SUSAN HAMMER V BILL KNAPP'S MICHIGAN INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SUSAN HAMMER,
UNPUBLISHED
March 3, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 212837
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 94-484981-NZ
BILL KNAPP’S MICHIGAN, INC., JAMIE L.
BROWN, and SCOTT SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Murphy and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before this Court pursuant to our Supreme Court’s order remanding the case for
consideration as on leave granted. See Hammer v Bill Knapp's Michigan, Inc, 458 Mich 852
(1998). On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s orders granting defendants summary disposition
in this sex discrimination action. We affirm.
This case arose out of plaintiff’s employment and subsequent termination from defendant Bill
Knapp’s Restaurant in Rochester, Michigan. Defendant Scott Smith was plaintiff’s former supervisor,
and defendant Jamie Brown is the vice-president of defendant Bill Knapp's. Plaintiff began working for
defendant Bill Knapp’s in November 1991. During the period between October 1992 and October
1993, plaintiff received three performance evaluations, which all ranked her performance as
“expected.” In December 1993, plaintiff announced to defendant Smith that she was pregnant. In
March 1994, plaintiff received her next review, which ranked her performance as “unacceptable.” In
May 1994, plaintiff was terminated. Upon her termination, she signed a Separation and Release
Agreement, pursuant to which she received a severance package, totaling $4,683.18. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a complaint against defendants, alleging sex discrimination (because of her pregnancy) in
violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et
seq., and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I
-1
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ second motion for summary
disposition, which dismissed her claims for sex discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. We disagree. A motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a
plaintiff's claim and is subject to de novo review. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597
NW2d 28 (1999). In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court considers the pleadings,
affidavits and other documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties, MCR
2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. The motion is properly granted if
the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact and the moving party
is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 454-455.
A
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ELCRA, a plaintiff must show
discrimination by either disparate treatment or intentional discrimination. Wolff v Automobile Club of
Michigan, 194 Mich App 6, 11; 486 NW2d 75 (1992). In order to establish a prima facie case of
intentional sex discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she was a member of a protected class, that she
was discharged or otherwise discriminated against with respect to employment, that the defendant was
predisposed to discriminate against persons in the class, and that the defendant acted upon that
disposition when the employment decision was made. Coleman-Nichols v Tixon Corp, 203 Mich
App 645, 651; 513 NW2d 441 (1994). In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination
under the disparate-treatment theory, a plaintiff must show that she was a member of a protected class,
and that, for the same conduct or performance, she was treated differently than a man. Id. If plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to defendant to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Id. If the defendant satisfies this burden of production, the
presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted. The burden of proof then shifts back to the
plaintiff, who must show that the employer's proffered reasons were not true reasons, but were a mere
pretext for discrimination. Id.
We hold that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her sex discrimination
claim. Plaintiff has failed to identify any statements or other evidence of discriminatory intent by
defendants. In fact, plaintiff admitted, during her deposition, that she did not have any evidence to
support her discrimination theory, only a “feeling.” Plaintiff in part bases this perception of a
discriminatory predisposition on the comment of defendant Smith, made upon learning that plaintiff was
pregnant, that he thought that she was not having any more children because her children were grown.
However, plaintiff admitted that her children were, in fact, grown, and that defendant Smith thereafter
congratulated her on the pregnancy. Further, defendant Smith continued to supervise plaintiff for more
than three months after her announcement, and no other “negative” comments were made to plaintiff
about her pregnancy.
Plaintiff nevertheless contends that her pregnancy announcement demarcates a sudden reversal
in the character of her treatment and evaluation by defendant Smith. Plaintiff argues that her intentional
discrimination claim is supported by her poor March 1994 evaluation, in which she received an
unacceptable rating despite a financial analysis showing that the restaurant had improved under her
leadership. We disagree.
-2
Plaintiff agreed in her deposition that the previous reviews were fair. Plaintiff also, at one point
in her deposition, maintained that the March 1994 review was poor “because of the management team
that she was given.” Consistent with her claim, however, plaintiff later indicated that she received the
unacceptable rating because of her pregnancy. We find that the comments in the March 1994 review
were job-related and were referenced to the previous review on October 1993, which discussed issues
relating to plaintiff’s managerial weaknesses. As such, the concerns expressed in her last two formal
performance reviews were consistent. In addition, in the March 1994 evaluation, defendant Smith
commented that plaintiff, “after hiring new staff, has not shown the ability to motivate this group to
achieve results. Results . . . have gotten worse not better.” This evidence indicates that defendant
Smith did not merely fabricate faults as a pretext to terminate plaintiff. Accordingly, defendants were
entitled to summary disposition on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim. See Kroll v Disney Store, Inc,
899 F Supp 344, 347-348 (ED Mich, 1995).
B
We likewise hold that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) extreme
and outrageous conduct, (2) intent or recklessness, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress.
