NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0345n.06

No. 19-1467

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TERESA GIBSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MGM GRAND DETROIT, L.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Teresa Gibson alleges gender 

discrimination under Title VII and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). After 

working at Defendant MGM Grand Detroit, LLC (MGM) for years as a plumber in the casino, 

Gibson applied for three different positions at MGM but was denied. Each position went to a man. 

She filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges related to two of the three 

positions and later brought suit against MGM. The district court granted summary judgment to 

MGM on all of Gibson’s claims. Even assuming that Gibson satisfies the prima facie case for each 

of the three positions, she still fails to create a genuine dispute that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—Gibson was not the most qualified candidate for any of the three 

positions—offered by MGM in all three cases was pretext. As such, we AFFIRM the district 

court. 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-2-

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statement of Facts

Teresa Gibson alleges that she suffered gender discrimination under Title VII and ELCRA 

over the course of two years when MGM denied her three different promotions. First, in 2015, 

Gibson applied for an engineering job (Engineer I-FACE) on the Fix and Clean Everything 

(FACE) team in the hotel. Next, in 2016, Gibson applied for an engineering position (Engineer 

II-FACE) in the hotel. Soon after, Gibson applied for another engineering position (Engineer IIIJourneyman) in the plumbing department. Gibson did not receive any of the three positions, and 

each went to a man. Jimmie Valentine and Ernest Lewis made all three hiring decisions. MGM 

and Gibson’s union partially negotiated the job requirements for each of the positions for which 

Gibson applied; we begin there. 

Labor Agreement- Descriptions of the Relevant Jobs

MGM bargained with the Detroit Casino Council and agreed on a job classification system 

for its maintenance and engineering employees. Maintenance trainees are classified into four 

different levels. Engineers are classified into three different levels with various specialties, 

including painting, engineering, carpentry, electrical, and plumbing. In the bargaining agreement, 

MGM and Detroit Casino Council agreed that union employees “shall be awarded promotional 

opportunities for which they are qualified before new [e]mployees are hired. The qualifications 

required for a position will be determined by the Employer; such determination shall not be 

arbitrary or capricious.”

Under the labor agreement, the parties agreed that all engineers are required to have a 

minimum of two years’ experience in building maintenance in the hospitality or service industry, 

or some equivalent maintenance experience. The lowest tier, Engineer I, requires a “trade related 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-3-

certification or license where mandated by trade regulatory requirements.” The next tier, Engineer 

II, requires (1) a minimum of 3-5 years building maintenance experience in the hospitality or 

service industry, or some equivalent experience in a different industry; (2) trade related 

certification or license where required;1(3) 2-5 years’ experience in Kitchen and Refrigeration (K 

& R); (4) Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Type II or better qualification; (5) Heating, Ventilation, and 

Air Conditioning (HVAC) 3rd Class Refrigeration license; and (6) passage of electrical courses. 

The next tier, Engineer III, requires (1) a minimum of 8 years of building maintenance experience 

in the hospitality or service industry, or some equivalent experience in a different industry; (2) 

trade related certification or license where required;2(3) 8 years of K & R experience; (4) Type III 

or Universal CFC license along with a First Class Refrigeration license or unlimited refrigeration 

Journeyman license; (5) electric, millwright, plumbing, locksmith, or journeyman experience; and 

(6) completion of 1000 hours of accredited schooling.

Teresa Gibson

Teresa Gibson began working at MGM in 1999 as a maintenance trainee. After completing 

her plumber’s certification, she became an Engineer I-Plumber in 2002 or 2003. Since then, she 

has not completed any other training, educational, or vocational programs, but she has hands-on 

experience in the casino. As of 2015, she had approximately 15 years’ experience working in the 

casino’s women’s bathrooms and kitchens. While not part of her every-day responsibilities, she 

also occasionally replaces receptacles and sockets, works in the carpentry shop, and does K & R 

work. Based on her experience working at MGM, Gibson also testified that, in her position as an 

Engineer I-Plumber, she does many, if not all, of the same things that an Engineer III-Plumber 

1 The agreement also notes that “[f]ive (5) years of trade experience may be an acceptable alternative for license 

requirements.”

