Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); MCL 37.2202; Sex discrimination; Direct evidence; Hecht v National Heritage Acads, Inc; Limitations period; Campbell v Human Servs Dep’t; Mixed motives; Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MI; Indirect evidence; McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green; Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; Pretext; White v Department of Transp

The court held that plaintiff failed to establish sex discrimination under the ELCRA because she did not present direct evidence of discrimination or show that defendants’ legitimate reason for the pay disparity was pretextual. Plaintiff sued her former employer after contract negotiations failed, alleging she was paid less than a male counterpart and that employees had made comments about her forehead. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition. On appeal, the court first held that the forehead comments were not direct evidence of sex discrimination. They were made outside the limitations period and did not explicitly reference sex, meaning they would require “additional inference or presumption” to show discriminatory bias. The court next analyzed the pay-disparity claim under McDonnell Douglas. Assuming plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, defendants offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the disparity: the male counterpart had major-market experience with a direct competitor and valuable contacts from prior work with the FBI, and the disparity continued through percentage-based contract raises. The court held that plaintiff failed to show pretext. Although she relied on her prior experience and Emmy awards, she did not show her experience was comparable or that Emmy awards were relevant to defendants’ compensation decisions. The court also noted it was difficult to prove intentional discrimination where plaintiff was paid more than every male multimedia journalist except “one sole comparison male counterpart.” Affirmed.