Opinion ID: 4540613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title VII/ELCRA Framework

Text: Under Title VII, employers cannot “fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Before filing a lawsuit based on discrimination -10- No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC. Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 361-62 (6th Cir. 2010). In a failure to promote case based on circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must first show a prima facie case of discrimination by proving four elements: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for a promotion; (3) she was considered for and was denied the promotion; and (4) an individual of similar qualifications who was not a member of the protected class received the job at the time plaintiff’s request for the promotion was denied.” White v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 F.3d 232, 240 (6th Cir. 2005). If a plaintiff successfully establishes the prima facie case, then “the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.” Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651, 658 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted). A plaintiff can then “refute the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that an employer offers to justify an adverse employment action by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655, 670 (6th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). ELCRA claims “are analyzed under the same evidentiary framework used in Title VII cases.” Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 689 F.3d 642, 652 (6th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). Under ELCRA, however, “mere disproof of an employer’s proffered ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason is insufficient to survive summary disposition, unless such disproof also raises a triable question of discriminatory motive, not mere falsity.” Lytle v. Malady, 579 N.W.2d 906, 918 (Mich. 1998). -11- No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC