Breach of Contract Cases

CORLEY v DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION Docket No. 218528. Submitted January 9, 2001, at Detroit. Decided May 15, 2001, at 9:05 A.M. Leave to appeal sought. Patricia M. Corley brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against the Detroit Board of Education, Joseph Smith, and Barbara Finch, alleging discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., breach of contract, and intentional infliction of • emotional distress. The court, Wendy M. Baxter, J., granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, finding, in part, that the alleged adverse employment action against the plaintiff that was based on the plaintiff’s former intimate relationship with Smith, her supervisor, did not present a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the act. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. Adverse employment action against an employee based on the employee’s former intimate relationship with the employee’s supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the act. The court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of the defendants with regard to the plaintiffs sexual harassment claim. That part of the court’s order must be reversed and the matter must be remanded for further proceedings. 2. The plaintiff established sufficient facts for her claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment to survive a motion for summary disposition. 3. The plaintiff failed to present sufficient facts to support her theories of intentional sex discrimination or disparate treatment. Summary disposition of those claims of sex discrimination was proper and must be affirmed. 4. Reasonable minds could not find that the defendants’ conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The court did not err in dismissing the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 5. The court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim, which alleged an implied contract, on the basis that the claim concerned subject matter expressly covered by the plaintiff’s union contract. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Civil Rights — Sex Discrimination — Adverse Employment Actions. Alleged adverse employment action against an employee that is based on the employee’s former intimate relationship with the employee’s supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2101 et seg.). Ernest L. Jarrett, for the plaintiff. Plunkett & Cooney, PC. (by Christine D. Oldani, Kenneth L. Lewis, and Venessa Peterson Williams'), for the defendants. Before: Neff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen, JJ. Neff, P.J. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants on her claims of sex discrimination, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, following the termination of her adult education job with defendant Detroit Board of Education. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. i This appeal presents an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse employment action against an employee based on the employee’s former intimate relationship with the employee’s supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act (cra), MCL 37.2101 et seq. We conclude that it does, and, therefore, summary disposition of plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim in favor of defendants was improper. However, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants regarding plaintiff’s other claims of sex discrimination and her claims of breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. n Plaintiff was employed by defendant Detroit Board of Education as a full-time counselor at Cass Technical High School and, following a divorce in 1991, she took an additional part-time position in the adult education program at the Golightly Vocational Center operated by the board. An intimate, romantic relationship developed between plaintiff and her supervisor at Golightly, defendant Joseph Smith, that lasted nearly four years, but ended in 1995, when Smith became involved with defendant Barbara Finch, another Golightly administrator, whom he married in the spring of 1996. Because of plaintiffs past intimate relationship with Smith, problems arose at Golightly between plaintiff, Smith, and Finch. Following the 1995-96 school year, Smith informed plaintiff that her counseling job at Golightly would not be continued. Following the termination of her adult education position, plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination in violation of the CRA, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In her claims, plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, disparate treatment, and the unlawful termination of her employment because of her gender and her prior relationship with defendant Smith. The trial court initially granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants with regard to all claims except the breach of contract claim against the board and Smith. The court subsequently granted summary disposition in favor of the board and Smith regarding plaintiffs breach of contract claim, concluding that it was barred by the applicable collective bargaining agreement. m This Court reviews a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary disposition de novo as a question of law. Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 688; 593 NW2d 215 (1999). The trial court granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual basis underlying a claim. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 374; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). We consider all relevant documentary evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.; Ardt, supra. Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is proper only when there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is proper when “the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no- factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.” Smith v Stolberg, 231 Mich App 256, 258; 586 NW2d 103 (1998). In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8), this Court does not act as a factfinder, but, instead, accepts all well-pleaded facts as true. Radtke, supra at 373. Statutory construction is also a question of law, requiring review de novo. Haworth, Inc v Wickes Mfg Co, 210 Mich App 222, 227; 532 NW2d 903 (1995). A Under Michigan law, freedom from discrimination in employment because of a person’s sex is a civil right. MCL 37.2102; Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 309; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). Subsection 202(1)(a) of the cra provides that an employer may not “discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of . . . sex . . . .” MCL 37.2202(1)(a). Discrimination because of a person’s sex includes sexual harassment of the person. MCL 37.2103(i); Chambers, supra at 309. The CRA defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: :|: * * (ii) Submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting the individual’s employment.... (hi) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s employment, ... or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment . . . environment. [MCL 37.2103(i)(i), (ii), (iii).] To establish a claim of harassment under subsection 103(i)(n), generally termed “quid pro quo” harassment, an employee must show “(1) that she was subject to any of the types of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication described in the statute, and (2) that her employer or the employer’s agent used her submission to or rejection of the proscribed conduct as a factor in a decision affecting her employment.” [Chambers, supra at 310-311, quoting Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702, 708-709; 545 NW2d 596 (1996).] To establish an harassment claim under subsection 103(i)(m), referred to as “hostile work environment” harassment, an employee must prove (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex; (3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee’s employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. [Chambers, supra at 311, quoting Radtke, supra at 382-383.] In her complaint, plaintiff set forth claims of both “sexual harassment” (presumably quid pro quo sexual harassment) and “hostile work environment.” On the evidence presented, we conclude that plaintiff established sufficient facts for her claim to survive a motion for summary disposition under either theory. B The threshold issue for a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment is that submission to or rejection of the proscribed conduct was “a factor in decisions affecting [the plaintiffs] employment . . . .” MCL 37.2103(i)(n); Chambers, supra at 