UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Defendant Hurley Medical Center, through its CEO, Defendant Melany Gavulic, 

terminated Plaintiff Nancy Roschival’s employment in July 2014. Defendants say that that they 

no longer needed Roschival’s position because, during a reorganization, they closed the office 

Roschival worked for and transferred much of her responsibilities to a third-party administrator. 

Roschival does not dispute this. But she says that Defendants failed to follow their layoff 

procedure and that a less senior employee should have been laid off instead of her. That less 

senior employee is black, and Roschival is white. Roschival alleges that Gavulic targeted her to 

favor her black colleague, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause in the process. 

She thus filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and 

the Michigan law of wrongful termination. 

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22, Defs.’ Mot. 

Summ. J.), for which the Court heard oral argument on May 10, 2016. For the reasons discussed, 

the Court will dismiss the case. On this record, Roschival has not shown that Gavulic’s 

articulated reason for termination was a pretext for racial discrimination in violation of the Equal 

NANCY ROSCHIVAL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

MELANY GAVULIC and HURLEY 

MEDICAL CENTER, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 15-10182 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [22] 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 385
2 

Protection Clause, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Roschival’s 

remaining state-law claims. 

I. 

A.

Plaintiff Nancy Roschival started working in human resources for Defendant Hurley 

Medical Center in 1995. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 4, Roschival Dep. at 8.) She is white. (Id. at 20.) So is 

the person who would ultimately terminate her, Defendant Melany Gavulic, who became 

Hurley’s CEO during the last two years of Roschival’s employment (i.e., in 2012). (Pl.’s Resp. 

Ex. 5, Gavulic Dep. at 4.) 

Roschival spent most of her time at Hurley in its Employee Health Office (“EHO”) (Pl.’s 

Resp. at 5), which, among other things, provided occupational health services (Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 5, 

Gavulic Aff. ¶ 4). Roschival’s job title was “Human Resource Service Center Advisor,” and her 

primary role was to process worker’s compensation claims. (Roschival Dep. at 10, 13–14.) 

During a reorganization from 2013–14, Hurley trimmed and then closed its Employee 

Health Office. In mid to late 2013, some employees were laid off. (See Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 8, 

Letters; Roschival Dep. at 10.) In September 2013, Roschival met with Colleen Mansour, who 

was then the Interim Senior Administrator of Human Resources. According to Roschival’s notes, 

it seemed to Roschival that she was about to lose her job, as Mansour confirmed that all but one 

Employee Health Office employee would be laid off. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 14, Sep. 15, 2013 Notes.) 

But Roschival kept her job, at least at first. The next week, Mansour informed Roschival that due 

to the reorganization of the Employee Health Office her position would be eliminated the next 

month, but Roschival would be moved to the Human Resources Department. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 15, 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 2 of 25 Pg ID 386
3 

Sep. 23, 2013 Letter.) In November 2013, Roschival’s job title changed to “Human Resources 

Coordinator I,” but her duties remained the same. (Roschival Dep. at 13.) 

Hurley completely closed its Employee Health Office on August 4, 2014,1

 resulting in 

Roschival’s termination. (See, e.g., Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 7, Aug. 1, 2014 Letter; Gavulic Aff. ¶ 4.) 

The EHO’s occupational health services were transferred to a new entity, Hurley Health 

Services. (Gavulic Aff. ¶ 4; Aug. 1, 2014 Letter.) Additionally, a third-party administrator 

absorbed a larger share of the processing of worker’s compensation claims, which had been 

Roschival’s role. (Gavulic Aff. ¶ 6.) On July 31, 2014, Gavulic informed Roschival that she 

would be terminated effective August 14, 2014. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 16, Jul. 31, 2014 Letter.) A 

layoff notice stated that the reason for the termination was that “Employee Health Office is being 

closed and these services will reside in an Occupational Medicine Clinic provided to Hurley 

Medical Center through Hurley Health Services.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 17, Layoff Notice.) Roschival 

acknowledges that the decision to close the office—made by Gavulic—had nothing to do with 

race. (Roschival Dep. at 14.)

B.

Roschival’s claims in the case center on whether Hurley followed its own layoff 

procedures when it terminated her. Roschival was what Hurley refers to as an “exempt” or “nonbargaining unit” employee. (Gavulic Dep. at 20–21.) As such, Hurley’s Exempt Employee 

Handbook set the terms of Roschival’s employment relationship with Hurley—including the 

layoff procedures it had to follow. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 6, Handbook; Gavulic Dep. at 21.) 

 

1

 Roschival contends that the office was closed in 2013, not 2014. (See Pl.’s Resp. at 2, 

¶¶ 5–7.) She offers no evidence to support this assertion and mistakenly refers to this as a fact 

that is not in dispute: “The following facts are not in dispute: . . . In 2013—after the EHO was 

closed . . . .” (Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 5.) 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 3 of 25 Pg ID 387
4 

In their most basic sense, the handbook’s layoff procedures essentially allow for certain 

employees with more tenure to “bump” their junior colleagues, so the junior employee is let go 

first. For example, when Hurley first culled the Employee Health Office in the summer of 2013, 

Roschival “bumped” Gerry Smith, who shared her title of Human Resources Service Center 

Advisor at the time.2 (Roschival Dep. at 10.) He was let go, while she was simply reassigned. 

