Gina K Hensley v. Botsford General Hospital, 323805

Plaintiff (Gina Hensley) worked at an off‑campus clinic run by Dr. Jeffrey Joshowitz and claimed frequent sexually explicit conversation and occasional sexually suggestive remarks by Joshowitz and coworkers.
She sometimes objected verbally to specific nicknames directed at her (e.g., “G‑spot,” “Taco”), and those epithets stopped after she complained.
Plaintiff had documented, ongoing performance problems and multiple disciplinary actions, including patient complaints and write‑ups; supervisors recommended termination.
On April 2, 2013, plaintiff emailed the practice administrator asking about transferring and complained of “unacceptable/inappropriate behavior” and unfair treatment; the email did not explicitly invoke sexual harassment or statutory discrimination.
Human resources (ultimately Barbara Palmer) recommended termination based on performance and patient complaints; plaintiff was terminated April 9, 2013.
Plaintiff sued under the Michigan Civil Rights Act for sexual harassment (dismissed as time‑barred) and unlawful retaliation; the trial court denied summary disposition on the retaliation claim, and defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff engaged in CRA‑protected activity (opposition or charge) before termination	Her verbal objections to offensive remarks and her April 2 email complaining of "inappropriate" conduct constituted opposition/charge under the CRA	Verbal objections were ordinary complaints and the email was vague; neither put employer on notice of an unlawful CRA claim	Held: No. Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity because objections and the vague email did not clearly convey opposition to unlawful discrimination or a CRA charge
Whether there is a causal connection (or "cat’s paw") between protected activity and termination	Even if HR decisionmakers did not know, Joshowitz’s alleged knowledge and influence created a causal link; cat’s paw liability applies	No decisionmaker knew of any CRA opposition before the firing; termination was based on documented performance issues and complaints	Held: No. No sufficient causal connection; decisionmakers were unaware of protected activity, and timing/evidence do not support retaliation or cat’s paw liability

Garg v. Macomb Co. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263 (retaliation elements and burden‑shifting under CRA)
Spiek v. Dep’t of Transp., 456 Mich. 331 (standard of review for summary disposition)
Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing opposition vs. participation; vague internal complaints insufficient)
Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 245 Mich. App. 306 (vague complaints not a "charge" under CRA)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw theory — supervisor’s discriminatory action can be imputed if it influenced decisionmaker)
Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (but‑for causation discussion in retaliation context)