317. Because it is undisputed that plaintiffs employment at Golightly was terminated, and because plaintiff averred various actions by Smith and Finch affecting plaintiffs job at Golightly, plaintiff has established a genuine issue concerning whether the alleged adverse actions were factors in decisions affecting her employment. Thus, we first consider whether plaintiff established a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment under subsection 103(i)(w). Plaintiff argues that defendants’ adverse actions against her constituted sexual harassment because they were rooted in the reactions of Smith and Finch to a past consensual intimate relationship between plaintiff and Smith, who was plaintiff’s supervisor and a department head at Golightly. In her complaint, plaintiff averred that after their breakup, Smith confronted her at work with thinly veiled threats either expressly or implicitly warning her that she would lose her job unless she promised to do nothing to adversely affect his subsequent relationship with Finch. Further, Smith repeatedly raised the issue in the form of threats throughout the school year, despite plaintiff’s reassurances that she had no intention of interfering with Smith’s relationship with Finch. Plaintiff, an evening-school counselor, further averred that defendant Finch, a day-school administrator at Golightly, was aware of the former relationship between Smith and plaintiff, and that Finch, through conduct and indirect communications, exhibited hostility toward plaintiff and made her displeasure with plaintiff’s regular presence at the school known to plaintiff. Plaintiff testified during her deposition that Finch, through Smith, interceded in the directing of plaintiff’s employment to impose work conditions specific to plaintiff, such as assigning her a particular desk in the counseling center within Finch’s area of responsibility, thus preventing plaintiff from working away from Finch. No one else was given an assigned seat. In Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 322; 628 NW2d 63 (2001), this Court recently held that the cra does not “prohibit conduct based on romantic jealousy,” and therefore no claim of sex discrimination could be made where the male plaintiff alleged that his male supervisor subjected him to adverse employment actions because they were both pursuing a romance with the same female employee. However, Barrett can be distinguished from this case in that the defendants’ conduct in Barrett did not emanate from a prior sexual/romantic relationship between the plaintiff and his supervisor and there was no claim or evidence that the plaintiff was required to submit to sexual harassment as a condition of employment. Id. at 319, 323. Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants targeted her for persistent and hostile communications and other adverse actions because they disliked her continued presence in the workplace as Smith’s former paramour may reasonably be considered allegations of conduct or communication “of a sexual nature,” MCL 37.2103(i)(i), in that they emanated from the romantic/sexual relationship between plaintiff and Smith. Similarly, plaintiff’s allegation that she suffered adverse employment actions and was discharged for reasons stemming from her status as Smith’s former girlfriend may reasonably be considered an allegation that plaintiff’s employment was terminated because of her “submission” to Smith’s prior romantic/sexual advances. The Civil Rights Act is a “remedial statute” of “manifest breadth and comprehensive nature . . . .” Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 36; 427 NW2d 488 (1988). “[R]emediai statutes are to be liberally construed to suppress the evil and advance the remedy.” Id. at 34. The provisions of the cra covering sexual harassment in the workplace should be read to broadly protect an employee against adverse employment action taken by an employer acting in furtherance of personal animosity toward the employee as the result of the employer’s sexual advances. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that plaintiff has presented a genuine issue of fact concerning whether she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment. c With regard to plaintiff’s claim of a hostile work environment, we conclude on the same facts that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for that claim to survive a motion for summary disposition. Our reasoning with regard to quid pro quo harassment applies similarly to establish that plaintiff belonged to a protected group, was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of her sex, and that the conduct or communication was unwelcome. See Radtke, supra at 383-385 (analyzing the first three elements of a claim of hostile work environment). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, as a female, former girlfriend of her supervisor, plaintiff was the object of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication, in the form of remarks and offensive actions by Smith and Finch. She informed Smith that she considered his actions to be harassment and told him to cease threatening her; plaintiff also expressed her resentment to Finch for complaining about plaintiff. With respect to the fourth element of a claim of hostile work environment, plaintiff presented evidence to create a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the conduct or communication substantially interfered with her employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. “[W]hether a hostile work environment existed shall be determined by whether a reasonable person, in the totality of circumstances, would have perceived the conduct at issue as substantially interfering with the plaintiff’s employment or having the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment environment.” Id. at 394. Plaintiff was subjected to threats, numerous offensive remarks, adverse working conditions, and ultimately replaced as a counselor because of her past relationship with her supervisor. Finally, plaintiff presented evidence to establish the element of respondeat superior. Plaintiff testified during her deposition that Smith telephoned plaintiff at Cass Technical on the day she was to return to work at Golightly and told her that she was being replaced by another counselor, although her counterpart, a Ms. Watts, was not being replaced. Plaintiff received no other notice that her position at Golightly, which she had had for the past five years, was terminated. On that same day, plaintiff contacted Dr. Lucille Peoples, the Golightly adult education director, concerning the termination of her employment and whether there was any problem with her work, but plaintiff was not thereafter assigned to a counseling position. Mindful of the standards by which a court must view the evidence in deciding a motion for summary disposition, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true, MCR 2.116(C)(8), and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, MCR 2.116(C)(10), we conclude that summary disposition of plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims was improper. We find no error in the summary dismissal of plaintiff’s other claims of sex discrimination. We conclude that plaintiff failed to present sufficient facts to support her theories of intentional sex discrimination or disparate treatment. See Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 181, n 31; 579 NW2d 906 (1998) (disparate treatment requires evidence that a female plaintiff was treated differently than a similarly situated male employee); Schultes v Naylor, 195 Mich App 640, 646; 491 NW2d 240 (1992) (intentional discrimination requires a showing that the defendant was predisposed to discriminate against persons in the affected class). IV We also find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract. We conclude that reasonable minds could not differ that the complained-of conduct was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Haverbush v Powelson, 217 Mich App 228, 234; 551 NW2d 206 (1996). We also conclude that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs implied contract claim on the ground that it concerned subject matter expressly covered by her union contract. Wallace v Recorder’s Court of Detroit, 207 Mich App 443, 446-447; 525 NW2d 481 (1994). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Plaintiff also characterizes these actions as discrimination based on marital status, contending that her status as a single mother was a factor in her harassment because Smith knew that she could not afford to lose her job. However, plaintiff presents only cursory argument on this claim, and we find plaintiffs argument too tenuous to form a basis for relief.