(Roschival Dep. at 10–11.)

As the governing handbook provides, “Layoffs or status reductions within classifications 

and department are made in reverse order of seniority within classification and department.” 

(Handbook, at 7.)3

 However, “Employees who are laid off may not bump other employees in 

other classifications and/or departments.” (Id. at 8.) The handbook defines “seniority” as “the 

length of service within classification (hospital-wide) without a break in service.” (Id. at 6.) But 

the handbook does not define “classification,” and there is some disagreement as to what it 

means. 

C.

The individuals directly involved in Roschival’s termination interpreted “classification” 

to be the equivalent of job title. As will be described in more detail, they thus concluded that 

because Roschival was the only employee with her job title (“Human Resources Coordinator I”) 

at the time of her termination, she was not eligible to “bump” a less senior employee. 

 

2

 The Court understands that the process may have been different in this scenario because 

Smith was a union employee (see Roschival Dep. at 10; Sep. 15, 2013 Notes), so the Court cites 

this only for background purposes. 

3

 The handbook provides another bumping mechanism that is not as central to this case: 

“Layoffs or status reductions within classification, promotional units and departments are made 

in the following order: [1] Temporary or emergency employees [2] Provisional employees [3] 

Per-diem employees [4] Seasonal employees [5] Probationary employees [6] Part-time 

employees [7] Full-time employees.” (Id.) 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 4 of 25 Pg ID 388
5 

Around a month before Roschival’s termination, Gavulic enlisted Debra Roriex, a 

Human Resources Recruiter, to determine how to handle Roschival’s position in light of the 

Employee Health Office’s pending closure. (Gavulic Dep. at 8–10; Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 7 Roriex Dep. 

at 6, 25.) As Gavulic testified, “I was not clear on how any of that would be transacted. All I 

knew is there would no longer be work in the Employee Health Office for what Nancy was doing 

and there would be an impact so I was seeking HR’s role in how that would be handled.” 

(Gavulic Dep. at 9.) 

Roriex says that she looked to the handbook for the appropriate procedure to follow. 

(Roriex Dep. at 27.) To recap, the handbook says that “Layoffs or status reductions within 

classifications and department are made in reverse order of seniority within classification and 

department.” (Handbook, at 7.) Roriex says she determined that the relevant department was 

human resources and that Roschival was the sole person in her classification. (Roriex Dep. at 

27–28.) This made Roschival ineligible to bump anyone, Roriex concluded. (Id. at 27–28.) 

While Roschival’s title was Human Resources Coordinator I, a less senior employee in 

the human resources department, Jamal Dozier, who is black, held a similar title: “Human 

Resources Coordinator.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 1, Jackson Aff. ¶¶ 16–17.) 

Despite the similarity between Roschival’s and Dozier’s titles, Roriex testified that she 

determined that Roschival was alone in her classification because “[t]here was no one else in 

Human Resources with her same title.” (Roriex Dep. at 28.) Gavulic deferred to Roriex’s 

conclusion. (Gavulic Dep. at 10.) In her testimony, Gavulic explained her concurrence, stating 

that Human Resources Coordinator and Human Resources Coordinator I were not in the same 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 5 of 25 Pg ID 389
6 

classification because “[t]hey are two different jobs and the responsibilities and duties outline 

that.” (Gavulic Dep. at 53.)4

Still, because of the similarity between Roschival’s and Dozier’s titles, Roriex and 

Gavulic did consider whether Roschival should “bump” Dozier. (Roriex Dep. at 48.) Gavulic 

specifically asked Roriex whether Dozier should be laid off instead of Roschival. (Id. at 45.) 

According to Roriex, Gavulic “wanted to know how to handle the layoff for Nancy” and “how to 

handle Nancy because of her classification. She was the only one in that classification, and not 

Jamal.” (Roriex Dep. at 45.) Roriex also testified, “I believe [Gavulic] just wanted to know that it 

wasn’t Jamal because of their titles. The titles were different. So I told her, no, it wasn’t Jamal.” 

(Roriex Dep. at 48.) 

Pursuant to Roriex’s application of the layoff procedure, Dozier was not laid off. Like 

Dozier, Roriex is black. (See Roriex Dep. at 41.) 

D.

Two former Hurley human resources employees offer a competing theory on what the 

layoff procedure is and how it should have applied to Roschival: they suggest that the layoff 

procedure instead depends on a job “series” and that Dozier should have been laid off instead of 

Roschival. 

A job “series” would be, for example, Social Worker I, II, and III or Maintenance 

Mechanic I, II, and III. (Roriex Dep. at 16; Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 10, Foster Dep. at 12; Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 

9, Jackson Dep. at 41–42.) 

 

4

 Gavulic also testified that she was unaware whether the handbook defined 

classification. (Gavulic Dep. at 41.) She thought Mansour would know how it was defined. (Id.) 

Mansour, however, testified—apparently mistakenly—that the term “classification” would not 

apply to non-bargaining unit employees. (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 11, Mansour Dep. at 12–14.) 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 6 of 25 Pg ID 390
7 

Rebecca Jackson, who served as Assistant Human Resources Director of Operations for 

Hurley from 2001 until October 2010 (and was someone whom Roriex used to use as a resource 

for layoff decisions (Roriex Dep. at 10–11)), and Lisa Foster, who served as Assistant Director 

of Human Resources for Employment Compensation in Hurley Medical Center’s Human 

Resource Department from 1995 until July 2010, each stated in their individual affidavits that the 

layoff procedure at Hurley hinged on job series: 

If there were a job series within a particular promotional unit for a particular 

classification, then the lowest number within the job series with the least senior 

employees would be laid off first. 

