I n Fe bruar y 2006, DOC sold its assets to L ux otica, a c ompeting ope rat o r o f re tail optical 1 companies. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0385n.06 No. 09-1512 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

M I CH A L I

N E JO N E V I E W ; H I

A L J A M E S N E V I E W, Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts ,

v. D.O.C. OPTI CS C ORPORATI ON, dba D .O.C., Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B EF OR E: KE I TH , B OG GS, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff Michaline Jo Neview (“ Neview ”) a nd her husba

nd, plaintiff Hia l J ames Ne view, filed this action alleg ing va rious employ

ment d i s cr i mination and tort claims ag ainst her f ormer employ er, de fenda

nt D.O.C. Optics Corporation (“ DOC”). Plaintiffs a ppeal the district c ourt’s g rant of summary

judgme nt in favor of

DOC. We aff

irm. I. DOC was a

full-servic e re tail optical company that provided ey e ex ams and sold presc ription

e y e wa re to t he pu bli c . On

Au g us t 1, 20 02 , D OC hir e d Nev ie w a s a n o pti c a l di sp e ns e r i n it s 1 Midland store and, on November 9, 2003, promoted her to manag er of

that location. As mana g er,No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

DOC contends that Neview was an “at- will” employ ee that could be fired at any time for any 2 rea son. Neviewacknow ledg ed this fac t at her de position. - 2 - Ne vie w w a s e xpe c te d to ov e rs e e sto re op e ra tio ns , s a le s a

nd pr of ita bil ity , ma na g e sto re pe rs onne l, and enf orce employ ee disc ipline proce dures. She was a lso require d to possess “[e]x cellent c ustomer service [and] communication skills.” On J anuar y 24, 2006, Neview

was notified that he r employ ment with D OC was ter

minated. 2 Cheryl Max well, DOC’s Human Resour ce Ma nag er, pr ovided a summary of the e vents surrounding that de c isi on : Mic hal in e Nev ie w w a s p la c e d o n a fo ur da y su sp e ns ion

Janu ary 20 , 2 00 6, du e to customer se rvice issues and emotional instability

. . . . J anuar

y 20, 2006, [Neview] beg an cr ying while at the fr ont desk, was taken to the brea k room and be g an kicking the wa lls and re pe a tin g sh e wo uld lik e to h ur t so me on e . H e r h

us ba nd wa s c a lle d to escor t h er home. I t was also re ported that [Neview] on sever al occ asions had “meltdowns” w hile at work a nd left ea rly not completing he r shift. * * * Numerous c onfidential complaints wer e made in the month prior to her ter mination c on c e rn inghe r b e havio r t ow ard s st a ff and c us tom e rs . Ch arl e ne Kl in g, [DO C] auditor, had a lso witnessed harsh be havior towa rds customers a

nd staff w hile in the store completingan audit . . . . I t was re ported that on many occa sions [Neview ] had made de g radingrema

rks and c omments conce rning her staff wh i le on the floor. These incidents took pla ce many times w hen customers could witness or overhe ar the conver sations. E mploy ees be g an to re port they wer e fe arf

ul of [Neview] and her actions. She also told her staff she had develope d mental problems, howe ver, doc tor notification of these issues was not re ceive d at corpor ate until Monday , J anuar y 23, 2006, following her suspe nsion. Three written customer complaints refe rringto her behavior wer e re ceive d the wee k of January 16-20, 2006. January

24, 2006 [si c] [Neview] phoned Mark B ruseloff to ask for disa b i l ity

paper work; howe ver, the decision to terminate [Nevie w] had been de cided pr ior to the ca ll.No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

DO C Wor

k Ru le Numbe r 1 7 s tate s: 3 Di s co u rt esy

to customers, vendor s or others f or any rea son whatsoeve r including insulti ng , sarc astic, neg ati v e, ang ry words or attitude towards customers a nd pe rm itt ing patie nts or c us tom e rs to o ve rh e ar s uc h c omm e nts wh e n c on ve rs ingwi th others. 1 s tVi o l at i o n- U p t o an d I n cl u d i n g Di s ch ar ge - 3 - Acc o rdi ng to DOC’s Chief F inancial Of fice r (“ CFO” ), James L ies, althoug h Neview was formally terminated on J anuar y 24, 2006, he made the dec ision to di schar g e Ne view on January 20, 2006, “af ter be ing a dvised by