Donald M. Rubin vs. Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc. No. 98-P-342. Hampden. October 7, 1999. - May 3, 2001. Present: Porada, Dreben, & Beck, JJ. Contract, Employment. Employment, Constructive discharge. Discussion of Massachusetts and out-of-State cases considering the elements required for proof of constructive discharge. [439-445] In an action by the chief executive officer of a corporation against the entity that had provided financing for the corporation, seeking damages for interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty on the basis that the financing entity’s actions had resulted in his constructive termination from employment, there was no error in the judge’s ultimate finding that, because the situation in which the chief executive officer found himself was not so difficult that a reasonable person in his position would have found it to be intolerable, the corporation did not constructively discharge him. [446-448] Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 9, 1993. The case was heard by John F. Moriarty, J. Bonita L. Stone (Kevin C. Maynard with her) for the defendant. Charles V. Ryan for the plaintiff. Beck, J. On July 22, 1988, the plaintiff, Donald M. Rubin, became president and chief executive officer of National Felt Company, Inc. (National Felt), pursuant to a written five-year contract. Three years later, on August 16, 1991, he sent a letter to National Felt claiming that the company had constructively discharged him. Rubin also sent a letter that day to Eli S. Jacobs, chairman of the National Felt board of directors, and Karen Gordon Mills, a member of the board and close associate of Jacobs. The letter asserted that the recipients had “stripped him] of [his] powers and responsibilities as President and Chief Executive Officer of National Felt Company, Inc. . . . constituting] a constructive discharge ... in direct violation of [his] rights and responsibilities as set forth in [the] employment contract.” He characterized the actions of the individuals as “part of a classic freeze out maneuver . . . constituting] a violation of the fiduciary duty [they owed to him] as a minority stockholder of [National Felt].” After sending the letters, Rubin cleaned out his desk, left his office, and never returned. Rubin subsequently settled his claims against National Felt and the Jacobs parties. What remains is his complaint against Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc. (Household), the entity that financed Jacobs’s purchase of the assets of the company which became National Felt. The complaint sought damages for interference with contract and breach of fiduciary duty. After a seven-day jury-waived trial, a Superior court judge ruled for the defendant Household on both counts. We affirm. Facts. The particulars of the sale and subsequent operations of National Felt are set out in considerable detail in the Superior Court judge’s findings and rulings. Our condensed version follows,- “giv[ing] due weight to the findings of the [trial] judge which will be not be reversed unless clearly erroneous . . . .” Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 253, 255 (1977). See Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). Rubin began working for the predecessor to National Felt in 1965. The original company was a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Easthampton, owned and operated by Israel Goldberg and his sons. It manufactured a variety of nonwoven synthetic and wool felt products, including cowboy hats and Mickey Mouse hats for Disney as well as novelty hats for many other customers. It was a successful enterprise. Beginning in 1970, Rubin was general manager of the nonwoven fabrics division. As the judge found and the plaintiff’s brief acknowledges, “although [Rubin] developed considerable expertise in the production and marketing aspects of the company’s business, he had no experience in financial matters,” to the extent that he never saw a balance sheet or income statement for the division he headed. The Goldbergs had handled all the finances. On July 22, 1988, the Goldbergs sold most of the company’s assets for $34,750,000 to an acquisition company controlled by the E.S. Jacobs Company. Eli S. Jacobs, the principal figure behind E.S. Jacobs Co., was an investment banker and entrepreneur who owned real estate and a number of businesses. Upon completion of the asset sale, he established National Felt as the new company. The defendant Household financed a major part of Jacobs’s purchase of the Goldbergs’ company through various arrangements including a “revolving” loan, a “term” loan, and a “junior subordinated” loan, totaling $32 million. It also committed to provide National Felt with working capital up to $11 million. Household’s total commitment at the outset was thus $43 million. The equity capital of the new company consisted of one million shares at two dollars per share, distributed as follows: Jacobs, sixty-two percent; Household, eighteen percent; Rubin, fifteen percent; and five percent divided among four other National Felt employees. The sum of these transactions was a highly leveraged buyout. The debt to equity ratio was more than twenty to one. Two days before the closing, the three-member board of directors of the new company — Jacobs, Karen Gordon Mills (managing director of E.S. Jacobs Co.), and Roland Knight (another Jacobs employee) — met by telephone conference call. They elected Jacobs chairman of the board; Robert A. Crisafulli, “the financial man” for E.S. Jacobs Co., treasurer; Rubin, secretary; and Knight, assistant secretary. As part of these transactions, Rubin negotiated a written employment contract. The terms of the agreement, as negotiated with Mills, called for Rubin to serve for five years as president and chief executive officer (CEO) “reporting] only to the Board of Directors of [National Felt] . . . [and] vested with all powers incident or necessary to the office of Chief Executive, in accordance with policies established by, and subject to the authority of, the Board of Directors.” Rubin’s base salary was $200,000 per year, with an annual bonus, disability, medical, and life insurance, retirement benefits, four weeks paid vacation, a Cadillac automobile or the substantial equivalent, and reimbursement for all car related expenses. The agreement was subject to termination by reason of death, disability, or for cause. In recognition of Rubin’s lack of financial training and experience, Mills conducted a search for a chief financial officer (CFO) and recommended two candidates to