Race discrimination; The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Circumstantial evidence; Burden-shifting approach; McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green; Hazle v Ford Motor Co; “Adverse employment action”; Articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; Pretext; Major v Village of Newberry; Tortious interference with a business relationship; Intentional interference; Dalley v Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA)

Holding that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s ELCRA race discrimination and tortious interference with a business relationship claims, the court affirmed. He was the varsity girls’ basketball coach for a high school (Heritage) in defendant-school district (STCS). Defendant-Kraatz was STCS’s athletic director and defendant-Aimar was the athletic director for a high school (John Glenn) in a nearby city. The case arose after Kraatz submitted a report to the MHSAA “implying that plaintiff had improperly recruited a high-school basketball player . . . from John Glenn to Heritage and allowed her to participate in” team activities with “her athletic eligibility to do so being in doubt.” Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to plaintiff’s ELCRA claim, the court concluded he “established the four elements of his prima facie case” and it agreed with “defendants that they articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions.” That left the issue of whether plaintiff created a triable issue as to pretext. The court found that he failed to do so, and that he did not establish “a question of fact as to whether defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination.” It determined that the record failed to create “such a question of fact. The investigation initiated and conducted by Aimar, Kraatz, and the STCS administration was reasonably within the bounds of what a person would expect in this matter. Plaintiff has not cited any act or omission by defendants in the course of this investigation that is so unexplained or unusual that it would suggest that unlawful discrimination is the true, underlying reason for the sanctions imposed against plaintiff.” The court found that the facts of the case arguably did “not show that defendants even engaged in conduct that was ‘wrong or mistaken,’ much less that their actions were motivated by an unlawful intent.” As to his tortious interference with a business relationship claim against Aimar, the court concluded that “Aimar’s actions were justified by MHSAA regulations and its requirement that an investigation be undertaken. Plaintiff” failed to show “that Aimar acted with malice or otherwise engaged in illegal, unethical, or fraudulent conduct by initiating this investigation.”