to return to his position and it was plaintiff, not defendants, who initiated the retirement plans that led to” his separation. It also concluded that they were entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim. Because he “chose to end the process for obtaining a medical leave of absence before a decision was made on that request, there [was] no support for his claim that he was denied the right to use sick leave due to his disability.” The court further held that they should have been granted summary disposition of his public-policy violation claim. “There was no evidence supporting an inference that plaintiff was removed from his [SDFC] position for exercising any right guaranteed by law, executing a duty required by law, or refraining from violating the law.” Finally, he failed to show he had a claim against the supervisor under § 1983. Reversed and remanded.