Nola Davis v. Ford Motor Company
329501
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (African-American woman) applied to Ford in Feb 2013 and denied prior convictions and prior discharges on the application; the application warned that misrepresentations could lead to termination.
- Plaintiff filed a sexual-harassment complaint in Oct 2013 and later sued Ford for harassment; during that litigation/investigation Ford obtained documents suggesting omissions on her application.
- HR reviewed plaintiff’s file, discovered a 2008 misdemeanor conviction and prior terminations (1994, 1995, 2005) that were not disclosed, and terminated her in June 2014 for falsifying the application.
- Plaintiff sued under the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), alleging retaliation and discrimination, arguing termination was pretext for retaliation for her protected activity (filing the harassment complaint/lawsuit).
- Ford moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), asserting it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (application falsification) and that the decisionmaker was unaware of plaintiff’s pending lawsuit.
- The trial court granted Ford’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding plaintiff failed to show a causal connection or that Ford’s reason was pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established a prima facie retaliation claim under ELCRA | Davis: filing the harassment complaint/lawsuit was a protected activity and was at least a motivating factor in her termination | Ford: plaintiff was fired for falsifying her application; HR independently discovered omissions and legitimately terminated her | Held: Plaintiff failed to establish causation; no prima facie retaliation claim established |
| Whether temporal proximity and circumstantial evidence suffice to show causation | Davis: termination soon after protected activity supports inference of retaliation | Ford: nine months elapsed; decisionmaker did not recall awareness of lawsuit; investigation arose from discovery requests, not retaliation | Held: Temporal proximity alone insufficient; record lacks evidence that protected activity was a significant factor |
| Whether Ford’s proffered reason was pretext for retaliation | Davis: Ford’s lack of produced examples of other terminations for falsification suggests pretext | Ford: HR affidavits/deposition show consistent practice of terminating for falsification; decisionmaker independently concluded falsification occurred | Held: Plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue that Ford’s reason was pretext for unlawful retaliation |
| Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) | Davis: factual disputes should preclude summary disposition | Ford: admissible evidence shows no material factual dispute on causation and legitimate reason for termination | Held: Affirmed—summary disposition for defendant appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing motions under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (1996) (evidence and inferences on (C)(10) review)
- DeBrow v. Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc., 463 Mich. 534 (2001) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting for ELCRA claims)
- Roulston v. Tendercare (Mich), Inc., 239 Mich. App. 270 (2000) (employer articulation of legitimate business reason)
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456 (2001) (plaintiff must show discrimination was motivating factor; pretext standard)
- Garg v. Macomb Co. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263 (2005) (elements of retaliation prima facie case under CRA/ELCRA)
- Rymal v. Baergen, 262 Mich. App. 274 (2004) (causation requires protected activity be a "significant factor")
- Barrett v. Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich. App. 306 (2001) (causation discussion cited in Rymal)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in circumstantial employment discrimination cases)