Amy MacDonald-Bass v. JE Johnson Contracting, Inc., 493 F. App'x 718

MacDonald-Bass, a female hired October 23, 2006 in JEJ's pipefitting department, was the only woman initially and faced concerns about physically lifting heavy pipe components.
Her job required standing, bending, climbing, and lifting up to 50 pounds; she was educated and evaluated through wage increases and a multi-month training path, including the ABC learning program and an isometric-readings emphasis.
She progressed from helper to apprentice pipe fitter one in May 2007 yet argued she lacked sufficient hands-on experience compared to male peers and that others advanced with more practical training.
From 2007 to early 2008 she suffered shoulder and back issues, resulting in medical restrictions (no lifting >5 pounds) and multiple medical visits documenting ongoing pain and limitations.
In May 2008 she was laid off due to reduced work and in June 2008 JEJ terminated her citing inability to perform the physical duties, with safety and performance concerns cited by management.
In February 2009 JEJ extended an unconditional offer to return as a pipefitter; MacDonald-Bass did not return and underwent right shoulder surgery July 1, 2009; she later argued she could have performed duties post-surgery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case of sex discrimination	MacDonald-Bass claims similarly situated males were treated better.	Rowley not similarly situated; Praither not comparable; differing relevant qualifications and circumstances.	No prima facie case; Rowley and Praither not sufficiently similar.
Pretext for discrimination	JEJ's reasons shifted and relied on post hoc training deficiencies; hands-on training denied despite alleged needs.	Reasons tied to physical inability and performance; no pretext; Johnson had honest belief supported by coworker reports.	No pretext; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons supported; summary judgment affirmed.
WDCA retaliation claim	Timely filing of worker's compensation claim and close temporal proximity to discharge show retaliation; Johnson's hurt/anticipation statements support causation.	Temporal proximity alone insufficient; no evidence that filing claim significantly influenced termination; prior leaves without adverse action.	No causal connection; WDCA claim fails; retaliation claim rejected.
ELCRA/Title VII waiver and other defenses	Claims should be considered; Smith/White concurrence suggests broader view of discrimination.	Claims waived or subsumed; evidence supports dismissal of ELCRA/Title VII claims.	Claims deemed waived or subsumed; district court affirmed on these grounds.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (clarifies prima facie case and pretext framework)
Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, 581 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2009) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework in Sixth Circuit)
Vincent v. Brewer, 514 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2007) (prima facie elements and comparable evidence guidance)
Noble v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 391 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2004) (similarly situated standard and comparative analysis guidance)
Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (shifting nondiscriminatory reasons may indicate pretext)
Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc treatment of pretext and circumstantial evidence)
Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (pretext standard: employer’s honest belief can support summary judgment)
West v. GMC, 469 Mich. 177 (Michigan Supreme Court 2003) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove causation in retaliation)
Garg v. Macomb County Community Mental Health Serv., 472 Mich. 263 (Mich. Supreme Court 2005) (causation standards in Michigan retaliation cases)