Georgia Brown v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 545 F. App'x 368

Background

Georgia Brown was hired by Detroit Medical Center (DMC) in 2008 and later became Administrative Director; she sought a raise after learning two subordinate physician assistants were paid more than she was.
Brown emailed payroll and supervisors about pay disparity but never invoked race, sex, or age discrimination in those communications and never raised those protected categories to her direct supervisor.
DMC identified performance problems: access-management failures, increased unpaid accounts, complaints from subordinates about Brown’s conduct, and 40 Medicare billing irregularities for which Brown’s unit was responsible.
Brown was placed on a 30-day Performance Improvement Plan in October 2010, failed to improve, and was terminated November 19, 2010.
She filed an EEOC charge alleging pay-based discrimination (Jan. 2011) and then a federal lawsuit asserting eight counts (Title VII, ADEA, Equal Pay Act, and Michigan tort claims).
The district court granted summary judgment to DMC, concluding Brown abandoned most claims by failing to defend them and that her remaining Title VII retaliation and public-policy claims failed on the merits; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Brown abandon claims she failed to address in response to summary judgment?	Brown did not meaningfully respond to most counts but argued some remedies overlap; asserted public-policy claim was preserved.	DMC argued unaddressed claims were abandoned.	Court: Brown abandoned Title VII race, sex, ADEA, Equal Pay Act, hostile-work-environment, IIED, and defamation claims; public-policy claim reviewed on merits because district court did not decide statute-of-limitations.
Whether Brown engaged in Title VII "protected activity" (opposition) sufficient for retaliation prima facie case	Brown argued emails and complaints about pay and reported Medicare billing problems constituted protected opposition.	DMC argued her emails did not allege discrimination on protected bases and did not put employer on notice of Title VII opposition.	Court: Emails did not mention race/sex/age or discrimination; not protected activity under Title VII; element not met.
Whether Brown can show DMC's stated reasons for termination were pretextual	Brown argued some errors were misattributed and her reporting of billing problems was motive for termination.	DMC pointed to legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: poor performance, PIP failure, subordinate complaints, billing/accountability issues.	Court: Brown failed to produce evidence rebutting DMC’s reasons or showing pretext; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether discharge violated Michigan public policy for reporting Medicare fraud	Brown relied on federal Medicare anti-fraud statutes and her reporting of billing errors as basis for wrongful-termination claim.	DMC argued no evidence Brown was fired for reporting or that she even communicated intent to report externally; statutory protections not invoked in complaint as separate count.	Court: No evidence termination was in retaliation for reporting or refusal to commit fraud; public-policy claim fails.

Key Cases Cited

Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (view evidence and inferences in nonmoving party’s favor on summary judgment)
Hicks v. Concorde Career Coll., 449 F. App’x 484 (6th Cir. 2011) (failure to address claims in opposition to summary judgment constitutes abandonment)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304 (6th Cir. 1989) (opposition activity must put employer on notice that complaint concerns statutory rights)
Suchodolski v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692 (Mich. 1982) (elements for Michigan public-policy wrongful discharge claim)