Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint, summary disposition should be denied because the plaintiff has created genuine issues of material fact that she suffered disparate treatment, retaliation and a hostile work environment based on her sex.
“Defendant, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), seeks summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), of plaintiff, Kristy Klenke’s, complaint of employment discrimination under the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). MCL 37.2101 et seq. Plaintiff created genuine issues of material fact that she suffered disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment based on her sex. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion.
“As a female claiming she was discriminated against based on her sex, plaintiff is part of a protected class.
“And plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact that other similarly situated male employees were not so discriminated against. Plaintiff presented evidence to support that her male counterparts all received regular assignments without delay. Defendant contends that plaintiff was also treated differently from at least one other female corrections officer, Karisma Chevette. Chevette was assigned to the control center. However, plaintiff’s claims were focused on Jaramillo’s actions in relation to the second shift. Plaintiff testified that Chevette was on the third shift and, therefore, was under a different shift commander’s authority. Chevette’s assignment does not negate the question of fact created by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff established a prima facie claim of disparate treatment.
“The Court has already concluded that plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact that she suffered an adverse employment action. Plaintiff also presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant’s actions were taken in retaliation for her protected activities.
“Accordingly, plaintiff also established a prima facie case of retaliation.
“Plaintiff provided more than adequate evidence to support that she was subjected to unwanted communication and conduct based on her sex. …
“As plaintiff established prima facie claims of discrimination, the burden shifts to defendant to establish a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Defendant contends that it had a nondiscriminatory reason for denying plaintiff a permanent assignment—plaintiff did not request an assignment from Jaramillo. However, plaintiff testified that she requested a permanent position from Jaramillo on multiple occasions. This is an issue of credibility that the Court may not resolve at the summary disposition phase.
“Finally, plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s cited reasons for its actions were mere pretext.
“Ultimately, plaintiff overcame her burden in challenging defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff created genuine issues of material fact that defendant violated the ELCRA by discriminating against her based on her sex.”
Klenke v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.; MiLW No. 04-109887, 20 pages; Court of Claims; Patel, J.
