Karen Hrapkiewicz v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University
330189
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Karen Hrapkiewicz, age 62, was terminated by Wayne State University (WSU) on Feb 28, 2011; she alleged age discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).
- Hrapkiewicz held multiple roles in DLAR (Vet Tech program director, clinical veterinarian, instructor); her long-time supervisor retired and Dr. Lisa Brossia became her new supervisor months before the termination.
- WSU cited three concerns as reasons for termination: a February 1, 2011 “snow day” incident (holding class when campus closed), classroom conduct, and alleged financial irregularities over petty-cash syllabi sales; the snow-day incident was treated as the primary reason.
- Hrapkiewicz argued she was replaced/reassigned to a younger employee (Susan Dibbley) and presented circumstantial evidence of pretext and age-related comments by supervisors.
- A jury found age was a motivating factor and awarded $300,000 in past economic damages; the trial court later awarded Hrapkiewicz attorney fees and costs under ELCRA; both parties appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established a prima facie age-discrimination claim | Hrapkiewicz argued she was in protected class, suffered adverse action, was qualified, and was replaced by a younger person (Dibbley reassigned) | WSU argued no evidence age was a factor and she was not "replaced" because duties were redistributed among existing staff | Court held plaintiff presented sufficient evidence (including reassignment to Dibbley and circumstantial proof) to create a jury question and satisfy prima facie elements |
| Whether the employer articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and whether plaintiff proved pretext | Hrapkiewicz argued WSU’s inconsistent explanations and circumstances showed pretext and age animus | WSU relied on the snow-day incident and other misconduct as legitimate reasons | Court held WSU produced reasons but inconsistencies and other evidence permitted a reasonable juror to infer pretext; denial of directed verdict/JNOV was proper |
| Whether the $300,000 past-economic award was excessive given plaintiff’s limited expectation of continued employment past June 30, 2011 | Hrapkiewicz argued loss of seniority, benefits, and diminished future employment prospects justified the award | WSU argued plaintiff could not reasonably expect employment past contract end and thus damages should be limited/reduced; also failure to mitigate | Court held verdict could reflect lost benefits, seniority, and other losses; evidence supported the award and mitigation finding was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs under MCL 37.2802 | Hrapkiewicz sought fees based on prevailing-party status, attorney experience, time, complexity, and local fee surveys | WSU challenged reasonableness of rates and some proof methods (argued counsel testimony was required) | Court held plaintiff was prevailing party; trial court reasonably applied Smith v Khouri factors, credited attorney testimony, and did not abuse discretion; WSU waived some procedural objections by assent |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456 (direct and circumstantial evidence standards for discrimination)
- Lytle v. Malady, 458 Mich. 153 (prima facie elements of age-discrimination and replacement analysis in reduction-in-force context)
- Smith v. Khouri, 481 Mich. 519 (factors for reasonableness of attorney-fee awards)
- Heaton v. Benton Constr. Co., 286 Mich. App. 528 (standard of review for directed verdict and JNOV)