Rubin. Rubin chose one of the candidates, who then in effect reported directly to the board of directors through Mills. As CEO, Rubin was in charge of all aspects of National Felt’s activities except the financial area. The new company carried on essentially the same business as the old company. Rubin devoted his efforts to production and marketing. National Felt did well in its first year of operation under Rubin’s leadership. It had 4,000 products, purchased materials from 2,000 suppliers, and had 2,000 customers. In the spring of 1989, Rubin proposed to expand the synthetic nonwoven division’s capacity by purchasing a nearby building and installing new, state of the art, computerized equipment. (The division had been operating at full capacity.) In June, 1989, Household agreed to increase the company’s line of credit by the $8 million necessary to finance the expansion project. In the fall of 1989, National Felt’s situation began to deteriorate. A number of factors combined — the onset of the 1989 business recession, strong competition from Asia, the loss of the company’s principal supplier, which went out of business, and increased costs of other supplies. The expansion project ran fifty per cent over budget because of increased costs of machinery and equipment and delay in completing the project. The company’s net sales fell, as did its pre-tax income. In the winter of 1990 to 1991, it became apparent that Rubin needed some assistance to turn the company around. By April, 1991, the company’s cash flow was inadequate to meet the combination of its interest payments to Household and its operating expenses. It had already defaulted on a number of its contractual obligations to Household, and its fine of credit was nearly exhausted. Mills had several discussions with Rubin about bringing in additional management personnel to help run the company. In May, there were meetings and conversations between the Jacobs principals and Household. Rubin’s future role in the company was among the subjects discussed. Mills and a business consultant whom Rubin had contacted at Mills’s suggestian thought Rubin was important, even “critical,” to the company’s recovery because of his knowledge of the manufacturing process and his relationships with the company’s major customers. A Household participant thought he would have to be replaced or “moved upstairs” as chairman of the board with no responsibilities. In late spring or early summer of 1991, Mills met with Rubin and introduced him to Peter Kurzina of Argus Management Company (Argus), a “crisis management” firm of “turnaround consultants.” (Apparently the plaintiff disliked Kurzina almost from the beginning.) On July 11, 1991, the CFO of National Felt notified Household that the company would be unable to comply with a scheduled reduction on its revolving loan that the agreement, as amended, required. Household responded that it would not waive the default. As a result of Household’s letter, Mills, acting on behalf of Jacobs, engaged Argus to take control of the financial and operating sides of National Felt as of July 25, 1991. By the end of the 1991 fiscal year, the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets by $1.6 million. In their fiscal 1991 audited financial statement, the independent auditors expressed “substantial doubt about [National Felt’s] ability to continue as a going concern.” On July 22, 1991 (three years to the day after the initial purchase), National Felt’s treasurer and two representatives of Argus visited Rubin and told him that Argus would be taking over the following Thursday. They said they would be in town that day and asked him to introduce them to the key employees of the company at that time. After confirming that Mills had indeed engaged Argus, the plaintiff wrote a memorandum entitled “Priorities for Argus Management Corporation,” which he faxed to Mills. Mills telephoned the plaintiff to make clear that Argus was not working for him and “that he would have to cooperate or there would be dire consequences.” Argus assumed management of National Felt on July 25 as planned. Thomas Brew, the Argus employee in charge, visited Rubin and told him they needed his help and asked for his cooperation. The judge found that “[t]he Argus team did not intend to relieve [Rubin] of his title or his job, and they needed his help in dealing with customers and in purchasing raw materials.” Moreover, Argus’s role was to be temporary. Brew told Rubin they thought it would take more than a year to turn the company around, but that they did not anticipate taking over the company on a permanent basis, and hoped to return the business to its owners in a financially sound condition. Rubin introduced the Argus personnel to the National Felt employees as requested, “but he very much resented having been asked to do so.” One of the first actions Argus took was to discharge National Felt’s CFO. Four days later, Kurzina sent a memorandum to a “distribution list” of the company’s employees who had been authorized to make purchases on behalf of the company. The memorandum announced that nothing was to be purchased without Argus’s approval. Rubin was not included on the distribution list but was designated to receive a copy. The judge found that the memorandum was not intended to apply to Rubin. In fact it was anticipated that, because of his knowledge of the fibers that were the raw materials for a large portion of the company’s products, the purchase of such materials would continue to be under Rubin’s control. On July 31, Household notified E.S. Jacobs Co. through Mills that it was not willing to continue to fund National Felt’s losses without an agreement to reorganize National Felt’s capital structure. That letter drew an angry response from Mills. Brew, who had taken the title of CFO, then wrote a conciliatory letter to Household and gave Rubin a copy of Mills’s letter as well as his own. Rubin was distressed when he discovered that he had not been informed of several prior letters or a meeting mentioned in the Mills and Brew letters. There followed a meeting in Chicago, the headquarters of Household, at which Mills introduced the Argus team to Household officials. Rubin was not invited. At this meeting, Argus expressed its intent to retain Rubin in his current position; Household seemed receptive. On his return, Brew gave Rubin a full report of the meeting. Unhappy with the position in which he found himself, Rubin consulted a lawyer. After subsequently discussing his situation with Mills and another person at E.S. Jacobs Co., Rubin requested a buy-out of the