Flis called plaintiff into his office and asked him what he had said. Plaintiff was sent home before his shift ended on the night of the incident, which turned out to be his last night of employment. Plaintiff's employment was eventually officially terminated. Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendants' motion for summary disposition. Defendants sought interlocutory leave to appeal in this Court, which was granted.
Defendants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary disposition.
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo. The HCRA protects individuals from discrimination based upon their handicapped status. Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because he has not demonstrated that his TS is unrelated to his ability to perform his job. Plaintiff's offensive language, which he admitted to using on a daily basis in the presence of customers, children, and other employees, made him unfit for his job as a bagger as a matter of law. In reaching this holding, we emphasize that there certainly are jobs that persons with TS and coprolalia could perform.