2 The agreement also notes that “[e]ight (8) years of experience may be an acceptable alternative for the license 

requirement.”
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-4-

would do. She also testified that she has worked in the hotel “[a] few times,” taking occasional 

plumbing calls when needed.

Hiring Managers- Jimmie Valentine & Ernest Lewis

Lewis and Valentine were the hiring managers during the relevant time period, and they 

jointly interviewed and declined to promote Gibson. In 2010, MGM hired Lewis as an engineering 

supervisor, and he was promoted to engineering manager in 2011, a role in which he had hiring 

duties. Lewis testified that the only female employee he has ever interviewed for a promotion is 

Gibson. He also testified that he had previously offered a job to two female candidates, but they 

both declined. 

Valentine started working at MGM in 2000 as an engineer. He was quickly promoted to 

engineering supervisor, and, in 2003, he became an engineering manager, where he has hiring 

duties. He previously promoted a female employee Amy Winton to Engineer III-Painter. He also 

previously hired another female employee, Patty Logan, as an Engineer III-Plumber, and testified 

that Logan had a journeyman license.

The Other Candidates- Marcus Weldon & Joseph Davis

MGM promoted Marcus Weldon to fill the Engineer I-FACE and Engineer II-FACE 

positions over Gibson. Weldon worked as a housekeeper in the MGM hotel from 2007 to 2014. 

In 2014, he became a Maintenance Engineer Trainee on the FACE team where he worked for 

approximately ten to eleven months until he was promoted to the Engineer I-FACE position in 

2015. While he was working for the hotel as a housekeeper, Weldon also worked part-time as an 

electrical apprentice and completed an Associate Degree of Applied Science with a certificate in 

electronic engineering technology at a local community college. He was also working on getting 

certified in HVAC when he interviewed in 2015 for the Engineer II-Plumber position. As a 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-5-

housekeeper, Weldon regularly dealt with guests in the hotel, including delivering items to rooms 

for guests, and he also worked with the FACE team when the FACE team did paint projects or 

carpet repairs. 

MGM hired Joseph Davis to fill the Engineer III-Journeyman position in 2016. Although 

Davis was an external candidate, he had worked for MGM previously. Davis began working as a 

plumber in 1996. He earned his journeyman license in 2005 and his master plumber license in 

2011. Davis also held an HVAC certification.

First Position- Engineer I-FACE Team

In 2015, Gibson applied for a lateral position in the hotel: Engineer I-FACE. During the 

interview process, Valentine and Lewis used a rating system of 1 (low) to 5 (high) to rate Gibson 

and Weldon in various categories: technical experience, business acumen, customer focus, 

interpersonal communication, teamwork, related education/training, and computer skills. 

Valentine and Lewis also had the two of them give written answers to several questions. 

Gibson interviewed on May 19, 2015. Valentine gave her average to low marks in the 

various categories with 3s in business acumen, customer focus, interpersonal communication, and 

teamwork and 1s in technical experience and related education/training. Lewis gave her the exact 

same marks, with the exception of a 4 instead of a 3 for interpersonal communication. In the 

comments section on the interview sheet, Valentine wrote, “Has not done the job.” Lewis wrote, 

“Not enough hotel experience or knowledge of procedures.” 

Weldon interviewed the same day. Valentine gave Weldon high marks with 4s in technical 

expertise, interpersonal communication, and related education/training and 5s in business acumen, 

customer focus, and teamwork. Lewis gave the exact same scores with the exception of a 5 instead 

of a 4 for interpersonal communication. In the written comments, Valentine wrote, “Will work 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-6-

well . . . . Did well on the interview.” Lewis wrote, “Great interview. Great overall knowledge 

of job responsibility & guest service. Continuing his education with the union and university.”

MGM hired Weldon over Gibson, but Gibson did not file an EEOC charge based on that 

decision.

Second Position- Engineer II-FACE Team

Gibson applied for the Engineer II-FACE Team position in 2016. For this position, the 

parties provided a job description (in addition to the labor agreement requirements), and, as 

relevant, it requires (or prefers where indicated) (1) three years building maintenance in hospital 

or service industry, preferably in a hotel, resort, or industrial complex; (2) trade-related 

certification, with five years of experience as an acceptable alternative; (3) knowledge of 

mechanical, electrical, and basic guest room equipment; (4) previous experience repairing Bartech, 

Inncom, and NXTV systems; and (5) completion of post-secondary engineering program 

preferred.

