Disparate treatment based on race; MCL 37.2202; McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green; Prima facie case of discrimination; Similarly situated employees; Hecht v National Heritage Acads., Inc; Statistical evidence & pretext; Hazle v Ford Motor Co; Town v Michigan Bell Tel Co; Retaliation for engaging in a protected activity; MCL 37.2701; Garg v Macomb Cnty Cmty Mental Health Servs; Temporal proximity & causation; West v General Motors Corp; Rymal v Baergen

The court held that the trial court erred in denying summary disposition to defendant in plaintiff’s race discrimination and retaliation action under the ELCRA. Plaintiff sued her former employer after she was discharged from her line leader position at a cheeseball factory, alleging she was terminated because of her race and in retaliation for reporting a racist remark. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding factual disputes. On appeal, the court found plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence that management acted with racial animus or treated similarly situated employees more favorably. Plaintiff cited derogatory remarks by coworkers, including one calling her “a lazy Black girl,” but the court noted those employees had no authority over her termination, which was made by her Black supervisor. The evidence showed she was retained after other layoffs and then discharged for chronic tardiness, arriving on time only 6 of 21 days. Defendant offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, such as shift elimination and persistent lateness, and plaintiff did not produce evidence that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination, as statistics alone without other proof of animus were insufficient. As to retaliation, although plaintiff’s testimony created a factual dispute about whether she engaged in protected activity by reporting the racist remark, she failed to establish causation. The court stressed that “[s]omething more than a temporal connection” is required to show retaliation, and the evidence showed her termination was based on tardiness, not protected activity. As such, summary disposition for defendant should have been granted on both claims. Reversed and remanded.