Cheryl Max well about customer and employ ee c omplaints concer ning [Neview’s] ag g ressive a

nd unprofe ssional conduct, and [Nevie w’s] outburst at the front desk of the Midland Store.” L ies maintains that Neview ’s conduct “ violated DOC Work Rule Number 17, wa s totally inappropriate and unbe fitting a DOC store manag er, and [he] believed posed a threat to the safe ty of customer s and employ ees alike.” Moreove r, L ies states that “[a]t the tim e [he] made the 3 decision to terminate Plaintiff, [he] had no knowledge that Plaintiff had or wa s suffer ing f rom any disability or that Plaintiff was se eing a ther apist.” Following her discha

rg e, Ne view applied f

or worke rs’ co m p en sation benef its. At her Fe bruar y 5, 2008, hear ing, Neview testified that she wa s unable to maintain emotional stability or focus, c ould not be alone in public, and on some day s was unable to leave he r fr ont porch. Ne view further testified that she c ould not perfor m any of her past full-time employ

ment. On Marc h 26, 2008, Michig an’s De partment of L abor & Economic Gr owth deter mined that Ne v i ew wa s d i s ab l edan d

aw ar d edco mp en s at i o nb en ef its. S pecif icall y , t h e a dm i n i s t ra t i v e l aw j u d geNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

At the time of Ne view’s e mploy ment, DOC had a

sexual harassment policy that prohibited 4 “[c]onduct that creat es an intimidating/offe nsive workplac e interf eringwith work per formanc e.” The policy

instructs “[a]ny

employ ee who fee ls he or she is a vic tim of unl aw ful hara ssment [ to] re po rt the matte r to the a tte nti on of his or he r Sup e rv iso r i mme diate ly .” I n r e sp on se , D OC wo uld investigate the allegations and take “appr opriate corre ctive action if war rante d by the investig ation.” - 4 - (“ AL J”) fo un d th a t N e vie w w a s “ un a ble to w or

k in any c a pa c ity a t th is t ime and

the re fo re ha s a disability as def ined by the Act.” The AL J furthe r deter mined that DOC was oblig ated to pay benef its from her ter

mination until Aug ust 1, 2006. On Novembe r 3, 2006, Ne view filed a cha rg e of discr imination with t he Michig an Depa rtment of Civil Ri g hts (“MDCR ”) an d t he Equa l Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (“EE OC”), asser

ting ag e, g ender , and disability as rea sons f or discrimination. On Marc h 2, 2007, the EEOC issued a “ rig ht t o s u e” l etter unde r Title VI Iand the Ame rica ns with Disabiliti es Ac t (“A DA”) . Pla i n t i ff

s subsequently

filed their c omplaint in the dist rict cour t on May 29, 2007, alleg ing se vera l ty

pes of discr imination. Neview ’s sexual harassment c laim involved the conduct of two subordinate DOC employ ees located in the Midland store : W i l l i am Ba ird, a lab te chnician, a nd Mike Fly

nn, the lab mana g er. 4 I n J anuar y 2005, Ba ird was arr ested for having a sexual relationship with a minor. Nevie w contends that ov e r a

pp ro xima te ly a mon th- lon g pe ri od B a ir d r a ise d th is i nc ide nt a pp ro xima te ly

fi ve tim e s in

c on ve rs a tio ns e ith e r w ithhe r o r w ithoth e r e mpl oy e e s, su c h a s F ly nn . N e vie w a c kn owle dg e s, ho we ve r, tha

t sh e so lic ite d in fo rm a tio n f ro m B a ir d c on c e rn ingthe cir cums tanc e s o f h is a rr e st. Mo re ov e r, a lth ou g h N e vie w r e c omm e nd e d to her dis tr ic t ma na g e r t hat B a ir d b e dis c ha

rg e d d ue to the ar rest, she did not discipline him under he r own a uthorit y or submit a complaint to DOCNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

