415 F. App'x 632
6th Cir.2011Background
- Steward, an African-American woman, began working for Chrysler in 1997 as an hourly, unionized line worker at the Viper Plant in Detroit.
- Her employment application contained a six-month statute of limitations waiver for claims related to her service with Chrysler.
- From 1998, Steward alleged McKerley, a white supervisor, segregated the line and gave Africans-American workers harder or extra work, while sometimes favoring white workers.
- Steward’s performance and accommodations included a full-time assistant for a period due to her disability, later withdrawn in March 2005 for budgetary reasons.
- Steward filed an EEOC charge in March 2005 alleging disability discrimination; Chrysler placed her on paid layoff the next day for lack of accommodating positions.
- Steward sued in federal court asserting ELCRA, PWDCRA, ADA, retaliation, and IIED claims; district court granted summary judgment in Chrysler’s favor on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of waiver on timeliness | Steward argues waiver did not bar timely claims. | Chrysler contends six-month limit is enforceable and time-bar applies. | Waiver enforceable; some pre-February 2005 conduct time-barred, but some claims within the period remain. |
| Race discrimination via discrete acts | Steward asserts McKerley segregated line and assigned extra work to African-Americans. | Chrysler argues no adverse action or insufficient evidence of discrimination. | Summary judgment affirmed; no material adverse employment action shown; ELCRA claim not established. |
| Disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation | Steward contends Chrysler could have accommodated with ongoing assistance or alternative vacant positions. | Chrysler argues no feasible accommodation within budget and no specific requested position proven available. | Summary judgment affirmed; no prima facie case shown under ADA/PWDCRA; no duty to create new positions or displace others. |
| Retaliation against EEOC activity | Steward claims paid layoff followed her EEOC complaint as retaliation. | Chrysler asserts no knowledge of the protected activity when layoff decision was made. | Summary judgment affirmed; no causal link shown between protected activity and layoff. |
| IIED viability | Steward asserts extreme and outrageous conduct by segregation and handling of her assignment. | Chrysler argues IIED is not recognized by Michigan Supreme Court or lacks support in facts. | Summary judgment affirmed; IIED claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004) (enforceability of six-month limitation in employment applications)
- Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard and evidence view in ADA/ELCRA context)
- Conti v. Am. Axle and Mfg., Inc., 326 Fed.Appx. 900 (6th Cir. 2009) (ELCRA and Title VII alignment; summary disposition framework)
- Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (prima facie race discrimination framework under Title VII)
- Morgan v. City of New York, 536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court 2002) (expert framework for discrimination claims; hostile environment distinction)
- Bratten v. SSI Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 1999) (reasonable accommodation does not require creating new jobs)