 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Witucki v. Bay County9/27/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Defendants appeal from a judgment of the circuit court entered in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial on plaintiffs' employment discrimination claims. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff Sally Witucki ("plaintiff") was employed as the Bay County Deputy Register of Deeds, a political appointee of Defendant DuFresne, the Bay County Register of Deeds. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that she suffered a disability related to her back condition and that, as a result of that disability, she was terminated from her employment. Defendants deny that plaintiff's condition was the reason for the termination.
Defendants moved for summary disposition, which was denied, with the trial court briefly opining that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Following a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in plaintiff's favor for $130,000 in back wages. The jury awarded no damages for mental and emotional suffering or for loss of consortium. Defendants now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition.
Defendants argue that there was no genuine issue of material fact on either the question whether plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq., or whether plaintiff was discriminated against because of a disability.
We agree with defendant that, even assuming plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the act, plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact on whether she was terminated because of her disability and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying summary disposition.
In considering whether summary disposition should be granted on the basis of no genuine issue of material fact, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 176; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). Further, "in the context of summary disposition, a plaintiff must prove discrimination with admissible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that discrimination was a motivating factor for the adverse action taken by the employer toward the plaintiff." Id.
Plaintiff identifies five items as establishing that defendants' motivation in terminating her was discriminatory:
• DuFresne's own testimony as to her "mind set" regarding back conditions;
• DuFresne's sudden change in attitude toward plaintiff once plaintiff developed the back condition;
• Evidence regarding DuFresne's inquiries regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act in relation to terminating plaintiff;
• The evidence that DuFresne's nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff were not mentioned or documented until after DuFresne made the decision to terminate plaintiff;
• That defendants' nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff were unsubstantiated by any evidence other than DuFresne's self-serving statements as to their existence.
We are not persuaded that any, or all, of these establish a genuine issue of material fact on the issue whether defendants were discriminatorily motivated in the decision to discharge plaintiff.
First, with respect to DuFresne's "mind set" regarding back conditions, plaintiffs presumably refer to the following passage from DuFresne's deposition:
Q: Did you have further conversations with Mr. Redman [from the human resources department] about Ms. Witucki?
A: In January I believe I did because I was ve
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|