As manag er of

the Midlan d s t o re , Neview had the a

uthority to discipline employ ees f or 5 inappropriate conduc t and languag e. Neview ’s complaint does not allege any sexual hara ssment related t o Fly nn. At Neview ’s 6 deposition, counsel indicated he i n t ended to amend the complaint to include suc h alleg ations, but failed to do so. - 5 - reg ardingBa ird’s alleg ed inappr opriate be havior. I n fac t, Neview testified that she “ felt sorry for 5 him” and believe d that Ba ird was attempting to “c onvince [her] that he was innocent” of the cha rg e. I n reg ards to F ly

nn, Neview

identified three incidents that she believed suppor ted her sexual ha ra ssm e nt c la im. F ir st, F ly nn tol d N e vie w that sh e ha d “ bo ob y a sh ” a ft e r s he ret urn ed f ro m a 6 cig are tte brea

k. Neview , howeve r, testified that she considere d the comment to be a “joke.” Second, Fly nn alleg edly

showed Ne view a le tter fr om his wife expressing that their marria g e embr ace d an open sexual lifesty le. Althoug h Neview found the letter

to be “taste less,” she did not perc eive it as direc ted towar ds her. F inally , in reg ards to B aird’s a rre st, Fly nn comm en t ed t o Neview that he believed the undera g e g irl’s fathe r wa s “whoringher out[.] ” As mana g er of the Midland store, Ne vie w s tate d th a t sh e wa rn e d F ly nn tw ic e or a lly

and on ce in wri ti ngdu e to h is i na pp ro pr iate behavior

. Neview al s o all eg es discrimination based on he r purpor ted emotional and psycholog ical disability . The re cord c ontains a medica l report dated Novembe r 30, 2005, in which Ne view i n d i c a t e d s h e w a s s e e k i n g p s y c h i a t r i c t r e a t m e n t d u e t o “ c h i l dh o o d s e xu a l a b u s e c omi ng up in conflicts [with her] abusive husband.” The re i s n o i n dication of proble ms occurr ing in the

wo rk pla c e . O n Jan

ua ry 23 , 2 00 6, Do ug la s F os te r, M. D. , a uth or e d a le tte r, a dd

re sse d “ To wh om i tNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

- 6 - may conce rn,” statingthat Neview suffe red from post-traumatic stress disorder ( “PTSD”) a nd major depre ssion. I n his letter, Dr. F oster indicate d that Neview was suff ering from an “ outbreak of the PTSD sy mpt oms and

[wo uld ] ne e d to b e ex cus ed fr om w or k. ” Th e re c or d a lso c on ta ins a Dec ember

11, 2006, letter dra fted by Kishore Konda

paneni, M.D., a lso directed “ To whom it may

conce rn,” w hich stated that Ne view suffere d from “significa nt childhood traumas that tend to trigg er off whe n she enc ountere d with her e mploy ee.” I n this appeal, plaintiffs a ssert that the district court e rre d in gr anting DOC’s motion for

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n to nN e v i e w ’ s c l a i m s o f s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n tan d

s e x d i s c r i m i n a t i o nu n d e r

T i t l e V II and Michig an’s Elliott-L arse n Civil Rights Act (“EL CRA”), and discrimination under the A DA and the M ichig an P ersons W ith Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCR A”) . Plaintiffs also appea l Hial Ne vie w’ s lo ss- of

-c on so rt ium

c la im. Pla int if

fs do no t a

pp e a l th e dis mis sa l of the re ma ini ngc ounts in their complaint, including Neview ’s claims of a g e discriminat i o n , intentional or neg lige nt infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Equal Pay Act. II. Th is c ourt revi ews de no vo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt. Lon ga be rg e r Co . v . Ko lt , 586 F.3d 459, 465 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Summ ary judgme nt is proper “ if the pleading s, the discover

y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavit s s how that there is no g enuine issue a s to any

materia l fac t and t hat t he movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c)( 2). The movingparty has t he burden of proving the absenc e of ge nuine issues

o f m aterial fac t and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of la

w. C e l o t e xC o r p . v . C a tre tt , 477No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

