Employment claims; The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Fraud; Tortious interference; Summary disposition evidence; MCR 2.116(C)(10) & (G)(6); Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Eng’g, Inc; Hearsay; Airgas Specialty Prods v MIOSHA; Business-records exception; MRE 803(6)

The court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendant-former employer (MGM) because MGM supported its motion with substantively admissible evidence, including nonhearsay investigative records and business records admissible under MRE 803(6), so plaintiff’s hearsay-based evidentiary attack failed. Plaintiff, a longtime casino cage cashier, alleged coworkers encouraged patrons to harass her, that MGM promised a “thorough and fair” investigation but instead conducted a “‘sham and fraudulent investigation,’” and that MGM personnel later made statements to her subsequent employer, a credit union, causing it to terminate her after performance issues. She filed suit alleging claims under the ELCRA and other statutes as well as fraud and tortious-interference claims. The trial court dismissed her claims under MCR 2.116(C)(10) after concluding she had no admissible evidence and that defendants “‘did the work to show that none of this happened.’” On appeal, plaintiff argued MGM’s motion should have been denied because it relied on inadmissible hearsay, so she claimed she had no obligation to respond. The court rejected that premise, explaining that “‘a statement that is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is not hearsay.’” And MGM relied on its investigative records to show it conducted an investigation, not to prove the truth of the underlying allegations. The court further held the records were admissible under the business-records exception because they were made “‘at or near the time’” of the complaints, kept as a “‘regular practice’” in MGM’s complaint investigations, and plaintiff did not show “‘a lack of trustworthiness.’” The court likewise concluded the credit union’s personnel records were admissible business records. Finally, it emphasized that at the summary-disposition stage evidence must be substantively admissible but “does not have to be in admissible form,” so affidavits and memoranda could be considered where the authors could testify at trial, including the credit union’s branch manager’s affidavit stating she never spoke with anyone at MGM. Affirmed.