Opinion ID: 849201
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was Race a Motivating Factor in Defendants' Employment Decision?

Text: Reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff and drawing any reasonable inferences in her favor, we conclude that she has failed to create a triable issue for the jury concerning whether race was a motivating factor in defendants' employment decision. While plaintiff maintains that the office manager position did not in fact require knowledge of finance or accounting principles, it is fatal to plaintiff's claim that she has offered no record evidence that actually supports this position. We also note plaintiff's repeated assertion that, when she asked for an explanation for why she was not selected for the office manager position, she was told that Michelle Block had a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. This, of course, would have been a false explanation, given that Block had no college degree at all and that she never claimed to have one. Such evidence very likely would have provided a basis for a reasonable jury to infer unlawful discrimination. However, again, plaintiff has offered no evidence to support her claim. Instead of record evidence, plaintiff relies on a statement made by her attorney during the hearing on defendants' motion for summary disposition. That clearly is an inappropriate means of opposing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10). See Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120-121, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Furthermore, even if, as plaintiff claims, Block's application materials contained exaggerated and false information calling into question her qualification for the office manager position, there is no record evidence that any of this was known to defendants when they made their employment decision. Therefore, any subsequently discovered shortcomings in Block's credentials cannot possibly serve as a basis for an inference of unlawful discrimination. [15] For its part, the Court of Appeals held that discriminatory animus was shown by defendants' decision to hire Michelle Block despite the fact that she did not have a college degree, and by defendants' knowledge that Block would require considerable training in order to do her job. However, we fail to see how either observation could possibly support a jury finding that race was a motivating factor in defendants' employment decision. There is no dispute that Block did not have a college degree, and there is no evidence that defendants ever claimed that she did. Moreover, although plaintiff did have a college degree, it was in English, not in finance or accounting. The bottom line is that both plaintiff and Block lacked the preferred qualification of a degree in finance or accounting. Thus, the mere fact that defendants hired Block despite her lack of a college degree does not give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Finally, no record evidence suggests that plaintiff would have been able to assume the office manager position with any less training than Block required. Plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals for that matter, would have the jury second-guess defendants' business judgment concerning whether Block or plaintiff was better qualified. However, as we explained in Town, supra at 704, 568 N.W.2d 64: A plaintiff cannot simply show that the employer's decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent. [Citation omitted.] The only requirement is that, when evaluating its employees, employers are to evaluate them on the basis of their merits, in conjunction with the nature of their businesses at the time of the evaluation, and not on the basis of any discriminatory criterion. Id. at 710, 568 N.W.2d 64 (Riley, J., concurring). The essence of defendants' stated reasons for their decision to hire Michelle Block over plaintiff was that they did not believe that plaintiff was as qualified as Michelle Block for the office manager position. While plaintiff was not required to seek to show that she was in fact more qualified than Block in order to survive summary disposition, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the evidence in this case would permit a jury to find that defendants' explanation was a pretext for race discrimination. Other than her subjective claim that she was more qualified than Michelle Block, plaintiff has offered nothing to support her claim that defendants acted with racial animus. In our view, the following testimony from plaintiff's deposition accurately captures the dispute in this case: Q. Why do you believe that your race had anything to do with the selection of [Michelle Block] over you? A. Well, because I felt I was very qualified for the position and just from my own observation I just feel that I'm a better qualified person. They hired a Caucasian woman. So I felt it was a racial issue. Q. Do you have any other reason, any reason at all for thinking that your race had anything to do with the selection of [Block] over you? A. No. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether defendants relied on any discriminatory animus in making their employment decision.