I n order to estab l i sh a cla im under the EL CRA, plaintiff must establish t he same five 7 elements required f

or a Title VI Iclaim. Su the rla nd v . Mi c h. De p’ t of Tre as ur y , 344 F.3d 603, 614 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). - 7 - U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When deter mining whether the mova nt has met this burden, we must view the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the nonmoving pa rty

. Smith W

holesale Co., Inc. v . R.J. Rey nolds Tobacco Co. , 477 F.3d 854, 861 ( 6th Cir. 2007). III

. Neview alleg es that her

co-w orker s’ sexually

expli cit co mments created a hostile work environment in violation of the EL CRA. To establish a host ile work environment claim under the EL CRA , a

pla int if f m us t sh owthat: (1 ) t he e mpl oy e e be lon g e d to a pr ote c te d g ro up ; ( 2) the e mpl oy e e wa s su bje c te d to communication or c onduct on the basis of the protec ted status; (3) the e mploy ee w as subject ed to unwelcome conduc t or communication on the ba sis of the protec ted status; (4) the unwe lcome conduc t or communication wa s intended to, or in fa ct did, i n t er fe re s u

b s t an t i al l y wi t h t h e em p l o y ee ’s em p l o y m en to r c re at edan i n t i m i d at i n g, hostile, or offe nsive work e nvironment; and (5) responde at superior

. Do wne y v . Char le v oix

Cou nty Bd . o f R d. Com m’rs , 576 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998);

see also M

eye r v. Mac omb Twp. of Macomb County, Mich ., No. 06-14953, 2008 WL 2064551, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Ma

y 14, 2008). 7 An e mpl oy e r on no tic e of a lle g e d ha ra ssm e nt may a vo id lia bil ity “ if it ade qu a te ly investigated and took prompt and a ppropriate reme dial action[.] ” Chambers v. T r et t co , Inc ., 614 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Mich. 2000) (interna l quotation mar ks and citation omitted). “An e mploy er, of

course , must have notice of al l eged hara ssment before being held liable for not implementingNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

I t is also questionable whethe r Ne view’s c laims of sexual hara ssment involving B aird a nd 8 Fly nn wer e timely

filed for purposes of a

Title VI Iclaim. Fr om he r deposition te stimony , it appear s that the last offe nsive encounte r with either individual occ urre d in Febr uary 2005, which is over 600 day s befor e Ne view filed her November 3, 2006, EEOC claim. Under Title VI I , two ty

pes of a ctions may be br ou g ht: (1 ) c la ims a lle g ing “ dis c re te dis c ri min a tor y a c ts, ” and (2 ) cl a ims a lle g ing a “ ho sti le w o r k e n v ir o n me nt[ .]” S

ee Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 110 (2002). Morgan sets forth a list of discrete acts, which include “ac ts suc h as termination, failure to promote, denial of tra

nsfer , or re fusal to hire[.]” Id. at 114. I n contra st, hostil e wor

k environment claims “involve[ ] repe ated conduct” and re quire the plaintiff to demonstrate that “the wor kplace is pe rmeated with discriminatory intimi dation, ridicule, and insult that is suf

ficiently sever e and perva sive to a lter the conditions of the victim’s employ ment and cr eate an abusive wor king e nvironment[.] ” Id. at 115-16 (c itation and internal quotation marks

