Court Opinion

ID: 9591557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:05:02.90293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:10.923721
License: Public Domain

C. A. Nelson, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. As females, plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement that they be members of a statutorily protected class. However, I find that they have failed to demonstrate that they were treated discriminatorily vis-a-vis defendant’s male employees. Although it is true that all the plaintiffs in this case are females and at the time in question were the sole members of the gen*455eral labor/meter reader classification, the evidence shows that Donajkowski and McDonald are being paid substantially more than the maximum pay rate provided by it, that plaintiffs are not barred from moving from their classification to higher-level jobs, that defendant awarded pay increases to female employees other than plaintiffs, and that its failure to raise their wages is due to the economics of the marketplace, not gender discrimination. In my view, plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a prima facie case of discrimination, and summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) was therefore proper. Where, as here, the trial court reaches the correct result for the wrong reasons, the result will not be disturbed on appeal. Wilson v Acacia Park Cemetery Ass’n, 162 Mich App 638, 642; 413 NW2d 79 (1987). I would affirm.