two years remaining on his contract and a buy-back of his stock. (He had borrowed the $300,000 to buy his 150,000 shares.) Mills rejected his proposal. In mid-August, Rubin lost his long-standing authority to give credits to customers who wanted to return merchandise. There followed the letters described in the first paragraph of this opinion and Rubin’s departure from National Felt. Throughout most of the events described above, Household had hoped to persuade Jacobs to make a new contribution of equity capital. Unsuccessful in these efforts, Household restructured National Felt’s debt on its own. In the end, Argus was unable to turn the company around. Legal analysis. The first count of Rubin’s amended complaint claims that Household unlawfully induced National Felt to “break its contract with Rubin and to remove his authority as Chief Executive Officer . . . resulting in his constructive termination [from] his employment.” His second count charges that Household “orchestrated the management changes which resulted in the divestiture from Rubin of the powers incident or necessary to the position of Chief Executive Officer. His constructive termination . . . resulted in the corporate ‘freeze-out’ of Rubin from his rightful position with [National Felt] in a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Rubin by Household” as a fellow shareholder of National Felt. The judge applied the doctrine of intentional interference with contract to the first claim. See United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811 (1990), which established “improper motive” and “improper means” as alternative elements of the tort. Passing the question of whether the board of directors’ engagement of Argus constituted a breach of its employment contract with Rubin, the judge found that there was no evidence of improper motive on the part of Household. He then considered whether the means Household used in inducing National Felt to employ a turnaround company constituted a breach of Household’s fiduciary duty to Rubin. After a detailed analysis, which included the finding that Rubin “had effectively abdicated his authority over the financial aspects of the company’s business to [the CFO and Mills],” the judge found no breach of fiduciary duty. Disposing of the second count of the complaint, the judge concluded that there was neither a breach of fiduciary duty nor a constructive discharge. Rubin asserts in his brief that a finding that National Felt constructively discharged him is “vital” to both of his claims against Household. We agree. We therefore turn to an examination of the issue of constructive discharge. Constructive discharge. In determining that there was no constructive discharge, the judge relied on GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22 (1995). He found that “[ujnder all the circumstances that existed in this case, the situation in which Rubin found himself when Argus took over was not so difficult that a reasonable person in his position would have found it to be intolerable. He was [therefore] not justified in quitting when he did.” In GTE Products, Stewart, the employee who claimed that he had been constructively discharged, was a lawyer serving at will as general counsel to GTE’s lighting business. After he began urging company officials to take costly safety measures to protect consumers, his immediate supervisor suddenly lowered his “promotability rating” and communicated the company’s dissatisfaction with Stewart’s recent conduct. Id. at 25. Stewart asserted that the change in his standing at work constituted a constructive discharge in violation of public policy. The Supreme Judicial Court, observing that “[it had] not had occasion to address what an employee must prove to establish a constructive discharge . . . [turned to cases] decided by Federal and State appellate courts.” Id. at 34. The court defined constructive discharge as occurring when “the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign,” ibid., quoting from Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1244 (1994). “[T]he trier of fact must be satisfied that the new working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. at 34, quoting from the “frequently cited” decision in Alicea Rosado v. Garcia Santiago, 562 F.2d 114, 119 (1st Cir. 1977). “The test is met if, based on an objective assessment of the conditions under which the employee has asserted he was expected to work, it could be found they were so difficult as to be intolerable” (emphasis original). GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. at 34. “In order to amount to a constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable.” Id. at 34-35, quoting from Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th at 1247. Applying the test, the court decided Stewart was not constructively discharged. Rubin claims that GTE Products is not on point because Stewart was an at will employee, whereas Rubin had a written contract. He relies instead on two earlier Massachusetts cases, Miller v. Winshall, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 312 (1980), and Kravetz v. Merchants Distribs., Inc., 387 Mass. 457 (1982), both of which he brought to the judge’s attention in his trial brief. In Miller v. Winshall, Miller “was employed, pursuant to a written agreement, as president and chief executive officer of [a] corporation.” 9 Mass. App. Ct. at 317. “[H]e was removed from this office at a board of directors meeting at which another person was elected president. . . [and] was offered ‘continuing employment’ in a subsidiary position at no change in salary . . . [whereupon he] resigned.” Ibid. In affirming the master’s “mixed fact and law general finding [that Miller was terminated],” id. at 317-318, we observed that “[i]f an employee, especially an executive employee, is engaged to fill a particular position, any material reduction in rank constitutes a breach of the employment agreement and is tantamount to discharge, unless the employment contract, by its terms, contemplates a change in the rank and nature of the job.” Id. at 318 (citing Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 253, 263 [1977] [applying New York law]; Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 10 [1972]; 4 Corbin, Contracts § 958 [1951]; and Annot., Reduction in Rank or Authority or Change of Duties as Breach of Employment Contract, 63 A.L.R.3d 539 [1975]). We concluded that Miller’s discharge as president “accomplished effectively the termination of [his] employment by the [corporation.” Miller v. Winshall, 9 Mass. App. Ct.