- 8 - action.” Id. “[N]ot ice of sexual hara ssment is adequate i f, by an objec tive standard, the totality of the circ umstances we re suc h t h at a re asonable employ er w ould have be en aw are of a substantial probability

that sexual harassment wa s o cc u rr i n g.” Id . at 919. “The bottom li ne is that, in case s involving a hostile wor

k environment c laim, a plaintiff must show some fau lt o n t he par

t of the employ er.” Id. at 916. He re , N e vie w h a s n ot e sta bli sh e d a ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir on men t c la im b e c a us e sh e fa ile d to provide notice to her e mploy er of the alleg ed offensive behavior. Although Nevie w war ned F ly nn on three occa sions r eg arding his c onduct, there is nothing in the re cord that indicates that Ne view notified her supe rvisor of F ly nn’s alleg ed har assment. Simil arly , while the re cord shows that Neview informed he r district manag er of Ba ird’s arr est, there is no indication that she communicated her pe rsonal conc erns of

hara ss m en t t o her supe rior. B eca use Ne view has f

ailed to establish that DO C was awa

re of ha ra ssi ng be havio r b y

F ly nn or B a ir d, he r h os til e wo rk

e nv ir on me nt c la im f

a ils

as a matter of law

under both Title VI Iand the EL CRA. 8No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

omitted). “Given, there fore , that the incidents constituting a hostile w ork environme nt are part of on e un lawf

ul em plo y me nt pr a c tic e , the e mpl oy e r may be lia ble fo r al l ac ts that ar e pa

rt of thi s si ng le claim. In order

for the c harg e t o be timely , the employ ee ne ed only file a c harg e within [t he applicable time period] of any act that is par

t of the h o s t i l e work environment.” Id. at 118. Ac c or din g ly , N e vie w mus t a lle g e a no n- dis c re te a c tio n th a t pr op e rl y for ms the ba sis of

a ho sti le wo rk e nv ir on me nt c la im und e r Ti tle VI Iwi thi n th e a pp lic a ble 30 0- da

y pe ri od in o rd e r f or he r c la im to be consider ed timely

. Her termination constituted a discrete act of discrimination, which ca nnot be cha rac terized as par

t of a c ontinuing hostile work environment. See Sassev. U.S. De p’t of Labor , 409 F.3d 773, 783 ( 6th Cir. 2005). At oral a rg ument, plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to identify a non-discr ete a ction within the a pp lic a ble tim e pe ri od

and , in ste a d, argue d th a t th e iss ue had no t be e n r a ise d b e low . T his is demonstrably

false. A revie w of the rec ord shows that DOC raise d this iss ue with the district cour t in i ts m oti on for su mm ary jud g me nt a

nd that it is the re fo re re vie wa

ble on a pp e a l. R e g ard le ss, beca use we h o l d t h at Neview fa iled to provide notice to he r employ er of the alleg ed off

ensive behavior , we ne ed not re ach the statute of limitations question. - 9 - I V. Neview next arg ues t hat s he wa s treate d differ ently and more harshly

than male e mploy ees at DOC. F eder al law pr ohibits employ ers f rom “discr iminat[ ing] ag ainst any individual with respect to his [ or her ] compensation, terms , conditions, or privileg es of e mploy ment, beca

use of suc h ind ivi du a l’ s ra c e , c olo r, re lig ion , se x, or natio na l or ig in[. ]” 42 U. S.C. § 20 00 e -2 (a )( 1). Bec a us e Neview does not proff

er dire ct evidenc e of se x discrimination, we must det er m i n e whether she pr e se nte d s uf

fi c ie nt c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e to o ve rc ome DO C’ s mo tio n for summa ry jud g me nt. Se e Sto c k ma n v . O ak

c re st D e nta l Ctr

. , 4 8 0 F. 3 d 7 9 1 , 8 0 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( c i t i n g Gantt v. W ilson Sporting Goods Co. , 143 F.3d 1042, 1048 ( 6th Cir. 1998)). Our a naly sis is gover

ned by the familiar burden- shifting framework set forth in Mc Do nn e ll Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 ( 1973), and re fined in Texas De p’t of Cmty. Affairs v.No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

