 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vettese v. Jacobson Stores8/21/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Frank Vettese appeals as of right from the trial court's order dismissing his age discrimination and retaliation claims under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his age discrimination claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We review de novo a trial court's summary disposition ruling. A (C)(10) motion tests the factual support of a claim. The court reviewing a (C)(10) motion considers in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party the pleadings, affidavits and other relevant evidence filed in the action to determine whether the documentary evidence shows a genuine issue of any material fact to warrant trial, or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, including demotion, (3) he was qualified for the position, and (4) he was demoted under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 172-173, 177; 579 NW2d 906 (1998); Town v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 455 Mich 688, 695; 568 NW2d 64 (1997).
Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to the defendant to dispel this presumption by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's adverse employment action. Lytle, supra at 173. When the defendant produces such evidence, the burden of proof returns to the plaintiff who must show "that there was a triable issue that the employer's proffered reasons were not true reasons, but were a mere pretext for discrimination." Id. at 174. " n 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. at 176.
We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. In particular, plaintiff failed to prove that he was qualified for the assistant store manager position. "An employee is qualified if he was performing his job at a level that met the employer's legitimate expectations." Town, supra at 699. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that plaintiff did not establish the existence of a material factual dispute regarding his qualification for the position from which defendants demoted him.
Plaintiff undisputedly had problems getting along with another assistant store manager (ASM). Several meetings occurred attempting to resolve the conflict. The store's general manager testified that plaintiff's and the other ASM's failures to work together harmoniously and plaintiff's otherwise uneven behavior created concern among management and associate level employees. Defendants also submitted evidence that two sales associates had complained of plaintiff's abrasive management style, which reflected plaintiff's difficulty establishing professional relationships.
These episodes necessitated intervention and counseling by the store's human resources director. Defendants further submitted evidence that plaintiff lacked suitable communication skills for the ASM position.
To demonstrate his qualification, plaintiff relies on his receipt of an April 1998 positive performance appraisal and $3,00
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.
|
|