MICHAEL WASIELEWSKI V PRICE WATERHOUSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL WASIELEWSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
PRICE WATERHOUSE, LIONEL ENDSLEY, and
MATT SCHUYLER,
No. 195426
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-507767-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Corrigan, CJ, and Michael J. Kelly and Hoekstra, JJ.
MICHAEL J. KELLY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in granting defendants’
MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion for summary disposition as to plaintiff’s retaliation claim. However, I write
separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court was correct in summarily
disposing of plaintiff’s claim for handicap discrimination. Reviewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to plaintiff, I conclude that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition as to plaintiff’s claim for handicap discrimination under the Michigan Handicapper’s Civil
Rights Act (MHCRA), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq.
I acknowledge that the MHCRA specifically recognizes only three types of accommodation:
purchasing equipment and devices; hiring readers or interpreters; and restructuring jobs and altering
schedules for minor or infrequent duties. MCL 37.1210(2)-(6), (8)-(12), and (14)-(15); MSA
3.550(210)(2)-(6), (8)-(12), (14)-(15); Hall v Hackley Hospital, 210 Mich App 48, 53; 532 NW2d
893 (1995). I further agree with the majority that the MHCRA did not obligate defendants to hire extra
assistants to aid plaintiff in his job performance. However, I do not read plaintiff’s complaint as an
attempt to predicate his discrimination claim on defendants’ failure to hire extra workers. Other
workers assigned to the department pre existed the events which resulted in plaintiff’s handicap
discrimination claim. The essence of the claim involves withdrawal of established support.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Plaintiff was hired in 1980. Evidence established that Price Waterhouse promoted plaintiff to
supervisor of its Office Services Department in 1982, after laudatory job reviews. His 1986 back injury
required a laminectomy in 1991, after which he was restricted to lifting only 25 pounds and was
physically unable to perform extensive twisting or bending. While plaintiff’s supervisory duties
encompassed some lifting and moving, he also supervised several employees who did this work. In light
of plaintiff’s supervisory role, I think there exists a question whether plaintiff’s menial chores were
actually minor or infrequent duties as contemplated in MCL 37.1210(14)-(15); MSA 3.550(210)(14)
(15). If they were, I believe the MHCRA required defendants to restructure plaintiff’s job and alter his
schedule to eliminate sporadic lifting duties in order to accommodate his handicap, which severely
limited his ability to move heavy objects. Job restructuring may have required defendants to order other
employees to assume the minor or infrequent duties that plaintiff was unable to perform. However, this
is not the equivalent of hiring extra employees to assume plaintiff’s responsibilities. I do not find this
mode of accommodation to be inconsistent with the MHCRA.
In light of these considerations, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition as
to plaintiff’s handicap discrimination claim.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.