Retaliatory discharge; COVID-19 Employment Rights Act (CERA); MCL 419.403(1)(a) & MCL 419.405(1); Burden-shifting framework; McDonnell Douglas v Green; Causation; DeBano-Griffin v Lake Cnty; Contractual limitations period; Employment agreement; Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC

The court held that plaintiff created a jury question whether defendant-Workbox, her former employer, discharged her in violation of CERA after she remained off work because she still had COVID-19 symptoms. It also held that the trial court had to reconsider the contractual limitations issue under Rayford. Plaintiff worked as a recruiter for Workbox. After testing positive for COVID-19 she reported that she still had symptoms and could not yet return to work. The trial court granted summary disposition, finding her claim was untimely under a six-month contractual limitations provision and that she had not shown a triable CERA violation. On appeal, the court held that CERA claims should be analyzed under the indirect-evidence framework used in other employment cases because its retaliation provision is “analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment discrimination statutes” and should receive “parallel treatment here.” The court next held that plaintiff established a prima facie case because she was protected by CERA, suffered an adverse employment action, and presented evidence of causation, including that “in just a few short days after exercising her rights under CERA, Workbox fired her,” that it did so “a mere two hours after it learned she would not be returning to work as planned,” and that “just the day prior, Workbox expressly planned for her return.” The court further held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of pretext because Workbox at most viewed her as “coachable” the day before firing her, and a jury could therefore conclude its asserted performance rationale had “no basis in fact” or was not “the actual factors motivating the decision.” The court also remanded the contractual-limitations issue because Rayford now requires courts to evaluate shortened employment limitations periods for adhesiveness and reasonableness. Vacated and remanded.