Opinion ID: 151595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fischer’s Internal Complaints Claim

Text: Fischer argues that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment in UPS’s favor on his Michigan state law claim that UPS retaliated against him for filing two internal complaints shortly before his termination. We review this claim de novo. Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576, 584 (6th Cir. 2009). Retaliation claims under Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act differ from Title VII in that they require not just proof of a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, but that the protected activity constituted a “significant factor” motivating the adverse action. See Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 628 N.W.2d 63, 70 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). - 14 - Nos. 08-1600 & 08-1601 Fischer v. UPS Other than the temporal proximity between the filing of his internal complaints and his termination, Fischer presented no evidence that his decision to engage in that protected activity prompted UPS to terminate him. Under Michigan’s heightened standard, the “[p]laintiff must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action.” West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 665 N.W.2d 468, 473 (Mich. 2003). With respect to his internal complaints claim, Fischer failed to present any evidence beyond temporal proximity. Neither Jarlett nor VanTilburg mentioned the internal complaints during the meetings leading to Fischer’s termination, and nothing in the record suggests that those complaints specifically motivated their decision. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to UPS on this claim.