Hecht v. Nat'l Heritage Academies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 July 2016
• Docket Number: Docket No. 150616.
• Citation: 499 Mich. 586,886 N.W.2d 135
• Parties: HECHT v. NATIONAL HERITAGE ACADEMIES, INC.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

499 Mich. 586

886 N.W.2d 135

HECHT

v.NATIONAL HERITAGE ACADEMIES, INC.

Docket No. 150616.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 10, 2016.

Decided July 26, 2016.

Law Office of Glen N. Lenhoff, Flint (by Glen N. Lenhoff and Robert D. Kent–Bryant ) and Rizik & Rizik, PC, Grand Blanc (by Michael B. Rizik, Jr. ) for plaintiff.

Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Grand Rapids (by John J. Bursch, Dean F. Pacific, and Matthew T. Nelson ) for defendant.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, Kathryn M. Dalzell, Assistant Solicitor General, and Mark G. Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, Lansing (by Clifford W. Taylor, Paul D. Hudson, and Brian M. Schwartz ), for the Michigan Manufacturers Association.

YOUNG

, C.J.

In this race discrimination case, we must decide whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and determine the propriety of the admission of evidence of defendant's mandatory reporting under MCL 380.1230b

. We hold that the Court of Appeals did not err by affirming the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for JNOV on plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. Contrary to the Court of Appeals, we conclude that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory animus concerning the firing of plaintiff. This case turned on circumstantial evidence—on the credibility of plaintiff's proofs that suggested there were racial reasons for his treatment and on the credibility of defendant's nonracial justifications for firing him. We conclude, based on the evidence presented and all the inferences that could be reasonably drawn from that evidence in favor of the jury's liability verdict, that a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant violated the CRA.

Finally, because MCL 380.1230b

afforded defendant complete immunity from civil liability flowing from the mandatory disclosures compelled by this statute, we hold that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider evidence of defendant's statutorily mandated disclosures of plaintiff's wrongdoing to other schools, and the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's decision in that regard.

For these reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the jury award for future damages, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant, National Heritage Academies, Inc., is a company that owns and operates a number of public, independently operated schools, including Linden Charter Academy (LCA) located in Flint, Michigan. The student body at LCA is predominantly black. Plaintiff, Craig Hecht, is a white teacher who had been employed by defendant at LCA for approximately eight years, most recently serving as a third-grade teacher.

We draw from the evidence adduced at trial the following narrative concerning the events that led to plaintiff's termination. On November 3, 2009, Lisa Code, a white library aide at LCA, entered plaintiff's classroom during class time to return a computer table she had borrowed. Upon her arrival, however, Code realized that she had brought back the wrong table—the one she borrowed was white, whereas the one she returned was brown. Noting her error, Code asked plaintiff if he would prefer to have a white table, like the one she borrowed, or the brown one she had returned. Plaintiff responded, “[Y]ou know I want a white table, white tables are better.” He continued, “[W]e can take all these brown tables and we can burn the brown tables.” Also present for this exchange was Floyd Bell, a black paraprofessional assigned to plaintiff's classroom. After hearing plaintiff's comments, Bell and Code both “called a foul” on plaintiff, in accordance with the school's informal procedures for addressing inappropriate personal conduct.¹ Plaintiff denied hearing either Bell or Code call a foul on him, but later acknowledged that his comments were meant to imply that “white” people are better than “brown” people.

Later that same day, Code reported the incident to Corrine Weaver, the dean of LCA. Weaver, in turn, reported the incident to her supervisor, Linda Caine–Smith,² the principal of LCA, who initiated an investigation. Caine–Smith and Weaver each separately interviewed plaintiff, Bell, and Code and took written statements from all three. Although Code's testimony at trial emphasized that plaintiff made the statements in front of a child, plaintiff's counsel also elicited testimony from Code that her November 4th written statement did not include that allegation.³

When questioned, plaintiff provided varying explanations regarding what had happened. At first, plaintiff confirmed to Weaver the general discussion about white and brown tables, but he denied that he meant anything racial by his statements. The following day, plaintiff told Caine–Smith that he never said “brown should burn.” However, later that day, plaintiff sent Caine–Smith a written statement in which he admitted to saying, “white tables are better than brown tables” and “all brown tables should burn.” He also admitted that he involved a third-grade student in the “jok[e]” after he made the comments. Plaintiff subsequently met with Bell, apologized to him, and shook his hand.