Valentine and Lewis interviewed Gibson for this position on March 2, 2016, and they used 

the same interview sheet with a range of 1 (low) to 5 (high) for various categories. Valentine and 

Lewis both gave Gibson 2s in technical experience and related education/training, and they gave 

her 3s in business acumen, customer focus, interpersonal communication, and teamwork. 

Valentine commented, “[S]aid she dose [sic] not know the Hotel—But she should get the job—

worked here 17 years.” Lewis commented, “Candidate has never worked in a hotel and has no 

experience with Bartech, NXTV, Inncom.”

Valentine and Lewis interviewed Weldon the same day, using the same sheet. Valentine 

and Lewis both gave Weldon 4s in technical experience, business acumen, teamwork, and related 

education/training, and they gave Weldon 5s in customer focus and interpersonal communication. 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-7-

Valentine commented, “Will work well in Guest Service of the Hotel & Repair Service. Has done 

guest call’s [sic] and did a good job at it.” Lewis wrote, “Great interview. Candidate is very 

knowledgeable in Hotel service, engineer mechanical skills. Obtained AAS from HFCC while 

working with the Company. Recommended for promotion & Eng. II position.”

During their depositions, Valentine and Lewis both testified consistently with their 

contemporaneous notes and evaluations, noting that Weldon was more qualified for a hotel 

position. When asked whether Gibson’s 17 years of experience on the casino-side outweighed 

Weldon’s 15 months of experience on the hotel-side as an engineer, Valentine testified, “No. Once 

again, I’m basing this on guest interaction. I know Marcus is seeing three, four, five guests a day 

at a minimum, where Teresa may speak to several people going through the casino, but it’s not 

that type of interaction.” He continued, “She doesn’t have a lot of back and forth conversation 

with the guests on the floor, where Marcus is back and forth with the guests regularly.” Valentine 

also testified about Weldon’s teamwork, “Weldon was working with two or three other FACE 

team members at the time and they had to work as a team . . . to handle the guest calls and to learn 

all the systems, so he had more of that smaller, more intimate connection with the” FACE team. 

Later in the deposition, he also testified that Weldon had training on the mini bars, the television 

systems, and the phone systems.

Lewis testified that, when he asked Gibson if she had any skill sets for the hotel, Gibson 

said no. Lewis also testified that he had offered Gibson opportunities to work or shadow in the 

hotel to enhance her skill sets and learn the hotel, but, again, she refused. Finally, he testified that 

Gibson was not qualified for this position, “She did not have—possess the hospitality service 

within the hotel for that position, nor did she have the skill set to do that . . . .”
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-8-

Gibson testified, during her deposition, that she believed that Weldon was more qualified 

than her for the Engineer II-FACE position.

Third Position- Engineer III-Journeyman

Gibson applied for the Engineer III-Journeyman position at the same time that she applied 

for the Engineer II-FACE position, and Valentine and Lewis interviewed her for both at the same 

time. As such, her ratings are the same as previously noted in the last section. Valentine 

commented, “Dose [sic] not have a Journeyman license.” Lewis commented, “Candidate doesn’t 

have journey man’s plumbers license. (Required for position).” The position description 

specifically noted, “Journeyman license required.” 

Valentine and Lewis also interviewed and then hired Joseph Davis for this position. Lewis 

gave Davis 4s for business acumen, interpersonal communication, and teamwork and 5s for 

technical expertise, customer focus, and related education/training. Valentine gave the same 

scores, with the exception of a 5 instead of a 4 for business acumen. Lewis commented, “Great 

candidate, very knowledable [sic].” Valentine commented, “Would work well with the team.”

Again, Valentine and Lewis testified consistently with their contemporaneous notes. 

During his deposition, Lewis noted that a journeyman’s license was required for the position. 

