Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DENNIS GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v GENESEE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2008

No. 275616 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 04-080516-CD

Before: Saad, C.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this race discrimination action, plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant's motion for reconsideration and summarily dismissing plaintiff's claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse and remand. I. Underlying facts & procedure This case began in December 2004, when plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant terminated his employment as its motor pool administrator "in substantial part" because of his Caucasian race, in violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., and that defendant's termination of his employment constituted unlawful retaliation under both the ELCRA and the whistleblowers' protection act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. The circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), concluding that plaintiff failed to create any genuine issues of material fact to support those claims. On appeal, this Court reversed the circuit court's dismissal of plaintiff's race-based termination claim, explaining in relevant part as follows: Claims that present direct evidence of racial animus are commonly referred to as "mixed motive" or "intentional discrimination claims." In such cases, the plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class, (2) an adverse employment action, (3) that the employer was predisposed to discriminating against members of the plaintiff's protected class, and (4) that the employer actually acted on that predisposition in visiting the adverse employment action on the plaintiff. . . .

-1-


Here, the parties contest whether plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant may be said to have been predisposed to discriminating, and to have acted on the predisposition, in choosing to reorganize the motor pool and eliminate plaintiff's position in the process. Plaintiff focuses his argument on an e-mail message that he alleges was sent to him by [his supervisor Eric] Hopson on the day before the September 28, 2004 meeting at which defendant's board of commissioners voted to adopt a budget that, among other things, eliminated plaintiff's position. In addition to requesting motor pool fleet information from [plaintiff], this email states: "(B)eing white and so autonomous in your position for so many years, I bet you think the board will listen to you tomorrow. You'll find out different, they listen to me now. (

Download DENNIS GOODMAN V GENESEE COUNTY.pdf

Michigan Law