- 10 - Burdine , 4 50 U. S. 2 48 , 2 53 (1 98 1) . U nd e r t hat ana ly sis , a p la int if

f m us t f ir st e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie

case of unlawf

ul discrimination, which require s Neviewto show that: (1) she wa s a member of a protec ted class; (2) she wa s subjected to an a dverse employ ment decision; (3) she was qua lified for the position; and (4) a similarly situated non-prote cted e mploy ee w as trea ted more f

avora bly or she

was re place d by

someone outside the pr otected c lass. W right v. Murray Guard, Inc ., 455 F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2006). Once the plaintiff has ma de her prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the defe ndant to prese nt a l eg itimate, nondiscriminatory basis for the a dverse employ ment action. Id

. at 706. This explanation “‘must be leg ally sufficie nt to justify a judg ment for the de fenda nt.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Burdine , 450 U.S. at 255). I f t he defenda nt meets its burden, the plaintiff must show that the proffere d rea son was actually a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id. at 706-07. “Thr oug hout t h i s b u r d e n - s h i f

t i n g a p p r o a c h , t h e p l a i n t i f

f c o n t i nu e s t o b e ar

t h e u l t i m a t e b u r d e no f p r o v i n g , b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, the intent to discriminate.” Id. at 7 0 7 (c i t i n g St. Ma ry ’s Ho no r Ct r. v. Hick s , 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993)). I n the district court, Ne view made two alleg ations in support of her prima fac ie case: (1) pa y disparity betwee n her a

nd her ma le counter

parts; and ( 2) that B aird wa s a compa rable employ ee w ho

wa s re ta ine d by DO C. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly fo un d that Ne vie w fa ile d to d e mon str a te a pr ima fac ie claim under

Title VI Ibeca

use she c ould not rebut DOC’s af firmative defense s to her cla im of pa y dis pa ri ty , and be c a

us e B a ir d wa s no t a

sim ila rl y sit uate d e mpl oy e e wh o w a s tr e a te d d if fe re ntl y in the context of a disciplinary action.No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

To the e xtent N e vie w i s c ha lle ng ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t B a ir d w a s n ot a 9 simil arl y s i t u ated e mploy ee, he r ar g ument fails. The district c ourt corr ectly found that Ne view’s

“ sit uatio n d if fe re d f ro m B a ir d’ s b e c a

us e the a lle g a tio ns of

mis c on du c t c on c e rn

e rr a tic be havio r i n front of c ustomers” a

nd beca use “the re is no i n d i ca t ion that the same super visors were awa

re of Ba ird’s ar g uably

simil ar ina

ppropriate conduct, but re acte d differ ently .” Se e Nob le v . Br ink e r I nt’ l, Inc ., 391 F.3d 715, 729 ( 6th Cir. 2004). - 11 - On appe al, however, Neview arg ues that “a nother e mploy ee w as g rante d leave and allowe d to return to wor

k” whe rea s Neview ’s “r equest for l ea v e” based on “ excessive stress plac ed on Plaintiff by Def

endant” was denied. B eca use Ne view did not proper ly raise this ar g ument below, she is prec luded from doing so on appea l. “I ssues that are not squarely prese nted to the trial cour t

are considere d waived and may not be raised on appea l.” Thurman v. Y ellow Freight Sys ., 90 F.3d 11 60 , 11 72 (6t h C ir . 199 6) ; see also Bldg. Serv . Local 47 Cleaning Cont ractors Pension Plan v. Grandview Rac eway , 46 F.3d 1392, 1399 (6th Cir. 1995) (“vague refer ence s fail to clea rly prese nt th e ar gu m en t i n the district court so as to pre serve the issue for a ppellate r eview” ). More over, Ne vie w h a s n ot c le arl y

ide nti fi e d th e se x of t

his oth e r e mpl oy e e wh o w a s g ra nte d le a ve . I n or de r t o establish a prima f

acie case of sex discrimination, Nevi ew i s re q u i re d to show that the other employ ee w as m al e, an d s he has f ailed to do so. Acc ording ly , we hold that Ne view has not d e m o n s t r a t e d

a p r i m a f a c i e c l a i m u n d e r

T i t l e V II. 9 V. The AD A prohibi ts discrimination by a cove red e ntity

“ag ainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability

in reg ard to job application procedur es, the hiring , advanc ement, or discha rg e of employ ees, e mploy ee com pensation, job training , and other terms, conditions, and privileg es ofNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