Valentine said the same, “[A]s far as the [Engineer III-Journeyman position], she didn’t have the 

journeyman license.” He testified that, “If they don’t present me with a journeyman’s license, I’m 

not going to put down to proceed forward because they don’t have it.” Valentine also explained 

that, while the labor agreement says that experience may be a substitute for a journeyman’s license, 

it was not in this case based on the job description and qualifications for this specific position.3

3 Valentine’s testimony is also consistent with the wording of the labor agreement. It states that “[e]ight (8) years of 

experience may be an acceptable alternative for the license requirement.” Furthermore, the agreement also states that 

“[t]he qualifications required for a position will be determined by” MGM.
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-9-

B. Procedural History

On March 21, 2016, Gibson filed a charge with the EEOC. She wrote:

I began my employment with [MGM] on May 28, 1999. I am currently employed 

as an Engineer One. 

On February 1, 2016, and again on February 26, 2016, I applied two separate 

positions. One position for an Engineer Two and the second one Engineer Three. 

The first position was awarded to a less senior[,] less qualified employee; the 

second was awarded to an outside employee. I have the most seniority. 

I believe I was denied promotional opportunities due to my gender, female, in 

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

She made no mention of the Engineer I-FACE position in the charge. 

On May 25, 2017, Gibson filed a complaint against MGM in state court in Wayne County, 

Michigan, alleging violations of Title VII and ELCRA. MGM properly removed the case to 

federal district court. 

On May 21, 2018, MGM moved for summary judgment. Initially, the district court denied 

MGM’s motion. After this Court released our opinion in McDaniels v. Plymouth-Canton Cmty. 

Sch., 755 F. App’x 461 (6th Cir. 2018), however, the district court asked for briefing on whether 

that decision should change its analysis on summary judgment. After allowing the parties to brief 

the issue, the district court reversed itself and granted summary judgment in favor of MGM. 

For the first position (Engineer I-FACE), the district court held that her claim “fails on 

exhaustion grounds under Title VII, and on the merits under both Title VII and ELCRA.” For the 

second position (Engineer II-FACE), the district court held, “Since Plaintiff has raised no genuine 

issue of material fact as to the pretextual character of MGM’s stated rationale for its decision to 

award the ‘Engineer II – FACE Team’ position to Weldon, MGM is entitled to summary judgment 

on Plaintiff’s Title VII and ELCRA claims . . . .” For the third position (Engineer III-Journeyman), 

the district court found that “Plaintiff has offered no evidence on which a reasonable jury could 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-10-

find that this proffered explanation[—Davis was more experienced and had a journeyman’s 

license—]was pretextual” and, thus, granted summary judgment to MGM.

Gibson moved for reconsideration on February 7, 2019, but the district court denied that 

motion on April 10, 2019. Gibson, then, filed her notice of appeal on April 29, 2019.

II. LAW

A. Standard of Review

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Romans v. Mich. 

Dep’t of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826, 835 (6th Cir. 2012). “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. Civ. P. 56(a). A “[d]efendant bears 

the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to at least one essential 

element of Plaintiff’s claims.” Romans, 668 F.3d at 835. A genuine dispute exists when a plaintiff 

presents “sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in [her] favor.” Id. When 

reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, we draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. 

“Normally, we review a district court’s decision regarding a motion for reconsideration for 

an abuse of discretion. Where, however, as here, the motion seeks reconsideration of a summaryjudgment grant, we review the decision de novo as though we were reviewing the summary 

judgment grant.” Jimkoski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 247 F. App’x 654, 659 (6th Cir. 

2007). 

B. Title VII/ELCRA Framework

Under Title VII, employers cannot “fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of 

such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Before filing a lawsuit based on discrimination 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-11-

under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the

EEOC. Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 361-62 (6th Cir. 2010). 

In a failure to promote case based on circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first show a 

prima facie case of discrimination by proving four elements: “(1) she is a member of a protected 

class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for a promotion; (3) she was considered for and was 

denied the promotion; and (4) an individual of similar qualifications who was not a member of the 

protected class received the job at the time plaintiff’s request for the promotion was denied.” White 

v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 F.3d 232, 240 (6th Cir. 2005).

If a plaintiff successfully establishes the prima facie case, then “the burden of production 

shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.” Cline 

v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651, 658 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted). A plaintiff 

can then “refute the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that an employer offers to justify an 

adverse employment action by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did 

not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the 

challenged conduct.” Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655, 670 (6th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). 