In other words, if a promotional unit had employees who, for example, were 

Social Worker I, Social Worker II, Social Worker III, in a reduction of force or 

layoff, the least senior member of Social Worker I would be laid off first, then the 

least senior employee of Social Worker II classification would be laid off next, 

and then finally, it would reach Social Worker III. 

(Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 1, Jackson Aff. ¶¶ 8–10; Ex. 2, Foster Aff. ¶¶ 8–10.) 

Jackson and Foster each also stated in their affidavits that “layoffs and recalls for exempt 

employees were governed by the Exempt Employee Handbook, specifically Section 9 – Layoffs 

or Recall – on pages 7 and 8 of the Exempt Employee Handbook.” (Jackson Aff. ¶ 7; Foster Aff. 

¶ 7.) 

Jackson and Foster each opined that Hurley “did not follow polices found in the Hurley 

Medical Center Exempt Employee Handbook on pages 7 and 8” when it terminated Roschival. 

(Jackson Aff. ¶ 15; Foster Aff. ¶ 15.) They each reasoned that “[a]ccording to the Hurley 

Medical Center Exempt Employee Handbook, as well as past practice,” Dozier should have been 

laid off because “he was in the lower Human Resource Coordinator position within the job series 

and he had the least amount of seniority.” (Jackson Aff. ¶ 17; Foster Aff. ¶ 17.) 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 7 of 25 Pg ID 391
8 

In her affidavit, Jackson offered this opinion for why Roschival was terminated instead of 

Dozier: 

The one explanation . . . is because there was a past practice within the Human 

Resource Department, and also within the hospital as a whole, that when 

reorganization/layoffs did occur, special preference was given to AfricanAmerican employees in their retention. In other words, Hurley Medical Center 

made great strides to retain African-American employees during reorganizations 

and layoffs. Caucasian employees were not given the same consideration as 

African-American employees with respect to reorganizations/layoffs within the 

hospital. 

(Jackson Aff. ¶ 20.) Jackson also testified that at unspecified times in the past, after proposing 

someone for a layoff, “The union would sometimes say, ‘That person is African American. We 

don’t want that person laid off.’” (Jackson Dep. at 71–73.) 

E.

Roschival filed her complaint in this Court on January 16, 2015 and an amended 

complaint a week later. (Dkt. 1, Compl.; Dkt. 4, Am. Compl.) Her amended complaint includes 

four counts. Count I asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 racial discrimination claim against Gavulic. (Am. 

Compl. ¶¶ 23–27.) Counts II and III assert wrongful discharge claims under Michigan law 

against Hurley on the basis that Hurley lacked good cause to terminate Roschival and breached 

representations concerning job security and layoffs. (Id. ¶¶ 28–36.) Count IV asserts a racial 

discrimination claim against both defendants under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. 

(Id. ¶¶ 37–39.) 

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2015. (Dkt. 22, 

Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.) They did not file a reply to Roschival’s response (Dkt. 23, Pl.’s Resp.). 

II. 

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 8 of 25 Pg ID 392
9 

Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party may discharge its initial summary judgment burden by “pointing 

out to the district court . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s 

case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party does so, the party 

opposing the motion “must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine 

issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

The Court must determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient factual disagreement to 

require submission of the challenged claims to a jury, or whether the evidence is so one-sided 

that the moving party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 251–52 (1986) (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's 

position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for 

the plaintiff.”). 

On summary judgment, the Court views the evidence, and any reasonable inferences 

drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here Roschival. 

See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

III. 

The Court begins with Roschival’s Section 1983 claim that Gavulic violated her rights 

under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by terminating her on the basis of her race.5

Roschival asserts her sole federal count specifically against Gavulic, not Hurley. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 

23–27.) 

As in the Title VII context, a plaintiff can prove a Section 1983 discrimination claim with 

direct or circumstantial evidence. See Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 522–23 (6th Cir. 2000). 

As Roschival relies on circumstantial evidence, the Court will apply the burden-shifting 

 

5

 The parties do not dispute that Hurley is a public hospital (see Am. Compl. ¶ 3) and that 

a Section 1983 claim is therefore appropriate. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 9 of 25 Pg ID 393
10 

framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See 

Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 603 (6th Cir. 2008) (“In weighing an employment 

discrimination claim asserting disparate treatment under § 1983, this Court applies the familiar 

McDonnell Douglas framework applicable in similar cases brought under Title VII.”). 

Accordingly, Roschival has an initial burden to establish a prima facie case of racial 

discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S at 802. The burden then shifts to Gavulic to 

articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her. See id. If Gavulic meets her 

burden, then Roschival “must identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude 

that the proffered reason is actually a pretext for unlawful discrimination.” Jackson v. VHS 

Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc., 814 F.3d 769, 779 (6th Cir. 2016). 

In a typical racial discrimination case, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by 

showing she was “(1) a member of a protected class; (2) discharged; (3) qualified for the 

position; and (4) that a similarly situated non-protected person was treated better.” Rachells v. 

Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). 

But this is not a typical case, and Roschival’s initial burden is greater. Because 

Roschival’s claim is one of reverse discrimination, she “must demonstrate ‘background 

circumstances [to] support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who 

discriminates against the majority,’” as part of the first element of her prima facie case. See

Zambetti v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 314 F.3d 249, 255 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Murray v. 

Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 770 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir. 1985)).6

 Roschival’s burden under the 

fourth element is different as well: when “a discrimination claim is based on termination arising 

 

6

 Neither party’s briefing acknowledges that the “background circumstances” element 

applies in this case. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 10 of 25 Pg ID 394
11 

out of a work force reduction, [the Sixth Circuit] has modified the fourth element to require the 

plaintiff to provide additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate 

that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.” Rachells, 

732 F.3d at 661 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

A.

On this record, the Court is doubtful that Roschival has set forth enough evidence to 

establish a prima facie case of discrimination. For one, Gavulic is the sole defendant for 

Roschival’s Section 1983 claim. Yet Roschival has identified no “background circumstances [to] 

support the suspicion that the defendant[, Gavulic,] is that unusual employer who discriminates 

against the majority.” See Zambetti, 314 F.3d at 255 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Even if Roschival could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, as will be 

discussed, Gavulic has offered a legitimate reason for terminating her, and Roschival has not 

rebutted that with evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the reason was a pretext 

for unlawful racial discrimination. So the Court will assume, without deciding, that Roschival 

has established a prima facie case and will proceed to the pretext stage. See Frizzell v. Sw. Motor 

Freight, 154 F.3d 641, 646 (6th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary judgment for plaintiff’s failure to 

establish pretext in state-law gender discrimination claim, noting, “We, like the District Court, 

assume that plaintiff established a prima facie case”). However, for purposes of the pretext 

analysis, the Court will, of course, still consider Roschival’s evidence for making out a prima 

facie case. See Jackson, 814 F.3d at 779 (“[O]n summary judgment, [i]n evaluating pretext and 

the plaintiff’s ultimate burden, the court should consider all [probative] evidence in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, including the evidence presented in the prima facie stage.” 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted, second alteration in original)). 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 11 of 25 Pg ID 395
12 

B.

It is undisputed that Gavulic has offered a non-discriminatory explanation for terminating 

Roschival. As she stated in her affidavit, during Hurley’s reorganization, the hospital “shifted a 

larger majority of the workers’ compensation responsibilities” to a third-party administrator. 

(Gavulic Aff. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, said Gavulic, “With the [third-party administrator] handling 

most of the workers’ compensation functions, there was no need for a full-time employee to do 

workers’ compensation and, therefore, [Hurley] eliminated the classification ‘Human Resources 

Coordinator I.’ . . . Because Nancy Roschival was the only employee in the ‘Human Resources 

Coordinator I’ classification, she was laid off effective August 14, 2014.” (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) 

C.

The question now becomes whether Gavulic’s reason was a pretext for racial 

discrimination. In general, “[a] plaintiff may show pretext by demonstrating: ‘(1) that the 

proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the 

adverse employment action, or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate the adverse 

employment action.’” Davis v. Cintas Corp., 717 F.3d 476, 491 (6th Cir. 2013) (alterations in 

original) (quoting Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 460 (6th Cir.2004)); see 

also Alexander v. Ohio State Univ. Coll. of Soc. Work, 429 F. App’x 481, 487 (6th Cir. 2011) 

(applying the same test to a Section 1983 discrimination claim). A “plaintiff may also 

demonstrate pretext by offering evidence which challenges the reasonableness of the employer’s 

decision to the extent that such an inquiry sheds light on whether the employer’s proffered 

reason for the employment action was its actual motivation.” Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, 

581 F.3d 383, 391 (6th Cir. 2009). Roschival does not specify which theory of pretext she 

pursues. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 12 of 25 Pg ID 396
13 

1. 

Roschival’s main argument is that Hurley’s failure to follow its layoff procedures—the 

basis of her state-law wrongful termination claim—establishes pretext. Roschival cites Pippin v. 

Burlington Res. Oil And Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1193 (10th Cir. 2006), where the Tenth Circuit 

noted that a plaintiff can show pretext in a reduction in force case with evidence that “[her] own 

termination does not accord with the RIF criteria.” See also Skalka v. Fernald Envtl. Restoration 

Mgmt. Corp., 178 F.3d 414, 422 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Having concluded that FERMCO’s reason for 

laying off Skalka was not worthy of belief and having heard evidence that FERMCO ‘lost’ the 

peer group’s ranking forms, deviated from its normal procedures, and fired the oldest and most 

qualified RSO, the jury was entitled to find that discrimination had occurred.”). But Roschival’s 

“ultimate burden” is to “persuade[] the court that she was the victim of intentional 

discrimination.” See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). And 

“[s]tanding alone, deviation from a company policy does not demonstrate discriminatory 

animus.” Mitchell v. USBI Co., 186 F.3d 1352, 1355—56 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“Even 

assuming that USBI did deviate from its [layoff] policy, this deviation does not raise an inference 

of discrimination.” (citing cases)); see also Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1168 

(10th Cir. 1998) (observing that “minor inconsistencies in the application of RIF criteria may be 

too insubstantial to allow a reasonable jury to infer that the RIF was pretextual”). 

