910 N.W.2d 654
Mich.2018Background
- Michigan Supreme Court considered an application for leave to appeal a March 9, 2017 Court of Appeals judgment and denied leave.
- Chief Justice Markman dissented, urging the Court to grant leave to decide the proper causation standard under Michigan's Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2202(1)(a).
- MCL 37.2202(1)(a) prohibits employer discrimination "because of" protected characteristics (e.g., age, race, sex).
- Michigan caselaw has been inconsistent: Hazle read CRA to allow a showing that a protected characteristic was "a motivating factor," while Hecht and Matras have been read to require "but-for" (causation in fact).
- The dissent cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s Gross decision (interpreting the ADEA) as persuasive authority that "because of" language supports a "but-for" causation standard.
- The dissent would grant review to resolve whether Michigan’s "because of" language requires "but-for" causation rather than the lower "motivating factor" standard; the majority declined to take the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper causation standard under MCL 37.2202(1)(a) | Hazle: plaintiff may prevail if protected trait was a "motivating factor" | Defendant: "because of" requires "but-for" causation (higher standard) | Not resolved by majority (leave denied); dissent would adopt "but-for" standard |
| Whether to grant leave to appeal | Plaintiff implicitly seeks review to affirm lower-court outcome | Defendant seeks review to change/clarify causation standard | Leave to appeal DENIED by Court; dissent would have GRANTED |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456, 628 N.W.2d 515 (Michigan 2001) (CRA can be read to permit a "motivating factor" causation inquiry)
- Hecht v. Nat'l Heritage Academies, Inc., 499 Mich. 586, 886 N.W.2d 135 (Michigan 2016) (interpreting CRA as requiring "but-for" or causation in fact in some contexts)
- Matras v. Amoco Oil Co., 424 Mich. 675, 385 N.W.2d 586 (Michigan 1986) (discussion of causation principles)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S. Ct. 2343, 174 L. Ed. 2d 119 (U.S. 2009) (under ADEA’s "because of" language, plaintiff must prove "but-for" causation)
- Haynie v. Dep't of State Police, 468 Mich. 302, 664 N.W.2d 129 (Michigan 2003) (state CRA need not track federal analogues; federal precedent may be persuasive)
- Garg v. Macomb Co. Community Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263, 696 N.W.2d 646 (Michigan 2005) (federal precedent can guide state-law interpretation)