See Roberts v Auto-Owners INS, Co, 422 Mich 594, 602; 374 NW2d 905 (1985); Haverbush v
Powelson, 217 Mich App 228, 234; 551 NW2d 206 (1996). In reviewing such a claim, it is initially
for the court to determine whether the defendant's conduct reasonably may be regarded as so extreme
and outrageous as to permit recovery. Doe v Mills, 212 Mich App 73, 92; 536 NW2d 824 (1995).
In assessing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, our Supreme Court has stated that the
following considerations should be used to determine whether alleged conduct constitutes extreme and
outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress:
Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,
and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of
the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim,
“Outrageous!”
The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats,
annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society
are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must
necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough
language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is
no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where some one's feelings are hurt.
There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve
must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam.
[Roberts, supra at 603, quoting Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, comment d, pp 72-73;
emphasis added.]
-3
Taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, and assuming that the alleged conduct may not be desirable
in the workplace, we nevertheless find that it is not "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in
degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Rather, the conduct complained of appears to be, at most,
“mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions,” which are not actionable. Id.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim.
II
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ third motion for summary
disposition, wherein she was ordered to return the consideration received in exchange for signing the
Separation and Release Agreement, because the motion was identical to defendants’ first motion for
summary disposition, which was dismissed. We disagree.
A review of the record shows that, in their first motion for summary disposition, defendants
claimed that the release agreement signed by plaintiff barred her from bringing a cause of action against
them. In denying defendants’ first motion, the trial court addressed only plaintiff’s ability to bring suit
against defendants. In contrast, in defendants’ third motion for summary disposition, defendants sought
return of the consideration, which would resolve their counter-complaint. In granting defendants’ third
motion, the trial court noted that there were only two issues before the court: 1) which party was entitled
to the consideration amount, and 2) whether defendant Bill Knapp’s was obligated to amend plaintiff’s
1994 W2 forms. Accordingly, contrary to plaintiff’s claims, defendants’ first and third motions resolved
different issues.
In addition, we reject plaintiff’s suggestion that she is entitled to the consideration under the
circumstances of this case. It is a well-settled principle of Michigan law that settlement agreements are
binding until rescinded for cause. Further, tender of consideration received is a condition precedent to
the right to repudiate a contract of settlement. Stefanac v Cranbrook Educational Community, 435
Mich 155, 163; 458 NW2d 56 (1990); Leahan v Stroh Brewery Co, 420 Mich 108, 112; 359
NW2d 524 (1984). Accordingly, the trial court correctly ordered plaintiff to return the consideration to
defendants, and properly granted defendants’ third motion for summary disposition.
III
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ second and third motions for
summary disposition because they were filed beyond the dispositive motion deadline set forth in the trial
court’s December 24, 1994, case scheduling order. Again, we disagree.
The case scheduling order that plaintiff relies on set, among other things, an August 1, 1995 trial
date, and a June 21, 1995 deadline for the completion of discovery and for filing all dispositive motions.
When the August 1, 1995 trial date was ultimately adjourned for several months, the discovery deadline
was also extended. For some reason, however, the scheduling order was never amended to reflect
these changes. The record shows that neither party, nor the court, complied with the December 24,
-4
1994, case scheduling order. Accordingly, once the trial date, as well as the discovery completion
dates were changed, the initial case scheduling order implicitly no longer controlled. Because
defendants’ motions were timely under MCR 2.116(B)(2) and (D)(3), and because plaintiff has failed to
indicate or demonstrate that she was prejudiced in any respect by the timing of defendants’ second and
third motions for summary disposition, we conclude that this issue is without merit.
IV
Finally, plaintiff argues that the trial court should have heard oral argument before deciding
defendants’ second motion for summary disposition. We disagree. We review a trial court’s decision
regarding a hearing for oral argument before deciding a motion for summary disposition for an abuse of
discretion. Fast Air, Inc v Knight, 235 Mich App 541, 550; 599 NW2d 489 (1999). MCR
2.119(E)(3) specifically authorizes the court, in its discretion, to dispense with or limit oral arguments
with regard to motions. Id. We find no abuse of discretion in this case, where the trial court was fully
apprised of the parties' positions, by way of the parties' briefs, before rendering a decision. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-5
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.