To support her claim that Gavulic misapplied the layoff procedures, Roschival cites 

affidavits and testimony from Rebecca Jackson and Lisa Foster—two experienced human 

resources professionals who left Hurley several years before Roschival’s termination. They each 

opined that Hurley “did not follow polices found in the Hurley Medical Center Exempt 

Employee Handbook on pages 7 and 8” when it terminated Roschival. (Jackson Aff. ¶ 15; Foster 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 13 of 25 Pg ID 397
14 

Aff. ¶ 15.) According to Jackson and Foster, the layoff procedure provided, “If there were a job 

series within a particular promotional unit for a particular classification, then the lowest number 

within the job series with the least senior employees would be laid off first.” (Jackson Aff. ¶ 9; 

Foster Aff. ¶ 9.) Accordingly, they each concluded that “Dozier should have been laid off 

because “he was in the lower Human Resource Coordinator position within the job series and he 

had the least amount of seniority.” (Jackson Aff. ¶ 17; Foster Aff. ¶ 17.) 

At first glance, this explanation appears to have little support in Hurley’s procedures. 

Granted, a general “Employment Policy” dating to the 1970s, which Roschival cites, provided 

that layoffs were to be determined by series: “Layoff of employees shall be made in the inverse 

order of their employment” and “[w]hen layoffs are to be made which might involve the 

employees of two or more classes of a series, those employees of the lowest class shall be laid 

off first on the basis of their seniority.” (Pl.’s Ex. 8, Older Policy at 15.) But Roschival describes 

this general policy as an “older” policy, (Pl.’s Resp. at 6), and she does not contend that it was 

still in effect at the time she was terminated. 

In contrast to the older policy, the employee handbook in effect at the time of Roschival’s 

termination makes no express mention of series. It instead hinges layoffs on classification, and it 

provides, “Employees who are laid off may not bump other employees in other classifications 

and/or departments.”7

 (Handbook at 8.) As Roschival describes in her brief, Gavulic, “had no 

idea how a layoff was conducted” and “directed Roriex to determine who was to be laid off.” 

 

7

 As noted in supra n. 3, the handbook also provides that full-time employees bump other 

types of workers, such as temporary and part-time employees. (Handbook, at 7.) Mansour 

acknowledged that in September 2013, the human resources department had some temporary 

employees and contract workers. (Mansour Dep. at 24.) Roschival summarily claims in her brief 

that “they should have been laid off before” her. (Pl.’s Resp. at 14.) This does not appear to 

relate to her racial discrimination claim, and she cites no evidence of the temporary employees’ 

and contract workers’ race. Even if she had, she cites no evidence that these individuals were still 

employed at the time of her actual termination, in July 2014. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 14 of 25 Pg ID 398
15 

(Pl.’s Resp. at 9, 11.) Consistent with the handbook, because Roriex concluded that Roschival 

was the only employee in her classification (Roriex Dep. at 27–28; Gavulic Dep. at 53), she told 

Gavulic that Roschival should be terminated, not Dozier, (Roriex Dep. at 38–39; Gavulic Dep. at 

10). And Gavulic deferred to Roriex’s conclusion. (Gavulic Dep. at 10.) 

This is not to say that Gavulic played an entirely passive role in the decision. Roriex 

testified that during the process, Gavulic asked to confirm that Roschival, not Dozier, should be 

laid off. (Roriex Dep. at 45.) Roriex’s testimony also included the following exchange: 

Q. All right. So there was some discussion between you and Melany 

[Gavulic], whether it be email or otherwise, as to who was to be laid off; 

Jamal [Dozier] or Nancy? 

A. She asked me how to handle the layoff for Nancy. Because EHO, they 

were getting rid of EHO, and we didn’t have a place to put Nancy. So it 

resulted in a layoff. 

Q. So how did Jamal’s name come up? 

A. I believe she just wanted to know that it wasn’t Jamal because of their 

titles. The titles were different. So I told her, no, it wasn’t Jamal. 

Q. So she expressed to you that she did not want to see Jamal lose his job? 

A. Yeah, she did say don’t want—she didn’t want anybody to lose their job. 

Q. She expressed to you that she didn’t want to see Jamal lose his job? 

A. I believe she did say that. 

(Roriex Dep. at 48.) 

Roschival concludes that this means that “Roriex specifically testified that Defendant 

Gavulic did not want Dozier to be laid off. In other words, both Roriex and Defendant Gavulic 

singled out Plaintiff for this layoff.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 22.) Even construing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to Plaintiff, this is not a fair reading of Roriex’s testimony. Roschival ignores that 

Roriex testified that Gavulic “didn’t want anybody to lose their job.” (Roriex Dep. at 48 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 15 of 25 Pg ID 399
16 

(emphasis added).) True, Roriex was asked, and answered, a specific follow-up question about 

Dozier, stating that Gavulic did not want Dozier to lose his job. Id. But that answer does not 

negate, and indeed is entirely consistent with, Roriex’s immediately prior testimony that Gavulic 

did not want anyone to lose their job—testimony that also necessarily implies that Gavulic did 

not want Roschival to lose her job either. Thus, this testimony does not support a reasonable 

inference that Gavulic specifically targeted Roschival for termination. 

