PERLA D NAVARRO V HUTZEL HOSP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PERLA D. NAVARRO,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 242052
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-220302-NH
HUTZEL HOSPITAL and ROSALYN HALL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Murphy and Bandstra, JJ.
BANDSTRA, J. (separate opinion).
I agree with the conclusion of the per curiam opinion that the trial court’s dismissal of the
wrongful termination and breach of contract claims should be affirmed and that the trial court’s
dismissal of the claim for discrimination in failing to timely provide charge nurse training to
plaintiff should be reversed. However, I disagree with the per curiam opinion’s conclusion that
the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim and hostile
environment/harassment claim.
With respect to the retaliatory discharge claim, plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of
material fact that her discipline by defendant hospital was in any way causally linked to her
EEOC complaint. See DeFlaviis v Lord & Taylor, Inc, 223 Mich App 432, 436; 566 NW2d 661
(1997). Plaintiff argues that her write-ups became more frequent after she made her EEOC
complaint but the record reveals that plaintiff had been written up regularly and consistently
since she was hired, both before and after she filed the complaint. Further, plaintiff does not
dispute that most of the write-ups were justified.
Plaintiff also argues that the hospital’s disciplinary policy was not followed but, in fact,
the record shows that it was. Having been written up repeatedly in the past, plaintiff was placed
on disciplinary probation on November 10, 1998, for an “act detrimental to [the] well-being” of a
patient and was informed that this meant that “any further rule violation (major or minor) may
result in dismissal over the next year.” When plaintiff was disciplined again during this period,
-1-
she was terminated. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the policy was improperly applied in her
case.1
To be sure, Hall’s conduct in informing her staff that someone had accused her of
unlawful discrimination and that she wanted “very much to hurt” that complainant was
inappropriate. However, plaintiff is required to demonstrate more than inappropriate behavior to
proceed on a retaliatory discharge theory. Because plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of
material fact regarding a causal connection between her exercising of her rights and her many
disciplinary actions, summary disposition of the retaliatory discharge claim was appropriate.
With respect to the hostile environment/harassment claim, “to survive summary
disposition, plaintiff had to present documentary evidence to the trial court that a genuine issue
existed regarding whether a reasonable person would find that, in the totality of circumstances,
[the alleged conduct was] sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.”
Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 369; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). Instead, plaintiff
merely states in a conclusory fashion that a “severe and pervasive situation exists in the instant
case.”
It is insufficient for plaintiff to argue that defendant’s application of discipline against her
was “hostile” where plaintiff agrees that the conduct for which she was disciplined actually
occurred. While defendant hospital admitted that Hall’s comments referenced above were “not
appropriate,” its agreement with plaintiff on that assessment certainly does not show any
additional hostility against her. Although plaintiff argues that the EEOC right-to-sue letter is
sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a hostile work
environment/harassment claim she cites no authority for that proposition. Because plaintiff fails
to provide documentary evidence or compelling argument that conduct so severe and pervasive
to establish a hostile work environment occurred, summary disposition on this claim was
appropriately granted by the trial court.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
1
Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court improperly relied on the fact that she did not
immediately sue after her right-to-sue letter was issued by the EEOC is not supported by the
record, which does not indicate such reliance by the trial court.
-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.
