MARIE A MAJOR V MEIJER INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARIE A. MAJOR,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 207408
Monroe Circuit Court
LC No. 96-005591 CZ
MEIJER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Markman, P.J., and Saad and P.D. Houk,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff, an African-American, works for defendant as a loss prevention officer. Plaintiff filed
suit claiming that defendant engaged in racial discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. She alleged that she was improperly
transferred to the midnight shift based on an unsubstantiated allegation that she had broken a pair of
eyeglasses belonging to a white employee. Plaintiff alleged that the transfer caused significant
psychological damage in that it prevented her from caring for her terminally ill mother.
Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), and asserted that
plaintiff had been transferred to the midnight shift due to her conflicts with other employees on the first
shift, and because her part-time status offered greater scheduling flexibility. Defendant supported its
motion with affidavits and plaintiff’s deposition. The trial court granted the motion, finding that
defendant had met its burden of setting forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Harrison v
Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
The ELCRA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race. MCL 37.2202(1)(a);
MSA 3.548(202)(1)(a). In order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination/disparate
treatment under the ELCRA, a plaintiff must show that she was a member of a protected class, and that
for the same conduct she was treated differently than was a similarly situated member of a nonprotected
class. If the plaintiff makes a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant
to put forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. If the defendant does so, the burden
shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason was merely pretextual. See ColemanNichols v Tixon Corp, 203 Mich App 645, 651; 513 NW2d 441 (1994).
We affirm. Plaintiff failed to support her response to defendant’s motion for summary
disposition with affidavits or documentary evidence. She did not make those portions of her deposition
to which she referred a part of the record. Plaintiff’s reliance on the pleadings was insufficient to create
a genuine issue of material fact. MCR 2.116(G)(4).
The trial court’s finding that defendant met its burden of setting forth legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to transfer plaintiff to the midnight shift was not clearly
erroneous. Schellenberg v Rochester Elks, 228 Mich App 20, 36; 577 NW2d 163 (1998).
Defendant stated that plaintiff was transferred due to her inability to work harmoniously with various co
employees on the first shift, and because her part-time status offered greater scheduling flexibility. In
order to avoid summary disposition, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact
existed as to whether defendant’s proffered reasons for its actions were pretextual, and that
discrimination on the basis of race was defendant’s primary motive. Id., 34-35. Plaintiff failed to do so,
and offered only an unsubstantiated assumption that defendant’s actions were motivated by race.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. Houk
-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.