Race discrimination & retaliation claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Prima facie case of discrimination; Hazle v Ford Motor Co; Prima facie case of retaliation; El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc; Opportunity to amend the complaint under MCR 2.116(I)(5); Failure to offer a written amendment; MCR 2.118(A)(4); The Court of Claims (COC); Michigan State Police (MSP)

Holding that the COC properly dismissed plaintiff-MSP employee’s race discrimination and retaliation claims under the ELCRA and did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to amend his complaint, the court affirmed. Plaintiff, a white male who was previously a member of MSP’s canine division, “offered statements that purportedly reflected racial discrimination.” In 2019, defendant-Gasper (then the head of the MSP) “reportedly told command officers that the MSP was ‘too white’ and ‘too male.’ Plaintiff did not present an affidavit or deposition testimony from an individual that directly heard” the comment. Even if the court assumed “without deciding that these statements constituted admissions by a party-opponent,” plaintiff failed to “address the factors to determine whether the statements should be deemed stray remarks or reflected a pattern of bias. Analyzing the circumstances, Gasper’s comment was a stray remark.” He did not offer “evidence that a year after Gasper’s purported remark that he conducted the investigation into plaintiff.” Further, even if the court assumed “that Gasper performed the investigation into plaintiff’s canine incident, it was the prosecutor who had the discretion to charge plaintiff with a crime.” The court added that the comment about “the composition of the MSP reflected a position on the gender and race of the then-current demographics of the MSP. Plaintiff” offered no evidence as to whether the “MSP subsequently commenced recruitment efforts to reflect community populations addressing gender or race or took discriminatory action to eliminate white male police officers from MSP by contriving criminal charges against them and hiring nonwhite police officers in their stead.” Further, the “comment occurred before plaintiff’s [11/20] use of the canine.” As to his retaliation claim, he offered evidence that defendant-Grady (the current MSP director) “told another officer that plaintiff’s actions with his canine were reflective of the abusive treatment of black citizens by white police officers in the 1960s.” Even if the court assumed without deciding that the “statement was admissible and constituted direct evidence of retaliation, plaintiff did not present evidence that he was qualified to regain the position of trooper or canine handler.” Finally, the court noted that “he failed to submit a proposed amended complaint in writing.”