“Michig an’s Per sons with Disabilit ies Civil R ights Ac t substantially mirrors the AD A, and 10 resolution of a plaintiff’s ADA claim will g ener ally , though not a lway s, resolve th e p laintiff’s PW D CR A c laim.” Co t t erv. Ajilon Servs., Inc ., 28 7 F .3 d 5 93 , 5 97 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) (f oo tno te omitted). “To prove a discrimination claim under the [P WDCR A], the plaintiff must show ( 1) that he is [dis a ble d] a s de fi ne d in the a c t, (2 ) that the [dis a bil ity ] i s unr e late d to his a bil ity to p e rf or m hi s job duties, and (3) that he has be en discrim i n at ed ag ainst in one of the wa y s delineate d in the statute.” Pe de n v . Ci ty

of D e tro it , 680 N.W.2d 857, 863 (Mich. 2004) ( citation omitted, alterations in orig inal). - 12 - employ ment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)

. A prima fa cie c ase of disability discrimination under the A DA

re qu ir e s that a pla int if

f sh ow : “ 1) he or sh e is d isa ble d; 2 ) o the rw ise qu a lif

ie d f or the po sit ion , w ith or without r e a sonable a ccommodation; 3) suff ere d an adve rse e mploy

ment decision; 4) the e mploy er knew or had re ason to know of the plaintiff’s disability ; and 5) the position rema ined open while the employ er soug ht other applica nts or the disabled individual was r eplac ed.” Macy v. H o p ki ns 10 County Sch. Bd. of Educ ., 484 F.3d 357, 365 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l c itation and quotation marks omitted). “[A]n employ er ma

y leg itimately fire an employ ee for conduct, even conduct that occur s as

a re sult of a disability , if that conduc t disqualifies the empl o y ee fr o m h is or her job.” Id. at 366. “[A] pl aintiff’s swor

n asser tion in an application for disa bility bene fits that she is, for example, ‘unable to work’ will appe ar to ne g ate a n essential ele ment of her ADA c ase – at least if she doe s not offe r a sufficie nt explanation.” W illiams v. London Uti l. Comm’n , 375 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Cle v e lan d v . P oli c yMg mt . S y s. Cor p ., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999)) . “This means that in order to survive a mot ion for summ ary judgme nt, the pl aintiff’s ‘ explanation must be suff icient to war ra n t a re as o nable juror ’s conc luding that . . . the pla intiff could nonethele ss perfor m theNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

The re levant time fra

me used to de termine whether a plaintiff is disable d under the ADA 11 is the time of the claimed a dverse employ ment decision. See Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc ., 97 F.3d 876, 884 ( 6th Cir. 1996). - 13 - essential functions of her job, with or wit hout rea sonable a ccommodation.’” W illiams , 375 F.3d at 4 2 9 (q u o t i n g Cleveland, 526 U.S. at 807). Her e, the district cour

t corre ctly deter mined that Neview is not a “qualifie d” individual under the ADA. I

n both her de position and at her worker s’ compensation hearing , Neview testified that

a t th e tim e of

he r t e rm inatio n s he wa s tota lly inc a pa ble of wo rk ing a s a DOC sto re mana g e r, or in any job whatsoeve r. Michig an’s De partment of L abor & Economic Growth ag ree d with Neview’ s 11 assessment and f

ound that she wa s “dis abled f rom all g ainful employ

ment.” B eca

use the AD A’s protec tions are limited only to those disabled per sons “ qualified” to hold the positi on in question,

see 42 U. S.C. § 121 12 , an d Ne vie w ha s fa ile d to dem on str a te that she wa s “qu a lif ie d” to w or

k a s a DO C st or e mana g e r, we a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to g ra nt D OC summa

ry jud g me nt on

thi s issue. V I. To e sta bli sh a pr ima fa c ie c la im of wr on g fu l ter min a tio n, it is pla int if

f’ s bur de n to e sta

bli sh that: (1) she w as a me mber of a protec ted class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was terminated from employ

ment; and (4) she was repla ced by a per son outside the protec ted class or was treated less favorably

than a similarly

situated individual outside the pr otected c lass. Stockman , 480 F.3d at 801.No. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