And it was not unreasonable for Gavulic to defer to Roriex’s conclusion that Roschival 

and Dozier were in different classifications, as evidence supports that conclusion. In particular, 

job descriptions confirm that their two positions—Human Resources Coordinator and Human 

Resources Coordinator I—were different not only in name. (See Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 12–13.) As 

Roschival confirmed in her testimony, she still retained her worker’s compensation role once her 

title became Human Resources Coordinator I. (Roschival Dep. at 17.) Yet Dozier had no 

involvement with worker’s compensation, and Roschival did not do any of what he did. 

(Roschival Dep. at 17.) Moreover, Dozier has no apparent connection to the Employee Health 

Office, the elimination of which was the source of the layoff at issue. 

Nonetheless, Defendants’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the meaning of 

classification is ambiguous because the handbook does not define the term. He also 

acknowledged that—consistent with Foster’s and Jackson’s statements—Hurley still conducts 

layoffs by taking series into consideration. Even so, Defendants’ counsel urged that Roschival 

should not have bumped Dozier because they are not in the same series, as their job descriptions 

differ. But this conclusion is inconsistent with Jackson’s testimony that positions fall into a series 

when the “minimum entrance requirements” found in the job descriptions build on each other—

in other words, a more senior position in a series includes the skills of the junior position, and 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 16 of 25 Pg ID 400
17 

then some. (See Jackson Dep. at 43.) Indeed, while Roschival’s and Dozier’s job descriptions 

were different, Roschival’s position did include Dozier’s position’s minimum entrance 

requirements, and then some, which could suggest their positions fell within the same series. 

(See Pls. Ex. 12–13.) To add to the uncertainty, in contrast to Defendants’ counsel’s assertion 

about layoffs still occurring by series, his own witness, Roriex, testified, “I don’t recall a layoff 

happening by series.” (Roriex Dep. at 42.) 

This all suggests that some confusion surrounded how Hurley’s layoff procedures should 

have applied to Roschival. To be sure, both sides present reasonable interpretations of those 

procedures. But an issue of fact concerning Roriex’s application of the layoff procedures does 

not necessarily create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gavulic—the sole defendant 

for this claim—discriminated against Roschival for being white when she decided to defer to 

Roriex’s application of those procedures. 

2. 

This leads to the problem with Roschival’s claim: even if Gavulic did not want Dozier 

specifically to lose his job, and even if she deferred to an incorrect application of the layoff 

procedures to obtain that result, nothing ties this to Roschival’s race. 

Roschival hints that racial animus was at play by pointing out that Roriex, like Dozier, is 

black. (Pl.’s Resp. at 2, 12.) But in her testimony, Roschival denied that Gavulic or anyone else 

involved in the decision-making process had discriminatory animus toward her: 

Q. . . . Is there anything that Melany [Gavulic] has done or said that suggests 

to you that she discriminates against white people? 

A. No. 

Q. Is there anything that anybody else has told you, other than your lawyer, 

anything that anybody else has ever said to you that suggests to you that 

Melany discriminates against white people? 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 17 of 25 Pg ID 401
18 

A. No. 

Q. Is there anybody who was in the HR department at the time we’re talking 

about, August, July of 2014, that you think discriminates against white 

people and could have been involved in the decision to not let you bump? 

A. No, not that I’m aware of. 

(Roschival Dep. at 23.) 

Roschival’s only other evidence concerning racial discrimination has nothing to do with 

Gavulic. In particular, Roschival claims that a “discriminatory atmosphere surrounding layoff 

decisions” at Hurley demonstrates that she was “singled out for layoff for an impermissible 

reason.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 22.) 

As the Sixth Circuit has held, “Circumstantial evidence establishing the existence of a 

discriminatory atmosphere at the defendant’s workplace in turn may serve as circumstantial 

evidence of individualized discrimination directed at the plaintiff,” because “such evidence does 

tend to add ‘color’ to the employer’s decisionmaking processes and to the influences behind the 

actions taken with respect to the individual plaintiff.” Risch, 581 F.3d at 392 (quoting 

Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 356 (6th Cir. 1998)). Several factors 

guide the Court in determining whether evidence of a discriminatory atmosphere is probative of 

discrimination: “the [actor]’s position in the [employer’s] hierarchy, the purpose and content of 

the [conduct], and the temporal connection between the [conduct] and the challenged 

employment action, as well as whether the [conduct] buttresses other evidence of pretext.” 

Rachells, 732 F.3d at 665 (alterations in original). 

Roschival asserts that the evidence here “is very similar to the evidence presented by the 

plaintiff” in Rachells. (Pl.’s Resp. at 23.) That is a stretch. In Rachells, the plaintiff’s evidence of 

a discriminatory atmosphere was specific and temporally proximate to his termination. In 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 18 of 25 Pg ID 402
19 

particular, affidavits from two former employees showed that leading up to the plaintiff’s 

termination, (1) a senior manager promoted a white person to a management position “over more 

qualified minority candidates”; (2) the newly promoted white manager “gave undeservedly poor 

evaluations to minority employees, as well as preferential treatment in promotions and 

disciplinary actions to white employees”; and (3) the senior manager was “nonresponsive to 

minority employees’ complaints about discriminatory performance reviews.” Rachells, 732 F.3d 

at 669. The Court held that this evidence, along with the plaintiff’s “superior qualifications”—

including numerous accolades suggesting that he was given “an undeservedly poor review to 

create pretext for his discharge”—were sufficient for him to raise genuine issues of material fact 

on both the issue of pretext and the “additional evidence” required for a prima facie case in the 

reduction in force context. Id. at 668–69. 

