Discharge in violation of public policy; Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co; Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc; Causal nexus requirement; Age discrimination claim under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Prima facie case; Hazle v Ford Motor Co

The court held that plaintiff failed to establish the required causal nexus for her retaliation-based public policy claim. And even if she established a prima facie age discrimination case, she did not identify any evidence that defendant-former employer’s (Kroger) stated reason for her termination was simply a pretext. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff had worked as a pharmacist at a Kroger store. She contended her complaints about the store pharmacy manager’s (nonparty-A) “alleged misconduct constituted reports that [A] was violating the Public Health Code, committing malpractice, and endangering the health and safety of Kroger’s pharmacy customers. Accepting plaintiff’s contentions as true solely for the purposes of this argument,” the court noted that she still had to “provide evidence that there was a causal connection between her reporting this misconduct to Kroger’s management and [her] discharge. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to substantiate a causal connection beyond the mere temporal proximity of her reports to her termination.” It further noted that a “mere ‘temporal relationship, standing alone, does not demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and any adverse employment action.’” As to her age discrimination claim, the stated reason for her termination was violation of a store policy against sharing computer system credentials. She did “not reference any younger employee in a comparable role, possessing similar levels of oversight responsibility for other pharmacy staff at her location, who was not terminated for similar violations of the” policy. The court found her “assertion that ‘the pretextual nature of the proffered reason for her termination provides additional evidence of age discrimination’ lacks substantiation.” She primarily challenged defendants’ factual findings as to her alleged breaches of the policy and claimed “her age was the motivating factor behind her termination.” But she did not offer “any record evidence establishing a causal link between her age and the decision to terminate her employment; rather, her arguments consist of unsupported and speculative assertions."