Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JANET FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v ABRAHAM & SONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED March 24, 1998

No. 196771 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 95-502822-NZ

Before: Gage, P.J., and Reilly, and Jansen, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition on her claim of employment discrimination based on race. We affirm. Plaintiff is a white woman married to a black man. She was hired as a relief sales representative by defendant in June 1993 and began work on July 5, 1993. The first ninety days were deemed a probationary period. Plaintiff was subject to review at the end of the period and had to achieve an acceptable rating to retain her job. In late September 1993, plaintiff's supervisor expressed his concerns about plaintiff's performance to the vice president. The vice president agreed that plaintiff's performance was unacceptable and terminated her employment. Plaintiff claims that she was fired because her husband is black. The trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Pinckney Community Schools v Continental Casualty Co, 213 Mich App 521, 525; 540 NW2d 748 (1995). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court must consider not only the pleadings, but also depositions, affidavits, admissions and other documentary evidence, MCR 2.116(G)(5), and must give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the nonmoving party, being liberal in finding a genuine issue of material fact. Summary disposition is appropriate only if the court is satisfied that it is impossible for the nonmoving party's claim to be supported at trial because of a deficiency which cannot be overcome. Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785, 788; 411 NW2d 859 (1987).

-1

A prima facie case of employment discrimination under

Download JANET FRANKLIN V ABRAHAM & SONS INC.pdf

Michigan Law