- 14 - Assuming a

rg uendo that Neview had demonstrated a pr ima fac ie ca se base d on ag e, g ender , or disability discrimination, the burden shifts to DOC to articulate a leg itimate, non-discriminatory

rea son for ter

minating he r employ

ment. DOC maintains that Neview was discharg ed beca use of he r conduct on J anuar

y 20, 2006, and due to other inappropriate intera ctions with customers in violation of DOC’s rules and regulations. Be cause DOC has stated a leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea son for ter minating Neview, the burden shifts back to Neview to demonstrate that DOC’s stated r eason is apr e t e xt f

o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I n o r d e r t o s h o w p r e t e xt , “ [a ] p l a i n t i f f m u s t d o m o r e t h an s imp ly imp ug n th e le g iti ma c y of the a sse rt e d just if ic a tio n for he r t e rm inatio n; i n a dd iti on , th e pla int if f ‘ mus t produce sufficie nt evidence from which the jury may rea sonably

reje ct th e e mploy er’ s expl anation.’” W ar fie ld v . Le ba no n Co rr. In st

. , 1 8 1 F. 3 d 7 2 3 , 7 3 0 (6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Manzer v . Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co. , 29 F.3d 1078, 1083 (6th Cir. 1994)); see also Pierc e v . Co mm on we alt h Li fe Ins. Co. , 4 0 F. 3 d

7 9 6 , 8 0 4 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at p l ai n t i f f m u s t d o m o re t h an i mp u gn employ er’ s asserte d justification; “pl ai n t i ff must also adduce e vidence of the e mploy er’ s discriminatory

animus[.] ”). He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a c c ur a te ly

summa ri zed Ne vie w’ s e vid e nc e of pr e te xt an d c or re c tly found that it was “insuff

icient to cre ate a

triable issue of fac t.” Specifica lly , the district court stated: Plaintiff of

fer s her own testimony that her discharg e was motivated by h er ag e. Pla int if f’ s me re a sse rt ion is ins uf fi c ie nt t o c re a te a

tr ia ble iss ue of

fa c t. P la int if

f a lso attacks th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f D e f e n d an t’ s inv e s ti g a ti o no f

h e r p e r f o r ma n c e . Pl a in tif

f argues that De fendant relied on state ments descr ibing the inc ident by Plaintiff’s co-w orker s that were not cre dible. Whil e Plaintiff s u rmises that her c o-worke rs exagg erated events to have Plainti ff discharg ed, there i s no indication that Def endant doubted the cr edibility of the descr iption of events. Nor does that conte ntion support the conc lusion that repor

ts of misbehavior advanc ed by Plaintiff’s colleagues we reNo. 09-1512

Michaline Nev iew, et al. v. D.O.C. Optics Corp.

I n v ie w o f o ur

ho ldi ng s, Hi a l Ne vie w’ s c la im fo r los s o f c on so rt ium mus t a lso fa il b e c a

us e 12 it depends on his wife r ecove ring on another theory

. S

e e B e r r y m a n v . K

m a r t C or p . , 483 N.W.2d 6 4 2 , 6 4 6 ( M i c h

. C t

. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ A c l a i m o f l o s s o f c o n s o rt i um i s d e r i v a t i v e a ndre c ov e ry is conting ent upon the injured spouse ’s re cover y of dama g es for

the injury .”). - 15 - motivated by

animosity

towards Pl aintiff’s ag e. I n total, Plainti ff ha s not created a fac tual dispute that Defe ndant’s co n cl usion was pre text for a g e discrimination, or g ender and disability

discrimination either. Be cause Neview

has fa iled to set forth admissible evidenc e upon which a rea sonable juror could find that DOC’s stated r eason f or terminatingher e mploy ment was a

prete x t for discrimination, summary judgme nt in DOC’s favor was a ppropriate

. 12 V II. For these re asons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.