Opinion ID: 840228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dean

Text: Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient proof to demonstrate that the dean retaliated against plaintiff for making the E00 complaint. The bulk of plaintiff's evidence concerns the dean's alleged change in attitude toward plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that because the dean rated plaintiff highly before the E00 complaint but criticized plaintiff's performance afterwards in his recommendation against tenure, the only inference that may be drawn is that the dean criticized plaintiff's performance simply to retaliate for the EOO complaint. Moreover, plaintiff also ascribes a retaliatory motive to the shortened contract offered by the dean in December 1993. However, this Court has stated that [s]omething more than a temporal connection between protected conduct and an adverse employment action is required to show causation where discrimination-based retaliation is claimed. West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177, 186, 665 N.W.2d 468 (2003). In other words, the law permits a decision-maker to change his mind about an employee's performance, even after that employee has submitted a complaint regarding racial discrimination. To hold otherwise would be to inoculate an employee who makes such a complaint from ever suffering an adverse employment action. The fact that a plaintiff engages in a `protected activity' . . . does not immunize him from an otherwise legitimate, or unrelated, adverse job action. Id. at 187, 665 N.W.2d 468. West observed that a person could demonstrate the requisite causal connection by present[ing] evidence that his superior expressed clear displeasure with the protected activity engaged in by the plaintiff. Id. at 186-187, 665 N.W.2d 468. Thus, plaintiff could demonstrate that the dean harbored retaliatory animus, either by some expression of clear displeasure in regards to the complaint or by other evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the dean was displeased by the complaint. In this case, plaintiff attempts to forge the necessary causal connection by focusing on the dean's comments in faculty meetings regarding a sitar and curried lamb. Plaintiff argues that these comments constitute direct evidence of discriminatory animus by the dean; alternatively, he argues that, even if these comments are merely stray remarks, Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich. 124, 136, 666 N.W.2d 186 (2003), they constitute circumstantial evidence of bias. [2] In my judgment, these comments neither constitute direct evidence of discriminatory bias nor rise even to the level of stray remarks of bias. This Court has stated: Factors to consider in assessing whether statements are stray remarks include: (1) whether they were made by a decision maker or an agent within the scope of his employment, (2) whether they were related to the decision-making process, (3) whether they were vague and ambiguous or clearly reflective of discriminatory bias, (4) whether they were isolated or part of a pattern of biased comments, and (5) whether they were made close in time to the adverse employment decision. [ Sniecinski, supra at 136 n. 8, 666 N.W.2d 186.] Although the dean had a role in the decision-making process of the university, the other factors are not implicated here. The sitar and curried lamb comments were not made in relationship to the tenure decision; rather, these comments came in the midst of lengthy faculty meetings on unrelated subjects and they were not directed toward plaintiff. These comments were isolated and limited to these two meetings. Moreover, they took place over a year before the ultimate tenure decision was made. Most importantly, these comments are altogether irrelevant in suggesting animus or bias on the part of the dean; rather, they are mere cultural references made to elucidate general points having nothing to do with plaintiff or his tenure, and they indicate no hostility toward persons of Asian-Indian descent or any other ethnic heritage. [3] Accordingly, the sitar and curried lamb remarks are neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of the dean's alleged discriminatory bias. Moreover, even if these comments, could be reasonably construed to indicate discriminatory animuswhich I do not believe to be sothey must still be evaluated in light of whether they suggest any retaliatory animus on the part of the dean. That is, the only pertinent question here is whether the dean disdained plaintiff specifically for making the EOO complaint and responded adversely as a result. Absent such evidenceand there is noneplaintiff's claim of retaliation depends entirely on the temporal connection between the EOO complaint and the dean's change in attitude. Consequently, plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case of retaliation.