JOHN MORALEZ V MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BD OF TRUSTEES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN MORALEZ,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES,
No. 279792
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 06-000793-CD
Defendant-Appellee.
JOHN MORALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES,
No. 281440
Court of Claims
LC No. 07-000067-MM
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
BECKERING, J. (concurring).
I concur in the outcome rendered by the majority, but write separately because I do not
agree with part of the majority’s analysis.
One of the issues before us is whether plaintiff John Moralez has presented sufficient
evidence of defendant Michigan State University’s alleged violation of the Elliot-Larson Civil
Rights Act (“CRA”), MCL 37.2101 et seq., to overcome a motion for summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(10). In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated MCL 37.2202(1)
by discriminating against him on the basis of race and national origin when it laid him off as a
television producer and on-air host with defendant’s public television station, WKAR-TV, and
failed to recall him in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
when he sought three other positions.
-1-
In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, entitling a plaintiff to a
presumption of discrimination, the plaintiff must prove that he was: “(1) a member of a
protected class, (2) subject to an adverse employment action, (3) qualified for the position, and
that (4) others, similarly situated and outside the protected class, were unaffected by the
employer’s adverse conduct.” Town v Michigan Bell Tele Co, 455 Mich 688, 695; 568 NW2d 64
(1997).1
Of significance in this case is whether plaintiff was qualified for the positions he sought
after being laid off as a television producer and on-air host. The trial court found, and the
majority agrees, that there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was not qualified for
the positions he sought. I respectfully disagree. Although defendant produced ample evidence
supporting its contention that plaintiff was not truly qualified for the positions, plaintiff produced
sufficient evidence regarding his education and prior experience to create a material question of
fact. Plaintiff produced evidence of his B.A. in journalism from defendant’s university and his
experience in television hosting and production, television news anchoring, management of a
television newsroom, public relations and business marketing, radio reporting, newspaper
reporting, editing, script writing, and research. At face value, his qualifications are not strikingly
dissimilar to defendant’s posted job descriptions, which contained “required” and “desired”
applicant qualifications. I would hold that plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to at least
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was qualified for the positions he
sought.2
In order to overcome the presumption of discrimination created after a plaintiff has
established a prima facie case, the defendant must produce evidence of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, whereafter the presumption
evaporates. Id. In this case, I agree with the trial court that defendant has produced evidence of
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s layoff and its decision not to hire him for the
other positions he sought. Defendant produced evidence of its budgetary problems, plaintiff’s
poor interview performance, his insufficient or outdated experience in certain areas particularly
critical to the positions he sought, and other problems associated with his presentation as a job
candidate.3
1
“The purpose of the prima facie test is to 1) remove the most common nondiscriminatory
reasons for the employer’s action, such as poor employee performance and 2) to force the
employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge.” Town, supra (citations
omitted).
2
If plaintiff’s qualifications are measured according to the terms of the CBA, plaintiff created a
genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he met the minimum requirements of one or
more of the positions he sought and could have performed the duties of the position within a 90day evaluation period.
3
Defendant also contends that plaintiff possesses poor writing skills as exemplified in writing
samples he provided and a performance writing test he completed, but such samples and tests
were not found in the record.
-2-
“Once the presumption drops out of the case, the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of
proving discrimination” by providing sufficient evidence “to permit a reasonable factfinder to
conclude that the discrimination was defendant’s true motive in making the adverse employment
decision.” Id. at 696 (citations omitted). I agree with the trial court that plaintiff failed to carry
his ultimate burden of proving that defendant’s stated reasons for its hiring decisions were a
mere pretext for discrimination. There is simply no record evidence that defendant’s motives
had anything to do with plaintiff’s race or national origin. Because plaintiff failed to produce
evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that discrimination was
defendant’s true motive in making its employment decisions, the trial court properly dismissed
plaintiff’s discrimination claim.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-3-
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.
