Cassandra Harris v. Genesee County
328650
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Cassandra Harris and Dorahetta Peery (G‑Card employees) sued Genesee County, Genesee County Community Action Resource Department (G‑Card), and Steve Walker after losing jobs in two rounds of 2013 layoffs, asserting retaliation under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA) and claims under the Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).
- Harris had reported suspected improper payments to a contractor (Al‑Car/ Russell Carlson) to the FBI and filed internal complaints (including harassment allegations) in late September/early October 2013; an independent investigator found the harassment allegations unsubstantiated.
- Plaintiffs argued the November 2013 layoffs were pretextual: they claimed sufficient grant funding (focusing on the Community Service Block Grant) existed and that Walker retaliated for protected complaints; plaintiffs also alleged race- and sex‑based hostile conduct by Walker.
- Defendants presented evidence of significant multi‑grant budget shortfalls, PATH grant loss, uncertainty in federal funding for 2014, preexisting reorganizational planning before plaintiffs’ complaints, and Board/HR layoff approval procedures, asserting legitimate financial reasons for the layoffs.
- After a 14‑day trial, the jury found plaintiffs engaged in protected activity but that their protected activity did not cause any adverse employment action; verdicts favored defendants on all claims. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and JNOV; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel's trial remarks required a new trial | Counsel’s statements appealed to juror sympathy, racial bias, vouched for evidence, and made personal attacks — requiring reversal | Remarks were contextual, responsive to plaintiffs’ theory, invited by plaintiffs’ own conduct, and cured by jury instructions | No new trial; remarks not prejudicial enough to affect outcome |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to JNOV on WPA retaliation (causation) | Given undisputed job loss and jury finding of protected activity, causation was overwhelming — JNOV required | Evidence created factual disputes: budget deficits, preexisting reorganization, Board/HR procedures, and credibility issues — jury could reasonably reject causation | JNOV denied; reasonable jurors could find for defendants |
| Admissibility/effect of absent Al‑Car contract and Board resolution | Failure to produce contract and resolution prejudiced plaintiffs; defense counsel’s references were improper | Witnesses testified a contract and resolution existed; plaintiffs opened the door by cross‑examining and emphasizing absence | Court found defense remarks permissible in context; contract was peripheral and not outcome‑determinative |
| Whether references to race ("race card", slavery) were improper appeals to prejudice | Defense injected inflammatory, racially prejudicial argument requiring reversal | References were limited, responsive to plaintiffs’ race‑discrimination claim and plaintiffs’ own use of the terms; no effort to inflame jurors | No reversible error; remarks were contextual and jurors instructed to rely on evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Elliott v. A.J. Smith Contracting Co., 358 Mich. 398 (1960) (advocacy may be vigorous but must not prevent fair trial)
- Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co., 416 Mich. 97 (1982) (standard for reviewing attorney misconduct on appeal)
- Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hosp., 257 Mich. App. 488 (2003) (framework for determining whether counsel error requires relief)
- Ellsworth v. Hotel Corp. of Am., 236 Mich. App. 185 (1999) (attorney comments warrant reversal only if they control the verdict)
- Badalamenti v. William Beaumont Hosp.-Troy, 237 Mich. App. 278 (1999) (limitations on appeals to passion or prejudice)
- Bd. of Co. Rd. Comm’rs of Wayne Co. v. GLS LeasCo, Inc., 394 Mich. 126 (1975) (jury appeals to taxpayers/insurance issues are improper)
- Pace v. Edel‑Harrelson, 499 Mich. 1 (2016) (WPA protects reporting of suspected violations, not only actual violations)
- Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist., 495 Mich. 242 (2014) (elements of prima facie WPA claim and causation inquiry)
- Debano‑Griffin v. Lake Co., 493 Mich. 167 (2013) (burden shifting and pretext analysis in retaliation claims)
- Braverman v. Granger, 303 Mich. App. 587 (2014) (appellate review principles on preserved objections and counsel conduct)