ELCRA claims “are analyzed under the same evidentiary framework used in Title VII 

cases.” Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 689 F.3d 642, 652 (6th Cir. 2012) (quotations 

omitted). Under ELCRA, however, “mere disproof of an employer’s proffered 

‘nondiscriminatory’ reason is insufficient to survive summary disposition, unless such disproof 

also raises a triable question of discriminatory motive, not mere falsity.” Lytle v. Malady, 579 

N.W.2d 906, 918 (Mich. 1998). 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-12-

C. McDaniels

Because the district court reversed its decision based on this Court’s decision in McDaniels 

v. Plymouth-Canton Cmty. Sch., 755 F. App’x 461 (6th Cir. 2018), it warrants some initial 

discussion. In McDaniels, the defendant, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (PCCS) 

organized its maintenance employees into a three-tier system with custodians, assistant head 

maintenance custodians, and plant engineers. Id. at 463. PCCS had one or two female plant 

engineers, but the current maintenance director had never actually hired a female plant engineer. 

Id. at 465. 

The plaintiff alleged sex discrimination because she was passed over three times when she 

applied to be a plant engineer, each time in favor of a man. Id. at 463. By agreement between the 

union and PCCS, maintenance employees could take a series of courses that would help during 

promotion decisions. Id. at 463-64. The plaintiff had taken every single one of those courses 

except one. Id. at 464. For one of the positions, PCCS hired someone who had only worked for 

them for one year, id. at 466, whereas the plaintiff had worked for PCCS for approximately 16 

years, id. at 464. 

After the plaintiff established her prima facie case, PCCS offered two legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing men for the plant engineer positions: (1) the men had 

“demonstrated hands-on experience to a greater degree than” the plaintiff and (2) “some of the 

hiring decisions were motivated by the stronger familiarity and personal relationships that 

members of the hiring committees had with the successful candidates.” Id. at 469. 

The Court noted that “an employer may give greater weight to some qualifications than 

others and may look to qualifications that are not expressly articulated in the job description.” Id.

at 470. The Court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff had failed “to show that a reasonable jury 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-13-

could find that [the d]efendant’s articulated non-discriminatory motive was pretext for gender 

discrimination.” Id at 472.

III. ANALYSIS

A. First Position- Engineer I-FACE Team

Gibson does not dispute that the district court correctly dismissed her Title VII claim for 

the Engineer I-FACE position based on her failure to include it in her EEOC charge, so we deal 

only with her ELCRA claim on appeal. Furthermore, MGM does not dispute that Gibson met the 

prima facie case for this position; as such, we examine whether the district court correctly 

determined that Gibson has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could 

reasonably find in her favor on the issue of pretext. See Romans, 668 F.3d at 835. Gibson has not 

presented sufficient evidence to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason offered by MGM. 

MGM argues that it hired Weldon over Gibson for the Engineer I-FACE position because 

MGM believed that Weldon was more qualified for the position. Gibson responds that she had 16 

years of experience as a plumber in the casino versus Weldon’s six months4 of experience working 

as a maintenance engineer trainee in the hotel. Gibson also argues that Valentine’s and Lewis’ 

failure to promote women in the past is evidence that the proffered reason was pretext. 

Because we do not have a specific job description for this position, we cannot know exactly 

what all the qualifications were for the Engineer I-FACE team position, but, in McDaniels, we 

held that employers could look at qualifications not expressly articulated in the job description and 

give greater weight to some qualifications over others. McDaniels, 755 F. App’x at 470. So, even 

if we assume that the job description did not include anything about hotel experience, there is 

nothing improper about MGM considering hotel experience if it can prove that it actually 

4 Gibson fails to explain where she got this number, and the evidence shows that Weldon had worked as a maintenance 

trainee for approximately ten to eleven months.
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-14-

considered that experience at the time and is not offering it now as a pretextual reason for hiring 

Weldon over Gibson. 