In stark contrast to the evidence in Rachells, Roschival offers what amounts to little more 

than a conclusory, unsupported assertion that a discriminatory atmosphere existed at Hurley at 

some unspecified time, but clearly before Gavulic became CEO. As Jackson wrote in her 

affidavit: 

[T]here was a past practice within the Human Resource Department, and also 

within the hospital as a whole, that when reorganization/layoffs did occur, special 

preference was given to African-American employees in their retention. In other 

words, Hurley Medical Center made great strides to retain African-American 

employees during reorganizations and layoffs. Caucasian employees were not 

given the same consideration as African-American employees with respect to 

reorganizations/layoffs within the hospital. 

(Jackson Aff. ¶ 20.)8

 Jackson also testified that at unspecified times in the past, after proposing 

someone to layoff, “The union would sometimes say, ‘That person is African American. We 

 

8

 The Court notes that Foster’s affidavit, the substance of which was otherwise mostly 

verbatim with Jackson’s affidavit, did not contain this amorphous paragraph. At oral argument, 

counsel for Roschival stated that Foster’s human resources role was different from Jackson’s 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 19 of 25 Pg ID 403
20 

don’t want that person laid off.’” (Jackson Dep. at 71–73.) The Court finds that this does not help 

Roschival meet her burden to show that Gavulic’s reasons for terminating her were a pretext for 

racial discrimination. None of the factors discussed in Rachells and other cases suggest this 

evidence is probative of the alleged discrimination in this case. 

To start, Jackson’s testimony identifies no actors who carried out this alleged practice— 

other than her generalized mention of the “union”—let alone such actors’ “position in the 

hierarchy.” See Rachells, 732 F.3d at 665. Because Roschival and Dozier were both nonbargaining unit employees, the union’s past practice appears to have little relevance here. More 

important, nothing ties the union’s past practice to Gavulic—the sole Defendant for Roschival’s 

Section 1983 claim—who became CEO of Hurley only during the last two years of Roschival’s 

employment. 

Jackson’s testimony also sheds little light on the “purpose and content” of the alleged 

favoritism of black employees during layoffs, as the details are sparse. Rachells, 732 F.3d at 665. 

The Court notes, however, while Roschival does not discuss this, Hurley did at one time have an 

express affirmative action policy, which was contained in the older employment policy—dating 

to the 1970s—that Roschival attached to her response: “It shall be the responsibility of Hurley 

Medical Center to take affirmative action, as required by law, to assure that all levels of job 

categories are reasonably representative of the minority and sex composition of the Medical 

Center’s service area.” (Pl.’s Resp. Ex. 8, Older Policy at 3.) As a panel of the Sixth Circuit once 

observed, while “we have found no circuit precedent on point, our sister circuits recognize the 

existence of an affirmative action plan to be irrelevant to proving discrimination unless the 

employer acted discriminatorily pursuant to the plan.” Hagan v. Warner/Elektra/Atl. Corp., 92 F. 

 

human resources role, so Foster was not exposed to the practice of favoring African Americans 

during layoffs. There is nothing in the record that suggests Gavulic was so exposed. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 20 of 25 Pg ID 404
21 

App’x 264, 266–67 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing cases). Here, nothing suggests that this express policy, 

or the union’s practice described by Jackson, in any way influenced Gavulic’s decision to 

terminate Roschival. Indeed, when Jackson was asked whether she had any knowledge as to 

whether race was a factor in the decision to terminate Roschival, she testified, “I have no—I 

have no understanding that that would have been the situation. I know what has happened in the 

past.” (Jackson Dep. at 70.) And the express affirmative action policy from the older 

employment policy does not appear in the current employee handbook that everyone agrees 

applied to Roschival’s termination. 

Nor does Jackson’s testimony establish a temporal connection between the alleged 

minority favoritism and Roschival’s termination. See Rachells, 732 F.3d at 665. Jackson left 

Hurley in 2010, several years before Roschival’s 2014 termination and before Gavulic assumed 

her role as CEO. (Jackson Aff. ¶ 2.) Nothing even suggests that a practice favoring minorities 

during reorganizations even existed when Jackson left in 2010. She expressly described it as a 

“past practice” and mentioned no specific timeframe. (Id. ¶ 20.) True, “evidence of a . . . 

discriminatory atmosphere is not rendered irrelevant by its failure to coincide precisely with the 

particular actors or timeframe involved in the specific events that generated a claim of 

discriminatory treatment.” Rachells, 732 F.3d at 665. But Jackson’s statement provides no 

timeframe, context, or specific examples like the voluminous evidence of a discriminatory 

atmosphere discussed in Rachells—or other cases for that matter. See, e.g., Risch v. Royal Oak 

Police Dep’t, 581 F.3d 383, 392–94 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that evidence showed a 

discriminatory atmosphere because “male officers frequently made degrading comments 

regarding the capabilities of female officers, expressed the view that female officers would never 

be promoted to command positions, and made generally degrading remarks about women” and 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 21 of 25 Pg ID 405
22 

that a male officer “who occupied a senior position in the command staff, discriminated against 

female officers in distributing work”). 

