Plаintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) in this case involving claims of wrongful discharge and sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2202(l)(a); MSA 3.548(202)(l)(a). We affirm.
Plaintiff was hired by the City of Pontiac as a clerk-typist in November 1968. She trаnsferred to the position of clerk-typist for the 50th District Court in June 1972. * 1 Plaintiff transferred to the position of court reporter fоr Judge Richard E. Cunningham in February 1973. 2 Plaintiff alleged that she transferred to the position of court re *347 porter at the urging of Judge Cunningham, who allegedly made promises of job security in the event plaintiff ever ceased to be his court reporter.
Judge Cunningham retired in June 1988. James K. Conway, the 50th District Court Administrator, transferred plaintiff from the position of court reporter to a different position. Plaintiff alleged that a new position, that of court warrant officer, was created in July 1988 and that, despite hеr qualifications for the position, she was not considered for the position because she is a female. Plaintiff allеged that the position was filled by a male employee with less seniority and less experience.
In December 1988, plаintiff was notified that her employment would be terminated effective January 1, 1989. Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint on July 9, 1991, allеging wrongful discharge and sex discrimination. Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, which the trial court granted in an order dated January 12,1993.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition of her wrongful discharge claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). A motion for summary disрosition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone. All factual allegations in support of the claim are accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts.
Marcelletti v Bathani,
Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to afford her procedural due process in terminating her property interest in her employment. However, there is no dispute that, as a court reporter, plaintiff was an at-will employee. Plaintiff has not made any allegations in support of a finding of just-cause employment in her position as a court reporter. To the contrary, plaintiff’s allegation that Judge Cunningham told her that she could have a different position if she ceased to be employed as his court reporter suggests that there was no express agreement that the positiоn of court reporter would be a permanent just-cause position.
Further, the promises that Judge Cunningham allegedly madе to plaintiff are not enforceable because they exceeded his statutory authority.
Thorin v Bloomfield Hills Bd of Ed,
Plaintiff аlso argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition of her sex discrimination claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10). A motion for summary dispositiоn pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) may be granted where, except with regard to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue of materiаl fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Such a motion tests the factual basis of the claim. A cоurt reviewing the motion must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other documentary evidence in fаvor of the nonmoving party and grant the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the opposing party.
Radtke v Everett,
To avoid summary disposition of a claim of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a prima facie case of discrimination exists.
Coleman-Nichols v Tixon Corp,
In this case, there is no dispute that plaintiff was a member оf a protected class. However, plaintiff failed to apply for the position of court warrant officer and failed to allege any facts to support her allegation that she was qualified for the position. Hence, the triаl court properly granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender.
Affirmed.