Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); Retaliatory discharge; MCL 418.301(13); Prima facie case; Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc; Causation; West v General Motors Corp; McDonnell Douglas Burdine framework; Pretext; Feick v Monroe Cnty; Summary disposition

The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendant terminated plaintiff in retaliation for exercising rights under the WDCA. Plaintiff injured his shoulder at work, filed a worker’s compensation claim, continued working under restrictions, later scheduled surgery, and was terminated after defendant cited documentation errors. The court first held that plaintiff presented enough evidence of causation to survive summary disposition because he showed “more than merely a coincidence in time” between protected activity and termination. The court reasoned that defendant knew of plaintiff’s surgery and leave, that upper management was not alerted to the errors until after the HR manager texted that plaintiff “had to have the repair so he is off for 4 weeks,” and that a jury could find the worker’s compensation claim was “a motivating factor.” The court next found that factual issues existed as to pretext because defendant identified different numbers of documentation errors at different times, creating “a genuine issue of material fact as to what errors defendant actually relied on” and whether the errors “were not the actual motivation” for termination. The court also held that a jury could question whether plaintiff’s 4/23 final warning for intentional falsification was comparable to the later documentation mistakes because the record conflicted as to whether general omissions were treated as seriously as falsification. Because a rational factfinder could infer that the stated reasons were insufficient or not the actual reason for termination, summary disposition was improper. Vacated and remanded.