BARBARA BROWN V DETROIT MED CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BARBARA BROWN, GAIL GRANBERRY,
PAULETTE WHITTED, TERESA ERQUHART,
NANCY HAIRSTON, RENEE BUSH and
GLORIA BLACK,
UNPUBLISHED
February 16, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 219060
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-735820-NO
DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, JOYCE
KENYON, JENE WYNN, DONNA MAYS,
LENNETTE SCOTT and SUSAN RITZERT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Doctoroff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the order granting defendants summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this employment discrimination action. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiffs were employed by Detroit Medical Center in various positions, and were
discharged for a variety of reasons. They brought this action under the Civil Rights Act, MCL
37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq., alleging that the discharges were discriminatory. The
trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiffs failed to
state a prima facie case of discrimination.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that the employee
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 Telephone Co, 455 Mich
688, 695; 568 NW2d 64 (1997). Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, a
presumption of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. Id.
Here, plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case. Under a disparate treatment theory,
plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case by showing that there were similarly situated workers
-1-
outside the protected class who were not subjected to adverse conduct. Id. Plaintiffs failed to
offer proof that would allow a finder of fact to conclude that similarly situated employees were
treated differently for the same conduct. Because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination, the circuit court properly granted summary disposition.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
