Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Age discrimination; MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act; MCL 423.502; Direct evidence; Circumstantial evidence; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green; Prima facie case; Younger replacement; Similarly situated comparators; Pretext; Promissory estoppel; Salary guarantee

The court held that defendant-employer was entitled to summary disposition because plaintiff-former employee failed to establish age discrimination under the ELCRA or the elements of promissory estoppel. Plaintiff, a 63-year-old agricultural machinery salesman, remained employed after defendant acquired his former employer and began transitioning salespeople from salary-based compensation to commissions. Defendant guaranteed that salespeople would receive at least their base salaries through 2022 if their commissions fell short, but plaintiff understood that the guarantee applied only while they remained employed. After three incidents defendant deemed insubordinate, it terminated plaintiff in 11/21. He sued for age discrimination and promissory estoppel, and the trial court granted defendant summary disposition. On appeal, the court declined to resolve plaintiff’s argument that personnel records produced after defendant’s initial Bullard-Plawecki response should have been excluded because summary disposition was proper without relying on them. As to discrimination, plaintiff’s evidence did not constitute direct evidence, and he failed to establish the fourth element of a prima facie case because he did not show that defendant replaced him with a younger employee or treated a similarly situated younger employee differently for comparable conduct. The court further held that the claim independently failed for lack of pretext. The evidence did not show that defendant’s stated reasons “had no basis in fact,” “were not the actual factors motivating the decision,” or “were insufficient to justify his termination.” Plaintiff admitted the underlying conduct, and defendant identified insubordination as the reason for discharge. Finally, the promissory-estoppel claim failed because “there is simply no evidence of the promise” he claimed defendant made, namely an unconditional promise to pay his 2022 salary regardless of whether he remained employed. Plaintiff admitted that he understood he had to work for defendant in 2022 to earn that salary and that he worked no days that year. Affirmed.