*1 Mich TELEPHONE COMPANY v MICHIGAN BELL RYMAR February at Detroit. Decided 120278. Docket No. Submitted appeal sought. to at 9:25 Leave a.m. brought Wayne Rymar in the Circuit Court an action Patricia Company, Telephone her former em- against Bell Bell, terminating alleging ployer, disorder, Handicappers’ violated the of an emotional Act, aeq.; aeq. Rights MSA Civil court, Gillis, Jr., J., H. denied John Bell, argued plaintiff’s that the disorder was for which had handicap it the act because was related a appealed by perform job. Bell to Appeals held: The Court of for sum- did not err in the motion The trial court mary person temporary can be remedied a perform person to time so to enable that a reasonable handicap purposes particular a of the the duties of a Act, Rights prohibits employment Handicappers’ Civil which handicap. employee’s the basis of an discrimination on question 2. In this there remains cease ad- disorder would to job. versely perform affect her indistinguish- P.J., dissenting, Reilly, stated that Screw able from Ashworth Jefferson (1989), Handicappers’ that the Civil where was held only Rights Act those whose disabilities are unrelated perform jobs. She reverse the trial would their abilities summary disposition. denial of court’s Rights Temporary Rights — — Handicappers’ Act Civil Civil Employment — Discrimination. Disabilities particular person the duties of a who is unable References 2d, Am Jur Job Discrimination §§ Persons; Index to Annotations under Disablied Emotioned See the Injury. Rymar Michigan position temporary disability because of a that can be remedied n within reasonable time so as to enable that person handicap person may those duties has a for which that seek the protections against employment provided by (MCL Handicappers’ 37.1101 et *2 seq.). et 3.550[101] Fagan, (by Fagan), Barry Dib & P.C. S. for the plaintiff. Demetry White,
Albert Calille and Laura for the defendant. Shepherd Marilyn Reilly, P.J.,
Before: and and Kelly, JJ.
Marilyn employment J. This is an dis- Kelly, crimination claim filed under the cappers’ Handi- (mhcra). seq. The trial court denied summary defendant’s motion for 2.116(C)(8). MCR appeals by Defendant the decision affirm. We plaintiff 8, 1988, On March took a two-month terminally leave of absence to care for her ill mother. Her mother died on March 20. Plaintiff sought granted then leave which extended and defendant her a medical
through May May Plaintiff was unable to return to work requested an extension. Defendant informed by July her that she must return or it guarantee reemployment. could not again Plaintiff was unable work. She a letter submitted physician stating, however, that she would be August to return on at the earliest. Defen- plaintiff’s employment dant terminated on June On filed a claim for compensation. disability workers’ She listed her ongoing August 28, an emotional disorder. On she employment suit. She filed compensa- workers’ withdrew her later argues appeal, trial court defendant that On disposi motion for its erred ques there is maintains tion. Defendant that, on the date tion disability ability
was related to disability job. Therefore, her was not a Corp, v General Motors the mhcra. under 425 Mich defendant (1986). Alternatively, 313; the time of termination claims that at not in a restored” condi disability Thus, fall within the she did not tion. categories in the mhcra. described only those disabilities mhcra whose The perform their are unrelated jobs. capable performing the duties
must be position. to one’s *3 particular position the of a is not duties meaning Carr, the act. within the of 315-316, 321-322. question that, on of the date termi
There is
job
nation,
unable
her
was
disability. Michigan
law
of
consistently
as
used the date of termination
the
point
disability.
the
of a
relevant
assess
status
Inc,
(1989);
App 737;
Bowerman v
440 NW2d
Lithographing,
Malloy
110, 116;
171 Mich
(1988);
Doman v Grosse Pointe
430 NW2d
App 536,
Farms,
542;
meets attain the can performance required the levels a reason- time, must, by given he law be the same opportunity applicants posi- as other secure the Emphasis [Carr, added.] representation was made this case that defendant denied plaintiff the same leave time as other An employees. give must its em- employer heal, time ployee a reasonable like condi- tions other employees, long so as the delay does not impede getting employer’s work done. Ashworth, 747-749.
In plain- on the date of tiff’s disability was to do her job. Her condition was not restored.” However, there remains unanswered a question would cease to adversely affect to do work, in a putting her restored condition.
Plaintiff’s mhcra so unen clearly forceable as a matter law that no factual devel opment could a right of justify recovery. Scameh Bucks, 302, 306; eorn v 167 Mich App court trial did not err in *4 the motion for rights civil
handicappers’ claim. P.J. by Reilly, Dissent J.,
Shepherd, concurred. (dissenting). Reilly, P.J. The facts of this case facts in distinguishable from the Inc, 737; 440 I concur in that majority and would reverse opinion this case.