At this point in the investigation, Caine–Smith contacted Courtney Unwin, defendant's employee relations manager, to discuss plaintiff's conduct and Caine–Smith's belief that plaintiff had lied during their initial conversation regarding the incident. Unwin then spoke directly to plaintiff, who, despite the admissions made in his earlier written statement, told her that his remark was simply a “tasteless joke,” denied involving a student in the joke, and claimed that none of his students heard the exchange. Unwin also claimed that plaintiff called her later that day and stated that he could not even remember saying anything about brown tables burning, and then justified his conduct by reference to racial banter he suggested was regularly engaged in by black teachers at LCA. Plaintiff claimed that he told Unwin he was just kidding around, that similar joking happened all the time at the school, and that he would do anything to make it better.

Caine–Smith and Unwin met to discuss plaintiff's comments in the classroom and his versions of the incident. They discussed several disciplinary options, including a final written warning and termination. After that meeting, Caine–Smith called plaintiff to her office and told him he was being placed on immediate leave pending further investigation. Instead of leaving the building, plaintiff went into a room in which Bell was tutoring students. Plaintiff asked the students to leave the room so that he and Bell could speak privately. He then asked Bell to change the statement he gave defendant. Bell declined the request and explained that he would not lie for plaintiff.⁴

Plaintiff also tried to contact Code by calling both her home and cellular phones. Code did not answer either call, but plaintiff left a voicemail stating that he was “desperate” to speak to her. Code testified that plaintiff had never before tried to contact her. Code further testified that plaintiff never asked her to change her statement.

The following day, Bell told Caine–Smith that plaintiff had asked him to lie. After receiving this information, Caine–Smith worried that plaintiff had similarly contacted Code. When asked, Code told Caine–Smith about the voicemail, causing Caine–Smith to consult with Unwin again. After their discussion, both Caine–Smith and Unwin determined that plaintiff was interfering with the investigation, and they decided to terminate plaintiff's employment. Notably, while Unwin testified that she believed plaintiff's intent was for Bell to lie, plaintiff's counsel called attention to Unwin's arguably contrary deposition testimony, in which she had previously testified that, to her knowledge, plaintiff did not ask anyone to lie.⁵ Plaintiff's employment was terminated that day. Subsequently, plaintiff was replaced by a white woman hired by defendant.

After being fired from LCA, plaintiff began taking substitute teaching jobs, while simultaneously applying for long-term, full-time employment as a teacher. Plaintiff testified that every time he got close to securing such employment, the prospective employer would request his employment record from defendant, as required by law,⁶ and, also as required by law,⁷ defendant disclosed the fact that plaintiff was fired for his racially insensitive comments and his conduct during the investigation. Plaintiff testified that, because of these disclosures, he was unable to obtain full-time employment as a teacher. Plaintiff eventually obtained a nonteaching job as a machine operator, making approximately $14 per hour—considerably less than his salary with defendant.⁸

In February 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Genesee Circuit Court, alleging that defendant terminated his employment based on his race in violation of the CRA. Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing, among other things, that it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for firing plaintiff and that his misconduct was not “similar” to that of any other employee. The motion was denied by the trial court. Defendant does not challenge the denial of summary disposition in this appeal.

Before trial, defendant moved, in limine, to preclude plaintiff from presenting evidence of its mandatory disclosure of plaintiff's unprofessional conduct to other schools. Defendant argued that the disclosures were required by law, pursuant to MCL 380.1230b

, and that the same statutory provision immunized the disclosing school from civil liability for the disclosures. On this basis, defendant argued that plaintiff should be precluded...