Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

Michigan Supreme Court Decides Three Important Cases

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers | Last reviewed March 26, 2008

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.

In Town v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, the Michigan Supreme Court recently upheld the dismissal of age and sex discrimination claims. The decision is significant because, for the first time, Michigan's highest court formally acknowledged the "same actor" principle in the context of discrimination claims, placing a greater burden on employees trying to prove discrimination.

Under the "same actor" principle (often used by federal courts in discrimination cases), when the same manager is involved in hiring and discharging an employee within a relatively short time period, there is an inference that the manager did not terminate the employee with a discriminatory motive. According to this reasoning, there is only a slight possibility that the manager responsible for hiring the employee could have developed an aversion to the employee's age or other protected attribute in such a short time period. Thus, employees who are hired and terminated under these circumstances will face a tougher battle proving that they were subjected to unlawful discrimination.

Normally, employees suing for discrimination must show that:

  1. they were members of a legally protected class,
  2. they were subjected to an adverse employment action,
  3. they were qualified for the job, and
  4. other employees similarly situated and outside of the protected class were unaffected by the employer's adverse employment decision.

Although employees may be able to produce evidence meeting all of the criteria, such evidence loses its effect once the employer articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for the employment action, such as poor work performance, violation of company rules or a bona fide workforce reduction.

At that point, employees must show that their employer's stated reason for the action is not the real reason. Before Town, it was unclear whether employees simply had to show that their employer's stated reason was false, or whether they also had to demonstrate that the action really was taken because of an illegal discriminatory motive. The Michigan Supreme Court now has given a clear answer -- employees have the ultimate burden of establishing both.

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard