Court Opinion

ID: 9657407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:25:10.362637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:44.815347
License: Public Domain

C. O. Grathwohl, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. It is disingenuous to believe an employer will admit that a handicapped employee was discharged in violation of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq. The *135majority accepts the self-serving affidavits that plaintiffs future surgical expenses for rheumatoid arthritis and joint replacements played no part in the decision to terminate her.
Defendant set forth the reason for its termination of plaintiff in a December 17, 1991, document filed with the Michigan Employment Security Commission:
Resulting from divisional operations consolidation and subsequent work force reduction, this claimant’s functional responsibilities were eliminated along with other employee positions within this organization’s operations.
Plaintiff alleged that she would show that defendant had recalled 130 employees in 1991 and, further, that it had been necessary for defendant to hire a Kelly temporary employee to replace her during her sick leave. A review of plaintiffs work performance evaluations shows her to be a competent, dependable employee.
In Crittendon v Chrysler Corp, 178 Mich App 324; 443 NW2d 412 (1989), this Court held that summary disposition is inappropriate if the plaintiff might develop a record with respect to an issue on which reasonable minds could differ. Reasonable minds could differ regarding defendant’s motive in discharging the plaintiff, depending on the weight the jury gives to the testimony that plaintiff told her supervisors that she required additional surgeries and they had reports to the effect from her surgeon. In addition, the plaintiff testified that she was ostracized from the "team” after her last return from medical leave.
The trier of fact should determine if defendant had a legitimate business reason to discharge plaintiff or if the business reasons were merely a pretext. I would reverse and remand for trial.