CHERYL JEAN MACK V MACOMB INTERMEDIATE SCHL DIST
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHERYL JEAN MACK,
UNPUBLISHED
August 28, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MACOMB
INTERMEDIATE
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
and
CECILIA
JEANNETTE
WESOLOWSKI,
No. 223995
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 98-002596-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Gage and C. H. Miel*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants’ motion for
summary disposition in this employment discrimination action. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Gibson
v Neelis, 227 Mich App 187, 189; 575 NW2d 313 (1997). A motion brought under MCR
2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court must
consider not only the pleadings, but also depositions, affidavits, admissions and other
documentary evidence, MCR 2.116(G)(5), and must give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to
the nonmoving party, being liberal in finding a genuine issue of material fact. Summary
disposition is appropriate only if the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence
establishing the existence of a material factual dispute. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich
446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
Whether a plaintiff claims that she was the victim of intentional discrimination motivated
by the defendant’s predisposition to discriminate against persons in the plaintiff’s class or
whether a plaintiff claims that the defendants’ discriminatory intent can be inferred from the fact
that she was treated differently than similarly situated employees in a different class, she must
show that she was subject to an adverse employment action. Wilcoxon v Minnesota Mining &
Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 360-361; 597 NW2d 250 (1999).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
In this case, plaintiff was called into three meetings to discuss the appropriate use of sick
leave but no action was taken against her. When viewed objectively, such evidence does not
permit a reasonable inference that plaintiff was subjected to a materially adverse employment
action. Id. at 364. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s racial
discrimination claim.
A necessary element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is that the
defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Teadt v Lutheran Church Missouri
Synod, 237 Mich App 567, 582; 603 NW2d 816 (1999). For an employer to call an employee
into three meetings to discuss the appropriate use of sick leave may constitute an inconvenience
to or petty oppression of the employee but cannot, as a matter of law, reasonably be regarded as
being beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Doe v
Mills, 212 Mich App 73, 91; 536 NW2d 824 (1995). Therefore, the trial court did not err in
dismissing plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Charles H. Miel
-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.
