THOMAS CALLAHAN V UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
THOMAS CALLAHAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 223701
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-825337-CZ
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order dismissing his claims under the
Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff, a white man, sued defendant for retaliation in violation of § 701 of the Act,
MCL 37.2701. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under § 701 plaintiff must show the
following four elements: “(1) that he engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by
the defendant; (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4)
that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action.” DeFlaviis v Lord & Taylor, Inc, 223 Mich App 432, 436; 566 NW2d 661 (1997). The
record presented by the parties contains no evidence showing that Brucker or Waissi were aware
of plaintiff’s protected activities under the Civil Rights Act or that there was a causal connection
between plaintiff’s protected activities and the alleged retaliation. While Brucker and Waissi
were aware of the meeting where plaintiff said he was “appalled” and “disgusted” at the way
Brucker conducted the selection of the department chair, plaintiff’s own deposition testimony
indicates that he did not raise the issue of improper discrimination or Civil Rights Act violations
at that meeting. While plaintiff’s reports of possible discrimination to the EEOC officer and
provost would be protected under the Act, there is no evidence that Brucker or Waissi knew of
these protected actions, let alone that these actions motivated the alleged retaliation against
plaintiff. There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the required elements of
knowledge or causation, so defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under MCR
2.116(C)(10). Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