1. <bold>Statutes — construction — factors considered. —</bold> In considering the meaning of a statute, the appellate court considers it just as it reads, giving words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language; if the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation; where the meaning is not clear, the court looks to the language of the statute, the subject matter, the remedy provided, the legislative history, and other appropriate means that shed light on the subject; the appellate court will also look to the object to be accomplished and the purpose to be served by the statute. 2. <bold>Statutes — construction — standard on appeal. —</bold> Although the appellate court is not bound by the decision of the trial court, in absence of a showing that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law, the appellate court will accept that interpretation as correct on appeal. 3. <bold>Statutes — construction — absurd conclusion will not be</bold> <bold>reached. —</bold> The appellate court will not interpret a statute in a manner so as to reach an absurd conclusion that is contrary to legislative intent. 4. <bold>Schools school districts — statute expressly directed that</bold> <bold>school districts incorporate its rights into their written personnel</bold> <bold>policies — general savings clause insufficient to comply with</bold> <bold>statute's express directive. —</bold> Where appellee contended that Ark. Code Ann. § <cross_reference>6-17-1209</cross_reference> did not provide a private right of action and simply required school districts to incorporate its terms into their written personnel policies, but presented no support for its argument that the general savings clause in the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA) was sufficient to comply with the express directive in Ark. Code Ann. § <cross_reference>6-17-1209</cro

BARRETT v KIRTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE Docket No. 217040. Submitted October 17, 2000, at Lansing. Decided April 10, 2001, at 9:00 AM. Leave to appeal sought. Brent Barrett brought an action in the Roscommon Circuit Court against Kirtland Community College, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and retaliation that violated the Civil Rights Act (cra), MCL 37.2101 et seq., after his employment at the college was terminated. The plaintiff presented evidence at a jury trial that his employment was terminated before the expiration of a one-year employment contract and after he lodged with the president of the college and with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights complaints concerning his treatment by an immediate supervisor who discovered that the plaintiff was romantically involved with a college employee in whom the supervisor had expressed a romantic interest. The defendant presented evidence that the plaintiff was discharged for insubordination and for abandoning his position. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the claims of breach of contract and retaliation under the cra. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff by the jury on the retaliation claim and, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, by the trial court, Michael J. Matuzak, X, on the breach of contract claim. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, and awarded costs and attorney fees to the plaintiff with respect to the retaliation claim. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held: The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the claim of retaliation, but did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial with respect to the claim of breach of contract. The judgment for the plaintiff on the retaliation claim must be reversed and the award of attorney fees and costs in connection with that claim must be vacated. On remand, the trial court shall enter a judgment for the defendant with respect to the retaliation claim. 1. A plaintiff seeking to establish unlawful employment-related retaliation under subsection 701(a) of the CRA, MCL 37.2701(a), must show, among other things, that the plaintiff’s participation in activity protected by the cra was a significant factor in the adverse employment action taken by the defendant. Here, although the plaintiffs filings of complaints with the Department of Civil Rights constituted protected activity, the plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between the filings and the termination of his employment in view of evidence indicating that, before the plaintiff filed the complaints, the president of the college had already considered and recommended to the board of trustees that the plaintiff be fired for not accepting direction and responsibility and for having a poor attitude. 2. The plaintiff, in complaining to the president of the college about the supervisor’s treatment of the plaintiff based on romantic jealously, did not make a charge under the CRA or oppose a violation of the CRA such that the plaintiff can establish that the defendant retaliated against him for making a charge or opposing a violation. The plaintiff did not make a charge under the cra because he did not raise a specter of a claim of unlawful gender discrimination or sexual harassment by the supervisor when he complained of the way tire supervisor treated him after the supervisor learned of the plaintiff’s romantic involvement with the college employee. The plaintiff did not oppose a violation of the CRA in complaining about the supervisor’s treatment because that treatment, being devoid of gender-based discrimination or sexual harassment, did not constitute “discrimination because of sex” under the cra. 3. The defendant, in reporting to the police that the plaintiff had taken items owned by the college after his employment was terminated, did not retaliate against the plaintiff for filing complaints with the Department of Civil Rights. A causal connection between the plaintiffs filing of complaints and the defendant’s reporting to the police is lacking because the plaintiff acknowledged that he took college-owned property and because of the defendant’s interest in recovering its properly. 4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of several incidents of the plaintiff’s work-related misconduct. The decision to exclude such evidence was not palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic, given that the trial court correctly concluded that the evidence would be a waste of time and would likely confuse the jurors because the evidence that was admitted included enough evidence of the plaintiff’s conduct to allow the jury to infer that the plaintiff was fired for poor job performance and insubordination. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 1. Civil Eights — Civil Rights Act — Employment — Retaliation. A plaintiff seeking to establish a prima facie case of unlawful employment-related retaliation under the Civil Rights Act must show that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, that this was known by the defendant, that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiffs participation in protected activity was a significant factor in the defendant’s adverse employment action (MCL 37.2701[a]). 