Looking at their contemporaneous notes, it is clear that Valentine and Lewis considered 

hotel experience and continuing education in their hiring decision. The notes from the interviews 

show that they valued the hotel experience of Weldon, who also had years of experience dealing 

with guests on the hotel-side through his work in housekeeping. Meanwhile, Valentine and Lewis 

noted that Gibson did not have hotel experience. Furthermore, Gibson has offered no evidence to 

demonstrate that Valentine and Gibson did not consider hotel experience important in the hiring 

decision, Lytle, 579 N.W.2d at 918, and Gibson testified that she had only worked in the hotel a 

few times. In addition to the hotel experience, Lewis also noted that Weldon was continuing his 

education while Gibson had not taken classes since 2003. Accordingly, Gibson has failed to offer 

sufficient evidence to rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason offered by MGM.

Furthermore, Gibson’s repeated claim that Valentine and Lewis had never promoted a 

female before is contradicted by the evidence. Valentine specifically testified that he was involved 

in the promotion of Amy Winton to Engineer III-Painter. Additionally, both Valentine and Lewis 

testified that they offered other positions to female applicants. Besides offering conclusory 

allegations in brief after brief, Gibson has failed to rebut that testimony.

We, therefore, affirm the district court in its grant of summary judgment on the claims 

related to the Engineer I-FACE team position. 

B. Second Position- Engineer II-FACE Team

MGM does not argue that Gibson failed to meet the prima facie case, and, instead, it offers 

a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring Weldon over Gibson for the second time: 
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-15-

Weldon was again more qualified than Gibson. Gibson fails to offer sufficient evidence to rebut 

this reason.5 

Gibson cannot show that the proffered reason “has no basis in fact.” Grace, 521 F.3d at 

670. On the contrary, she herself testified that she believed that Weldon was more qualified for 

the Engineer II position. 

Furthermore, she cannot show that the proffered reason “did not actually motivate the 

defendant’s challenged conduct[] or [] was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Grace, 

521 F.3d at 670. The position description mentions qualifications or background knowledge that 

Weldon had that Gibson did not. Specifically, the position description called for hotel experience, 

knowledge of basic guest room equipment, and experience with the tv, internet, and phone 

systems. Weldon had that experience and background while Gibson did not, as Gibson admitted. 

Moreover, the contemporaneous notes of the interviews show that Valentine and Lewis considered 

just that during the interview process, with Lewis specifically commenting on Gibson’s lack of 

hotel experience and experience with the tv, internet, and phone systems. Valentine also noted 

that Gibson said she did not have hotel experience during the interview. On the other hand, 

Valentine and Lewis both noted during their interview with Weldon that he had hotel experience. 

Finally, Gibson has failed to persuade us that this lack of hotel experience was an insufficient 

reason to warrant hiring Weldon over Gibson.

As we did in McDaniels, we find that Gibson “is unable to show that a reasonable jury 

could find that [MGM’s] articulated non-discriminatory motive was pretext for gender 

discrimination under any of the three approaches,” McDaniels, 755 F. App’x at 472, and we affirm 

5 Because the analyses under ELCRA and Title VII are almost identical, Ondricko, 689 F.3d at 652, we treat them like 

singular claims.
No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

-16-

the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MGM on Gibson’s claims related to the Engineer 

II position. 

C. Third Position- Engineer III-Journeyman

Finally, as to the Engineer III position, MGM again argues that it hired Joseph Davis 

because he was more qualified than Gibson.6 Gibson fails to rebut that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and offers almost no argument on the issue. Both Valentine and Lewis noted 

that Gibson did not have a journeyman license for plumbing during the interview. Meanwhile, the 

interview questionnaires show that Davis had journeyman and master plumber licenses. 

In her brief, Gibson does not argue that she was more qualified than Davis, but instead 

focuses on the collective bargaining agreement, which states that MGM should promote from 

within if there is a qualified candidate. Even if true, however, that does not rebut that Davis was 

more qualified. Gibson may have some claim with the union or some other cause of action, but it 

does not create a genuine dispute on the issue regarding whether Davis was more qualified than 

her for the Engineer III position. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Gibson’s claims 

related to the Engineer III position. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Gibson has failed to create a genuine dispute regarding MGM’s proffered 

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring Weldon and Davis over Gibson, we AFFIRM

the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MGM. 

6 MGM also argues that Gibson was not even qualified for the job and that her case should fail at the prima facie stage. 

Because the pretext analysis is so straightforward, we assume, without deciding, that Gibson was qualified for the 

position.