Thus, Jackson’s testimony is nothing more than a conclusory assertion that a 

discriminatory atmosphere may have existed at Hurley at an unknown time in the past. The Court 

doubts the propriety of forcing Gavulic to inherit responsibility for a practice at Hurley by 

allowing the inference that she too acted with racial animus simply because the union may have 

at some time in the past. Without more support or details, the Court finds that, even when 

combined with Roschival’s other evidence, this evidence is not probative as to whether a 

discriminatory atmosphere existed at Hurley at the time of Roschival’s termination. It thus 

creates no genuine issue of material fact surrounding pretext. 

* * * 

In sum, on one hand, Defendants have undisputed evidence that they closed the 

Employee Health Office for legitimate reasons. In the process, they terminated Roschival instead 

of a black employee—one who had no connection to that office or Roschival’s duties—in a way 

they interpreted as consistent with Hurley’s current layoff procedures. Roschival acknowledges 

that no one involved in that decision had any discriminatory animus toward her. On the other 

hand, two former employees say that the layoff procedures should have been applied differently. 

But nothing suggests that any deviation from the policies had anything to do with race—other 

than vague testimony that at an unspecified time in the past, Hurley tended to favor black 

employees when conducting layoffs. The Court finds that this is not enough for a reasonable jury 

to conclude that Gavulic’s reasons for terminating Roschival were a pretext for racial 

discrimination. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment and dismiss Roschival’s 

Section 1983 claim. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 22 of 25 Pg ID 406
23 

IV. 

As the Court will grant summary judgment as to Roschival’s sole federal claim, this 

raises the question of whether the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the 

remaining state law claims. 

“Generally, once a federal court has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal law claim, it should 

not reach state law claims. Residual jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where the 

interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern 

over needlessly deciding state law issues.” Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 

521 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the Court finds that 

the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity litigation do not outweigh the 

concern of needlessly deciding state law issues. 

Roschival’s primary claim is wrongful termination under Michigan law. Defendants 

concede that Roschival was a “just cause” employee for purposes of this claim because the 

handbook “could have instilled legitimate expectations that she would not be terminated except 

for just cause.” (Defs.’ Resp. at 1–2.) But Roschival relies on a narrow theory for her claim. 

Specifically, in Boynton v. TRW, Inc., 858 F.2d 1178, 1184 (6th Cir. 1988) (en banc), the Sixth 

Circuit held that under Michigan law, a terminated “just cause” employee could not bring a 

wrongful discharge claim based on the “justness” of an employer’s termination decision that was 

“born of economic necessity.” Nevertheless, the Court observed that the plaintiff could still 

challenge the procedure his employer used in determining to discharge him instead of less senior 

co-workers. Id. Roschival also cites Damrow v. Thumb Co-op. Terminal, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 338, 

342–43 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983), where, outside of the reduction in force context, the Michigan 

Court of Appeals held that when an employer’s manual establishes its obligations to its 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 23 of 25 Pg ID 407
24 

employees, the employer must “comply with the rules set forth in the employee manual in 

discharging its employees.” 

Yet Boynton and Damrow were decided years before the Michigan Supreme Court held 

in McCart v. J. Walter Thompson USA, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Mich. 1991), that “bona fide 

economic reasons for discharge constitute ‘just cause.’” At oral argument, Roschival’s counsel 

urged that McCart concerned only the “justness” of the layoff—in other words, whether layoffs 

should have happened at all. If true, that would mean McCart left intact Boyton’s cause action 

for challenging layoff procedures. But the McCart court made clear that the plaintiff conceded 

that at the time of his termination, his employer was “reducing its work-force for economic 

reasons.” Id. at 286. So it seems that more than the “justness” may have been at issue. The 

plaintiff challenged that his discharge was wrongful for numerous reasons, including that it had 

“nothing to do with the reduction in work-force,” that “defendant attempted to disguise the true 

nature of plaintiff’s discharge by doing it in the course of a work layoff,” and that “‘numerous 

factual disputes’ existed such as . . . the method utilized by defendant to accomplish the 

discharge.” Id. at 286. The court held that summary disposition was appropriate because the 

plaintiff “failed to raise any genuine issue of fact regarding the validity of defendant’s proofs that 

adverse business conditions existed and that the elimination of plaintiff’s position was 

necessitated by those conditions.” Id. at 287. 

McCart thus clouds whether Boynton’s alternate path to relief—challenging the 

application of layoff procedures in a reduction in force case—is something a Michigan court 

would deem available under the Michigan law of wrongful termination. And Roschival has 

pointed to no post-McCart authority applying Boynton and Darrow in the way she urges. 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 24 of 25 Pg ID 408
25 

A Michigan court is better equipped to resolve this issue. And such a court would be as 

equipped as this one to resolve Roschival’s ELCRA claim. Thus, the Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over these two claims. 

V. 

For the reasons discussed, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 22) is 

GRANTED IN PART. Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count I of the amended 

complaint because Roschival has raised no genuine issue of material fact. The remaining counts 

are DISMISSED because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 

claims. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: May 26, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on May 26, 2016. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 26 Filed 05/26/16 Pg 25 of 25 Pg ID 409