2. Civil Rights — Civil Rights Act — Employment — Discrimination Because op Sex. Employment discrimination because of sex, as proscribed by the Civil Rights Act, is limited to instances of gender-based discrimination or instances where the employee is required to submit to sexually-based harassment (MCL 37.2103[i], 37.2201[d], 37.2202[1]). Robert J. Krwpka and Michael J. Forster, for the plaintiff. Thrun, Maatsch and Nordberg, P.C. (by Martha J. Marcero and Roy H. Henley), for the defendant. Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Sawyer and Zahra, JJ. Zahra, J. Defendant Kirtland Community College (kcc) appeals as of right from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (jnov) or a new trial. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. FACTS Plaintiff was hired by KCC in February 1992 as part-time cultural events coordinator. In September 1992, plaintiff signed a one-year contract to serve as KCC’s full-time coordinator of cultural events/activities. In September 1993, plaintiff signed another one-year contract to remain in that position. That second contract was to expire on September 17, 1994. Plaintiff’s duties as full-time coordinator of cultural events/ activities included planning performances at kcc’s theater, running the theater’s box office, contracting with performers, producing shows at the theater, and completing accounting duties with respect to the performances. Plaintiff’s coordinator position was not a faculty position. Defendant Cary Vajda was KCC’s dean of student services and plaintiff’s immediate supervisor at all times pertinent to this case. Defendant Katherine Grosser was kcc’s dean of business services and defendant Dorothy Franke was president of kcc during plaintiff’s employment. In October 1993, Vajda asked KCC employee Allison Goshom on a date. Vajda did not know Goshom was romantically involved with plaintiff at the time he asked her out. Plaintiff claimed that the quality of his working relationship with Vajda declined once Vajda discovered the nature of Goshom’s relationship with plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff filed three complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (mdcr), charging gender discrimination and retaliation under the Civil Rights Act (cra), MCL 37.2101 et seq. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered psychological and physical problems as a result of continual adverse treatment by Vajda. Those problems prompted plaintiff to take a personal leave from his job in May 1994 and a later unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (fmla), 29 USC 2601 et seq. During the time plaintiff was on leave, the coordinator of cultural events/activities position was reconfigured by KCC administrators into a faculty position. Plaintiff applied for the new position, but was not hired. On September 13, 1994 (four days before the expiration of his employment contract), plaintiff returned from his leave and was discharged by Franke after a short meeting. In a letter Franke wrote to plaintiff on the date of his discharge, she stated that plaintiffs “[c]ontinued insubordination” and his “[abandonment of position” were the reasons for his discharge. Franke specified that plaintiffs insubordination included failing to return keys to KCC facilities despite being directed to do so on four separate occasions and refusing to provide proof of attendance at a meeting for which plaintiff sought travel expenses. Franke further specified that plaintiff abandoned his position by failing to return to work after his doctor indicated he was able to return on September 6, 1994, and by failing to notify KCC personnel to discuss returning to his job. In October 1995, plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging breach of employment contract, violation of the fmla, gender discrimination under the CRA, retaliation under the CRA, and defamation. Plaintiffs retaliation, breach of contract, and FMLA claims went to trial. The jury found no violation of the fmla. However, the jury found that KCC retaliated against plaintiff and assessed damages of $99,960 in regard to that claim. The jury also found that KCC breached plaintiffs employment contract. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the trial court assessed damages in connection with the breach of contract verdict, determining damages in the amount of $750. Kcc brought a motion for jnov or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that there was no evidence of a causal link between protected activity by plaintiff and adverse actions taken by kcc, nor evidence that plaintiff was terminated without just cause or that his employment contract was otherwise breached. The trial court denied kcc’s motion. Thereafter, the court assessed $46,500 in attorney fees and $986 in costs with respect to the retaliation claim. H. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF MCL 37.2701(A) On appeal, kcc argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for jnov with respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim. We agree. A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for jnov is reviewed de novo. Attard v Citizens Ins Co of America, 237 Mich App 311, 321; 602 NW2d 633 (1999); Farm Credit Services of Michigan’s Heartland, PCA v Weldon, 232 Mich App 662, 672; 591 NW2d 438 (1998). In reviewing a decision on a motion for jnov, this Court must view the testimony and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 204; 580 NW2d 876 (1998). If reasonable jurors honestly could have reached different conclusions, the jury verdict must stand. Central Cartage Co v Fewl-ess, 232 Mich App 517, 524; 591 NW2d 422 (1998). Only if the evidence fails to establish a claim as a matter of law is jnov appropriate. Forge, supra. The CRA provides, in part: An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. (b) Limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant for employment in a way that deprives or tends to deprive the employee or applicant of an employment opportunity, or otherwise adversely affects the status of an employee or applicant because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. [MCL 37.2202(l)(a) and (b).] The cra also prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for pursuing rights under the CRA, stating: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act. [MCL 37.2701(a).] 