MICHALSKI v. BAR-LEVAV
Case Details
- Citation
- 463 Mich. 723
- Judge(s)
- Corrigan, C.J., and Taylor, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred with Weaver, J.; Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- State
- Michigan
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the defendant employer, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the employer regarded her as having a condition that substantially limited her major life activities at the time of employment. The case was remanded for consideration of plaintiff's alternative theory of actual handicap.
Excerpt
MICHALSKI v BAR-LEVAV Docket No. 114107. Argued January 16, 2001 (Calendar No. 1). Decided May 1, 2001. Claudia Michalski and her husband brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against her employer, Reuven Bar-Levav, M.D., for damages under the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, alleging harassment after she informed the defendant of a tentative diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis. The court, Barry L. Howard, J., after discovery, granted summary disposition for the defendant, concluding that there was no evidence that the condition the plaintiff was perceived to have was a condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and that there was no evidence to suggest that during the time at issue the defendant had any knowledge that one or more of the plaintiff’s major life activities was limited. The Court of Appeals, Markey, RJ., and Sawyer, J. (Whitbeck, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), reversed in an unpublished opinion per curiam, holding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of handicap discrimination and that the mere fact that she was symptom-free should not preclude her cause of action (Docket No. 204033). The defendant appeals. In an opinion by Justice Weaver, joined by Chief Justice Corrigan, and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman, the Supreme Court held: The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact concerning whether the defendant regarded her as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic that substantially limited one or more of her major life activities. 1. Under the hcra, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a handicap unrelated to the ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position. To establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate a handicap as defined by the hcra that is unrelated to the ability to perform the duties of the job, and discrimination as enumerated in the statute. 2. To qualify for protection under subsection (iii), an employee must be regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic that substantially limits one or more major life activities. While a plaintiff need not actually have a determinable physical or mental characteristic, to qualify as handicapped under subsection (iii), the plaintiff must prove that he was regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic, that the perceived characteristic was regarded as substantially limiting one or more of the plaintiff’s major life activities, and that the perceived characteristic was regarded as being unrelated either to the plaintiff’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or to the plaintiff’s qualifications for employment or promotion. Moreover, depending on whether the claim is brought under subsection (i) (actual handicap) or subsection (iii) (perceived handicap), because of the present-tense language used in the statute, courts must evaluate the physical or mental characteristic at issue either as it actually existed at the time of the plaintiff’s employment, or as it was perceived at the tune of the plaintiff’s employment. 3. Because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact with respect to whether the defendant regarded her as having a condition that substantially limited one or more of her major life activities, reversal and reinstatement of the summary disposition is required. Reversed and remanded. Justice Kelly, joined by Justice Cavanagh, dissenting, stated that the majority’s use of a narrow present-tense standard in interpreting the scope of subsection (iii) gives a meaning that the Legislature could not have intended. The well-settled purpose of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act is that a plaintiff need not display symptoms of a handicap to be protected. Rather, subsection (iii) is violated if an employer discriminates because it believes the employee is handicapped, even if the belief is erroneous. Under the majority’s rendering, a subsection (iii) claim becomes virtually indistinguishable from a claim under subsection (i). A better view would recognize that it is immaterial whether an employer who perceives an employee as having a substantial limitation, believes it to be present or future. If the employer discriminates because it perceives the employee to be handicapped or is becoming handicapped, it violates subsection (iii). Thus, subsection (iii) should be interpreted to contemplate a finding of discrimination for adverse acts against an employee arising from an employer’s perception of a handicap and the perception that the handicap threatens work, even in the future. The plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact whether the defendant discriminated against Ms. Michalski because he thought she was handicapped. A jury could infer that the defendant regarded Ms. Michalski as handicapped on the basis of her informing him that she had been tentatively diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and that he believed this might substantially limit her major life activities in the future. Considering the factual allegations and supporting documents in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a jury also could conclude that she was not handicapped and that the defendant acted on his faulty perception in violation of the civil rights act. Gary A. Kozma for the plaintiffs-appellees. John A. Zick for the defendants-appellants. Amici Curiae: Kienbaum, Opperwall, Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C. (by Thomas G. Kienbaum, Theodore R. Opperwall, and Noel D. Massie), for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. Clark Hill, P.L.C. (by Duane L. Tamacki, F.R. Damm, and Mary C. Dirkes), for Michigan Manufacturers Association. Weaver, J. Following a motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), plaintiff’s Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act claim was dismissed by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals reversed. The issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals properly concluded that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact with respect to whether defendant regarded her as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic that substantially limited one or more of her major life activities. We hold that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create such a question, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue. i On September 1, 1995, plaintiff signed an employment contract with defendant to begin work as an executive secretary on September 11, 1995. On September 4, 1995, plaintiff experienced numbness and tingling on her left side, which persisted for four days. She was seen by her family doctor, who referred her to Dr. Green, a neurologist. Plaintiff was able to begin work as scheduled. On September 23, 1995, plaintiff saw Dr. Green, who told her he suspected multiple sclerosis, but was unable to make a positive diagnosis at that time. