Employment-discrimination claim under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Whether an independent contractor can bring a discrimination claim under the ELCRA; McClements v Ford Motor Co; City of Wayne v Miller; Retaliation; MCL 37.2701; Hostile work environment; Public-accommodation claim; MCL 37.2302; Haynes v Neshewat

The court held that the trial court erred when it determined that plaintiff could not bring an employment-discrimination claim under ELCRA. It also held that the trial court erred by dismissing his retaliation, hostile work environment, and public-accommodation claims. Plaintiff filed a complaint raising race-based claims under ELCRA, including employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Alternatively, he alleged a claim for discriminatory denial of a place of public accommodation. The trial court found plaintiff was an independent contractor, and not entitled to protection under ELCRA. It granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, declined to rule on plaintiff’s substantive ELCRA claims, and denied his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition of his ELCRA claims based on his status as a nonemployee independent contractor. “Based on the holdings of McClements and Miller, plaintiff’s employment status was not dispositive of his ability to bring an employment-discrimination claim against defendant. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether plaintiff ‘can establish that the defendant affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of [his] employment.’” The trial court “erred by dismissing plaintiff’s employment-discrimination claim based on its determination [he] was a nonemployee independent contractor. Plaintiff’s employment status was not dispositive of his ability to bring an ELCRA claim against defendant, and the record supports that defendant affected and controlled the conditions or privileges of” his employment. Defendant “hired and paid plaintiff. Defendant, through its agents, dictated plaintiff’s job duties and the conditions of his work each time he arrived on the jobsite. Finally, defendant and its agents had the authority to hire and fire its workers, and ultimately terminated plaintiff.” As such, he “established ‘a genuine issue of material fact that [defendant] affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of [plaintiff’s] employment . . . .’” The court further found that the trial court erred by dismissing his retaliation and hostile work environment claims based on his nonemployee status. And because his “employment status is not dispositive of his public-accommodation claim, the trial court also erred by granting summary disposition” on this basis. Reversed and remanded.