Kimberly Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16433
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ondricko, a MGM Grand Detroit Floor Supervisor, was terminated in May 2008 for allegedly participating in a bad shuffle at a blackjack table.
- The incident involved a shuffle where the wrong set of cards was ultimately used and Ondricko questioned the procedure and investigated a potential malfunction.
- MGM cited Rules of Conduct Policy 417 and related dealing procedures as the basis for Ondricko’s termination.
- Multiple other supervisors—predominantly male, with varied misconduct—were disciplined or terminated for shuffle-related issues, creating a challenged comparator landscape.
- O’Connor, a MGM decisionmaker, stated during a meeting about the termination: “how could I keep the white girl,” suggesting racial considerations in the termination decision.
- The district court granted summary judgment to MGM, and Ondricko appeals arguing direct evidence and mixed-motive circumstantial theories were applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mixed-motive analysis applies to Title VII claims here | Ondricko gave notice of mixed motives in briefing and responses. | MGM did not frame or rely on mixed-motive analysis. | Ondricko entitled to mixed-motive analysis for Title VII claims. |
| Direct evidence of race discrimination under Title VII | O’Connor’s statement shows discriminatory motive. | Statement is not direct evidence of discrimination. | Direct-evidence showing race-based motive; summary judgment improper. |
| ELCRA gender discrimination analysis under McDonnell Douglas | Disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators shows pretext. | Difference in discipline does not show pretext or comparable treatment. | ELCRA gender claim survives under McDonnell Douglas framework; pretext shown. |
| ELCRA race discrimination with circumstantial evidence | Prima facie case plus evidence of pretext support discrimination claim. | Strictly compliant nondiscriminatory reasons exist. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; district court erred in granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006) (mixed-motive framework may apply when motivating factors are present)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2003) (describes alternative mixed-motive proof using direct or circumstantial evidence)
- Town v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 568 N.W.2d 64 (Mich. 1997) (McDonnell Douglas framework for Michigan ELCRA discrimination claims)
- Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 666 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. 2003) (ELCRA evidence framework; direct vs circumstantial alignment with Title VII)
- Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1995) (discrimination motive can be inferred from treatment differences)