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she told defendant and others at the office about this tentative diagnosis. Plaintiff maintains that, after she revealed her condition, defendant undertook a course of harassment, which she attributed to his perception of her medical condition. Dr. Green saw plaintiff again on October 28, 1995. At this time, plaintiff had no symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and Dr. Green indicated on her medical record that she was “doing fine, feels great.” Plaintiff continued to work without incident until December 28, 1995, when she left work, experiencing a loss of vision in one eye. She was seen by Dr. Green, who diagnosed multiple sclerosis. She was hospitalized for three days, and her vision improved after treatment. However, she did not return to work. Plaintiff brought this action alleging a violation of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (HCRA) and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. After discovery, defendant moved again for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The circuit court granted the motion, concluding: [T]here is no evidence that the condition that Plaintiff was perceived to have was a condition which substantially limits one or more for [sic] major life activities. And no evidence to suggest that the Defendant had any knowledge that one or more of the major life activities was limited. On January 26, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a two-to-one decision affirming the dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress count, but reversing the dismissal of plaintiffs handicap discrimination claim because it believed that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination. Relying on Sanchez v Lagoudakis, plaintiff argued that one could find that her condition was a handicap as defined by the statute because the HCRA prohibits discrimination, even when an individual does not exhibit symptoms of a handicap. A majority of the Court of Appeals agreed. Noting that under Sanchez, the focus is on the employer’s conduct and belief or intent, and not merely on the employee’s condition, the majority reasoned that the mere fact that plaintiff was symptom free should not preclude her cause of action. The Court of Appeals explained that an “individual with multiple sclerosis can lead a normal life until the next exacerbation, which occurs with varying frequency and degree.” Similarly, individuals with handicaps such as epilepsy and asthma may have periods of time where they are symptom free. Although plaintiff was not definitively diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, the Court of Appeals reasoned that applying Sanchez, in which the defendant based his employment decision on rumors that the plaintiff had aids, there was sufficient evidence to establish that in the present case, defendant may have regarded plaintiff as handicapped. The Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that she informed defendant from the beginning of her employment that her doctors suspected she had multiple sclerosis. Further, plaintiff periodically took some time off during September and October 1995 to undergo testing for multiple sclerosis and to receive treatment to lessen the side effects of some of the testing procedures. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor. Judge Whitbeck dissented. His dissent focused on the fact that the definition of “handicap” was altered by a 1990 amendment to the HCRA to require that the physical or mental characteristic in question substantially limit one or more major life activities of the individual. The version of the statute in effect at the time of the events in Sanchez did not include this requirement; thus, it was improper for the majority to rely on that case as support for its conclusion. The dissent reasoned that, under the applicable version of the hcra, the plain language of the statute required defendant to perceive plaintiff as having a characteristic that substantially limited a major life activity. Because plaintiff did not present any evidence that defendant regarded her as having a condition that substantially impaired a major life activity, the dissent concluded that summary disposition was properly granted. ' This Court granted leave to appeal. 461 Mich 1020 (2000). ii A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C) (10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff’s claim and is subject to de novo review. Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). In reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court considers the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The motion is properly granted if the documentary evidence presented shows that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The hcra provides that “[a]n employer shall not . . . [discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of a handicap[] that is unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position.” MCL 37.1202(l)(b); MSA 3.550(202)(l)(b). To establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he is handicapped as defined by the hcra, (2) the handicap is unrelated to his ability to perform the duties of his job, and (3) he was discriminated against in one of the ways described in the statute. Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 457 Mich 593, 602; 580 NW2d 817 (1998). The act, as amended in 1990, defines handicap for employment related purposes as follows: (i) A determinable physical or mental characteristic of an individual, which may result from disease, injury, congenital condition of birth, or functional disorder, if the characteristic: (A) For purposes of article 2, substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual and is unrelated to the individual’s qualifications for employment or promotion. * * * (ii) A history of a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). (iii) Being regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic described in subparagraph (i). [MCL 37.1103(e); MSA 3.550(103)(e).][] Relying on subsection (iii), plaintiff argued that defendant undertook a course of harassment because he perceived her as handicapped. Thus, resolution of this matter requires us to construe this subsection of the statute. Where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, its plain meaning reflects legislative intent, and judicial construction is not permitted. McKenzie v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 458 Mich 214, 217; 580 NW2d 424 (1998). In this case, we find that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. Considering the statute in its entirety, to qualify for protection under subsection (iii), an employee must be “regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic,” as that characteristic is described in subsection (i) (emphasis added). Subsection (i)(A) describes the determinable physical or mental characteristic as one that “substantially limits 1 or more of the major life activities of that individual . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The characteristic must also be unrelated either to “the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position” or to “the individual’s qualifications for employment or promotion.” Thus, while a plaintiff need not actually have a determinable physical or mental characteristic, to qualify as handicapped under subsection (iii), the plain statutory language does require that the plaintiff prove the following elements: (1) the plaintiff was regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic; (2) the perceived characteristic was regarded as substantially limiting one or more of the plaintiff’s major life activities; and (3) the perceived characteristic was regarded as being unrelated either to the plaintiff’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or to the plaintiff’s qualifications for employment or promotion. Only the first two elements are at issue in this case. We agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that reliance on Sanchez as support for the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals majority is misplaced. The version of the hcra in effect at the time of the events in Sanchez contained no requirement that the determinable physical or mental characteristic substantially limit a major life activity. Thus, under the pre-1990 version of the statute, a plaintiff only needed to be regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic. Finally, we note that the phrase “regarded as having,” found in subsection (iii), and the phrases “substantially limits” and “is unrelated” found in subsection (i)(A), all appear in the present tense. Depending on whether a plaintiff is proceeding under the “actual” or “regarded as” portions of the statute, because of the Legislature’s choice of present tense language in defining the term handicap, we must evaluate the physical or mental characteristic at issue either (1) as it actually existed at the time of the plaintiff’s employment, or (2) as it was perceived at the time of the plaintiff’s employment. Thus, to qualify for coverage under subsection (iii), plaintiff must be regarded as presently having a characteristic that currently creates a substantial limitation of a major life activity. In this case, plaintiff did not present any evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether defendant regarded her as having a characteristic that substantially limited a major life activity at the time she was his employee. She presented no evidence that Dr. Bar-Levav regarded her as unable to perform basic tasks of ordinary life. Indeed, from all indications, she was physically capable of performing her job duties. At most, plaintiff presented evidence that she informed defendant that she had been tentatively diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and that he believed that this might substantially limit her major life activities in the future. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary disposition on plaintiffs claim that she was regarded as handicapped under the hcra. Although plaintiff also argued in the Court of Appeals that she was actually handicapped pursuant to subsection (i) of the hcra, the Court of Appeals did not address this argument. Therefore, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of plaintiffs actual handicap theory. m In conclusion, we find that, in order to succeed on a claim brought under subsection (iii), the plain language of the statute requires an employee prove (1) that the employee was regarded as having a determinable physical or mental characteristic, (2) that the perceived characteristic was regarded as substantially limiting one or more of the plaintiffs major life activities, and (3) that the perceived characteristic was regarded as being unrelated either to the plaintiffs ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position or to the plaintiffs qualifications for employment or promotion. Moreover, depending on whether the claim is brought under subsection (i) (“actual” handicap) or subsection (iii) (“perceived” handicap), because of the present-tense language used in the statute, courts must evaluate the physical or mental characteristic at issue either (1) as it actually existed at the time of the plaintiffs employment, or (2) as it was perceived at the time of the plaintiffs employment. Because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether the defendant regarded her as having a characteristic that substantially limited one or more of her major life activities, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s ruling granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor on plaintiffs claim that she was regarded as handicapped pursuant to subsection (iii). We remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of plaintiff’s actual handicap theory. Corrigan, C.J., and Taylor, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred with Weaver, J. In 1998, after plaintiff filed her claim, the name of the act was changed to the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. 1998 PA 20, MCL 37.1101; MSA 3.550(101). This opinion will refer to the act as the Handi
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.