1. claims of pretermination retaliation In the trial court, plaintiff asserted that his job was reconfigured and he was eventually discharged in retaliation for complaining to Franke about Vajda’s adverse treatment of him and for filing complaints with the mdcr. On appeal, kcc claims that plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under the CRA that could be said to have led to any adverse employment action. We read the CRA in light of the primary goal of judicial interpretation, which is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 386; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). If the plain and ordinary meaning of a statute is clear, judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted. Cherry Growers, Inc v Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Bd, 240 Mich App 153, 166; 610 NW2d 613 (2000). We may not speculate about the probable intent of the Legislature beyond the words expressed in the statute. In re Schnell, 214 Mich App 304, 310; 543 NW2d 11 (1995). If a statute provides its own glossary, the terms must be applied as expressly defined. Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich 129, 136; 545 NW2d 642 (1996). When reasonable minds may differ with respect to the meaning of a statute, the courts must look to the object of the statute and the harm it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable construction that best accomplishes the purpose of the statute. Marquis v Hartford Accident & Indemnity (After Remand), 444 Mich 638, 644; 513 NW2d 799 (1994). In interpreting provisions of the CRA, we are guided by federal court interpretations of the counterpart federal statute. Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 313; 614 NW2d 910 (2000); see title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e et seq. While we are not bound by federal precedent based on title VII, those precedents analogous to questions presented under the CRA are persuasive and will be afforded substantial consideration by this Court. DeFlaviis v Lord & Taylor, Inc, 223 Mich App 432, 437; 566 NW2d 661 (1997), citing McCalla v Ellis, 180 Mich App 372, 377-378; 446 NW2d 904 (1989). However, we are always primarily obligated when interpreting Michigan law to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Michigan Legislature. Chambers, supra at 314. Therefore, while we may look for guidance in federal interpretations of similar laws, we must not defer to federal interpretations when doing so would be inconsistent with any portion of our Legislature’s enactment. Id.-, Chiles v Machine Shop, Inc, 238 Mich App 462, 472-473; 606 NW2d 398 (1999). This Court has interpreted the retaliation provision of the CRA, MCL 37.2701(a), to require that a plaintiff prove a prima face case by showing: (1) that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) that this was known by the defendant, (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff, and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. [Meyer v Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 568-569; 619 NW2d 182 (2000), citing DeFlaviis, supra at 436.] To establish causation, the plaintiff must show that his participation in activity protected by the CRA was a “significant factor” in the employer’s adverse employment action, not just that there was a causal link between the two. Jacklyn v Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corp, 176 F3d 921, 929 (CA 6, 1999); Polk v Yellow Freight System, Inc, 801 F2d 190, 199 (CA 6, 1986). (a) RETALIATION BASED ON THE FILING OF FORMAL COMPLAINTS WITH THE MDCR In the present case, plaintiff’s conduct of filing complaints with the mdcr on March 11, 1994, May 12, 1994, and September 16, 1994, charging gender discrimination and retaliation was “protected activity” for purposes of a retaliation claim. See MCL 37.2701(a) (prohibiting retaliation “because the person has . . . filed a complaint . . . under this act”). These complaints became known to KCC. Subsequently, plaintiff’s employment was terminated. Thus, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the first three elements of his claim of retaliation. In order for plaintiff to prevail on his retaliation claim, he must establish causation. The record is void of any evidence of causation with respect to the MDCR complaints. The undisputed evidence establishes that Franke considered discharging plaintiff and had definitely decided not to renew plaintiff’s contract before plaintiff filed any of the three complaints. Plaintiff did not dispute Franke’s trial testimony that she was the only KCC administrator with authority to discharge employees. A memo written by Franke, dated March 3, 1994, and sent to KCC’s board of trustees, stated that plaintiff was having problems accepting direction and responsibility and had a generally “poor attitude.” Franke specified: “If all this spells ‘fire’ to you, it does to me, also. ... I can tell you for sure that I won’t be recommending renewal for his contract which ends in September.” Given the content of that memo, plaintiffs filing of the MDCR complaints commencing on Maxch 11, 1994, cannot be said to have been a “significant factor” in Franke’s decision not to renew plaintiff’s contract or to discharge plaintiff. See Jacklyn, supra, and Polk, supra. Consequently, those filings cannot form the basis of a retaliation claim. Meyer, supra. (b) RETALIATION BASED ON AN ORAL COMPLAINT The relevant question, therefore, is whether plaintiff engaged in any protected activity before Franke’s drafting of the March 3, 1994, memo. Plaintiff presented evidence that soon after Vajda became aware of his relationship with Goshom, Vajda severed direct communication with him, created new employment policies pertaining only to him, and enforced old policies that were not previously enforced with respect to other employees. Plaintiff claims that he disclosed Vajda’s adverse treatment to Franke during a meeting in January 1994. He contends that Franke’s failure to put a stop to Vajda’s adverse treatment of him was, itself, an adverse employment action sufficient to support a retaliation claim. Plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim of retaliation in violation of the CRA without establishing that he engaged in activity protected under the act. Meyer, supra. MCL 37.2701(a) specifically defines the type of activity protected under the cra. As it relates to this action, the cra specifically prohibits retaliation or discrimination because “the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge . . . under this act.” Applying MCL 37.2701(a) to the facts of this case, we must determine whether plaintiff’s oral complaint to Franke in January 1994 amounted to a charge made under the CRA or opposition to a violation of the CRA. We conclude that it did not. (i) PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE A CHARGE UNDER THE CRA Plaintiff did not take any action that could be construed as a “charge” under tae act. An employee need not specifically cite the CRA when making a charge under the act. However, the employee must do more than generally assert unfair treatment. See Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679, 682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000) (holding complaints amounting to generic claims of “job discrimination” did not qualify as a charge made under the Persons with Disabilities Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq.'). The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination pursuant to the CRA. McLe