Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ROSALIND COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2007

No. 268239 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 03-337702-NZ

Before: Servitto, P.J., and Jansen and Schuette, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court order granting summary disposition to defendant regarding plaintiff's race and gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge from employment claims. Because plaintiff has not shown that discrimination was a motivating factor for defendant's adverse employment actions, we affirm. Plaintiff is a physician who defendant hired in 1992 as a plant medical director. According to plaintiff, within a few years, she was being discriminated against based upon her race (Caucasian) and gender in terms of her compensation, promotions, and resources and support. Plaintiff raised issues concerning discriminatory treatment with defendant for several years and, in 2002 filed a complaint against defendant with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). Defendant fired plaintiff on December 3, 2002. In November, 2003, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Defendant filed a motion in 2005 for summary disposition based upon MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10), to which plaintiff responded and filed her own partial motion for summary disposition. The trial court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary disposition. This appeal followed. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant because defendant's articulated reasons for terminating her were merely pretexts for discrimination and were in retaliation for her filing complaints of gender and race discrimination. We disagree. A motion for summary disposition made under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003).

-1-


A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).] There is a genuine issue of material fact when reasonable minds could differ upon an issue after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). This Court must limit its review to the evidence presented up to the time defendant's motion was decided. Pe

Download ROSALIND COHEN V GENERAL MOTORS CORP.pdf

Michigan Law