Opinion ID: 2973076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ELCRA Claims

Text: Retaliation claims under ELCRA are subject to the same burden-shifting analysis that applies to Title VII claims. See Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 628 N.W.2d 515, 521-22 (Mich. 2001). To establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the act, a plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence“(1) that he engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) that the exercise of his civil rights was known to the defendant; (3) that, thereafter, the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Harrison v. Metro. Gov’t, 80 F.3d 1107, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647, 667 (6th Cir. 1999); see DeFlaviis v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 566 N.W.2d 661, 663-64 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). If the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must present a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its conduct. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). The burden then returns to the plaintiff, who must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s stated reasons serve as a pretext for retaliation. See id. In its ruling below, the district court found that Hopson could establish a prima facie case for retaliation and that the affidavit of David E. Stepaniak presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for DaimlerChrysler’s conduct. J.A. 384. However, the court found that Hopson produced no evidence that could substantiate that DaimlerChrysler’s claimed reasons for its employment 5 actions constituted a pretext for discrimination. J.A. 384-85. The evidence Hopson presented to the court for this purpose – Slater’s opinion, the Sase statistics, and Hopson’s employment record – showed race discrimination rather than retaliation and therefore “failed to show that Defendant’s proffered reasons for adverse employment actions are pretext to mask retaliation[.]” J.A. 385 (emphasis added). Due to this evidentiary inadequacy, the court correctly granted summary judgment for DaimlerChrysler on the ELCRA claims. Accordingly, this Court AFFIRMS the district court’s decision.