Sometimes I finish reading an opinion and wonder how on earth did the employer pull out the win.
Was it great lawyering by defense counsel or poor lawyering by the plaintiff’s attorney? Perhaps it was just the right panel at the Michigan Court of Appeals, or the stars lined up right in the galaxy.
Wiegert v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, is such a case brought in Wayne County Circuit Court under the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, and ultimately appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals
Apparently, plaintiff Wiegert interviewed for a position in Blue Cross Blue Shield’s (BCBS) Human Performance Department. I don’t know if that is just the latest term for human resources, but his interview didn’t go well.
There were two individuals who conducted the interview, Valarie Keesee and Steven Weingarden. Midway through the interview, the plaintiff realized it was not going well, so he told them that he had a military related disability that caused him to “have a flat affect and lack of outward emotion, but he wanted them to know he was happy to be there.” They handled that well saying, “okay” and continuing with the interview.
The plaintiff received the lowest scores of the three candidates that were interviewed by both Keesee and Weingarden. Keesee had the final say, and the plaintiff was not selected.
A few weeks later, plaintiff was offered feedback on his interview by Weingarden. Does anyone think that this was a good idea? Me neither.
According to the plaintiff, Weingarden stated as follows:
[H]e was “an emotionless, monotone, like battle-scarred, shell-shocked veteran”; that Weingarden “had to work with someone just like [plaintiff] in grad school” and it “wasn’t good”; “You know, it’s part of being in the military, and it happens”; and, “There’s no way that you’re going to be able to ever work like in the applied world, which includes every corporation, every consulting firm, every job possibility … [s]o your best bet would just be to go to some no-name college in the middle of nowhere and just rot for the rest of your life.”
Whether Weingarden actually said this or the plaintiff misinterpreted what was said doesn’t really matter for purposes of a defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Generally, the court is required to construe the facts in the most favorable light for the non-moving party (plaintiff), so after reading this I thought BCBS is toast.
The plaintiff argued that this was “direct evidence” of discrimination. “Direct evidence of discrimination is ‘evidence that proves impermissible discriminatory bias without additional inference or presumption.’ … [One of] the ‘hallmarks’ of a case involving direct evidence of discrimination as a motivating factor for an adverse employment action [is] ‘a statement made by a decision-maker, to the plaintiff, at the meeting in which the plaintiff suffered the adverse employment decision, and evincing a causal nexus.’”
Okay, so I still thought…game over. Maybe the statements were not made at the interview, but if it was said just a few weeks later, it still seemed pretty damaging.
But, not so fast. The statement was made by Weingarden, not Keesee, who had the final say on the decision. The appellate court explained:
To conclude that Weingarden’s alleged discriminatory animus was a motivating factor to not hire plaintiff, a factfinder would have to assume (1) that Weingarden held this bias weeks before, (2) that Weingarden informed Keesee of his bias before Keesee made her decision, and, most significantly, (3) that Weingarden’s bias affected Keesee’s hiring decision.
“Plaintiff does not contest that, if there was no direct evidence of discrimination, the trial court’s decision was proper…”
Was that the only way his claim was pleaded? What about indirect evidence? What about the cat’s paw theory (that the person with the bias influenced the decision maker)?
The court upheld the dismissal. Confession, my jaw dropped when I reached the end of the story. I didn’t see this coming after reading Weingarden’s alleged statement.
Sometimes the stars do align properly.
- Of Counsel
An of counsel attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr has an ever-growing practice in Alternative Dispute ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Minimum Wage
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Agreement
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Regulatory Law
- OSHA Issues
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Title VII
- Hostile Work Environment
- Sick Leave
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Justice
- National Labor Relations Board
- Medicare Issues
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Unemployment Benefits
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Sexual Harassment
- Civil Rights
- Class Actions
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses
- Contractual Limitations Periods STILL Alive and Well... on job Applications!
- Federal Appellate Court Takes Brakes Off COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Employers: Hang on for Another Spin Around the Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Stray Comments can Lead to Employer Liability
- President Biden's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Face Uncertain Future