Meagher v. Wayne State University

• Decision Date: 15 April 1997
• Docket Number: 183282,Docket Nos. 177139
• Citation: 565 N.W.2d 401,222 Mich.App. 700
• Parties: , 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 879, 119 Ed. Law Rep. 659 Suzanne MEAGHER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, David Adamany, John P. Oliver, David Britt, and Mary Jane Van Meter, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Suzanne MEAGHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee, and David Adamany, John P. Oliver, David Britt, and Mary Jane Van Meter, Defendants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 401

565 N.W.2d 401

222 Mich.App. 700, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 879,

119 Ed. Law Rep. 659

Suzanne MEAGHER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, David Adamany, John P. Oliver, David

Britt, and Mary Jane Van Meter,

Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Suzanne MEAGHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee, and David Adamany, John P. Oliver, David Britt, and Mary Jane

Van Meter, Defendants.

Docket Nos. 177139, 183282.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Sept. 3, 1996, at Detroit.

Decided April 15, 1997, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication July 1, 1997.

Mary Anne M. Helveston, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Einheuser and Associates by Michael Einheuser and Jonathan A. Green, Royal Oak, for defendants-appellees.

Before YOUNG, P.J., and TAYLOR and R.C. LIVO ^*, JJ.

TAYLOR, Judge.

This case arises out of the termination of plaintiff's employment at Wayne State University in 1991. In Docket No. 177139, plaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment of no cause of action resulting from a directed verdict, granted after a jury heard nine days of proofs, on her age discrimination claim, and the trial court's pretrial grant of summary disposition on her due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a cross appeal, but limit their arguments to plaintiff's issues. In Docket No. 183282, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's post-trial order awarding costs and attorney fees pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.2591; M.S.A. § 27A.2591. We affirm and remand for imposition of sanctions pursuant to MCR 7.216(C) (vexatious appeal).

I

Plaintiff commenced this action on July 1, 1992, seeking damages and reinstatement to her former position as a research assistant for the Parents and Children Together (PACT) Project in the Department of Sociology of the College of Liberal Arts at Wayne State University. PACT is funded pursuant to a contract between the university and the former Department of Social Services (DSS). PACT studies families (e.g., the characteristics of families having children in foster care) and provides services to families referred by the DSS. PACT's goal was to return children to families, although, in some cases, the children stayed in the family home rather than in foster care when the family was referred by the DSS to PACT. Graduate students are hired by PACT to serve as caseworkers for its in-home project for those families referred by the DSS to PACT. In addition to providing services, the graduate students were required to file regular reports on their assigned families.

Mary Jane Van Meter was the principal investigator for PACT at the time of plaintiff's discharge. Van Meter was ultimately responsible for everything that happened in PACT. Although Van Meter supervised the PACT research, there were several levels of supervision between Van Meter and the graduate students who were employed by PACT as caseworkers. As a research assistant in PACT, plaintiff was one of the direct supervisors of the graduate students. Plaintiff started working at PACT in 1977. For each of her fourteen years of employment, plaintiff executed written contracts setting forth the terms of her appointment as a research assistant. The contract language was modified over the years as new contracts were executed. The last contract executed by plaintiff specified:

[R]enewal is to begin on October 1, 1990. This is a non tenure track assignment and carries no presumption of continuing tenure. This renewal is subject to the pleasure of the President or his/her designee and contingent on the availability of funding.... The terms of this agreement may not be modified or altered by any oral statements or representations. This agreement may only be modified in writing, signed by a University official as authorized by Executive Order 85-1.... The continuation of the assignment is dependent upon your satisfactory performance and upon continuation of funding.

Plaintiff was discharged by Van Meter in May of 1991. Van Meter, who indicated that she was older than plaintiff, cited plaintiff's inadequate handling of a case in the in-home project (hereafter referred to as the Doe case) as grounds for the termination. The Doe case was being serviced by a graduate student subject to plaintiff's direct supervision. The Doe case was referred by the DSS to PACT on February 28, 1991. A graduate student was then assigned to provide in-home services for the family, which had one child residing outside the home as a temporary ward of the court and other children residing in the home with the mother. Among the stated goals set forth in the referral document was one to "improve mother's parenting skills and discipline technique. Help entire family deal with issues around sexual abuse. Help to become more secure when returning home transition."

It was undisputed that the graduate student assigned to the Doe case was experiencing personal difficulties during May of 1991, which, according to plaintiff's own trial testimony, could probably be described as burnout. There was also trial evidence presented by the defense that information was acquired during PACT's handling of the case that should have been reported to the DSS so that an investigation could be made by the DSS regarding whether children in the home were at risk for sexual abuse.

On May 16, 1991, Van Meter was confronted by the mother in the Doe case about one of her daughters running away and Van Meter discussed this matter with the plaintiff. On May 21, 1991, Van Meter informed plaintiff that her employment was being terminated. After plaintiff was discharged, other supervisors of PACT shared plaintiff's former responsibilities. Plaintiff, who was forty-eight years old, was temporarily replaced with an individual of similar age. Finally, after posting and rewriting the qualifications for the position to require that the applicant have a master's degree in social work, a person significantly younger than the plaintiff was hired to permanently replace plaintiff.

Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged age discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq., and denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named Wayne State University and four individual defendants: David Adamany in his individual capacity and as president of Wayne State University; John Oliver in his individual capacity and as dean of the College of Liberal Arts; David Britt in his individual capacity and as the chairperson of the Department of Sociology; and Van Meter in her individual capacity and as an associate professor of sociology and principal investigator for PACT.

In ruling on pretrial motions, the court determined that the due process claim should be dismissed because plaintiff's employment was terminable at will. The case proceeded to trial solely on plaintiff's age discrimination claim.

II

Defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's proofs. The court took the matter under advisement. After the close of defendants' proofs, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of defendants because there was no evidence that age was a factor in the decision to terminate plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on her age discrimination claim. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court applied the wrong standard when directing a verdict against her by utilizing a "reduction in force" standard. We find no error.

At the outset, we note some conflict in the case law regarding the standard of review that we are to apply. One line of authority holds that we should review a trial court's granting of a directed verdict under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. See, e.g., Rasmussen v. Louisville Ladder Co., Inc., 211 Mich.App. 541, 545, 536 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Michigan Microtech, Inc. v. Federated Publications, Inc., 187 Mich.App. 178, 186-187, 466 N.W.2d 717 (1991). Another line of authority holds that we should utilize the same test as the trial court, which implies review de novo. See, e.g., Matras v. Amoco Oil Co., 424 Mich. 675, 681-682, 385 N.W.2d 586 (1986); Haberkorn v. Chrysler Corp., 210 Mich.App. 354, 364, 533 N.W.2d 373 (1995); Dep't of Transportation v. McNabb, 204 Mich.App. 674, 676, 516 N.W.2d 83 (1994); Berryman v. K Mart Corp., 193 Mich.App. 88, 91, 483 N.W.2d 642 (1992). Because we have found no Michigan Supreme Court opinion holding that a directed verdict is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and because Matras, supra, indicates that an appellate court is to apply the same test that the trial court applies, we review the trial court's decision de novo and reject the cases that hold that we should review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion.

When evaluating a motion for a directed verdict, a court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, making all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Locke v. Pachtman, 446 Mich. 216, 223, 521 N.W.2d 786 (1994). Directed verdicts are appropriate only when no factual question exists upon which reasonable minds may differ. Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp., 429 Mich. 540, 549, 418 N.W.2d 650 (1988).

Plaintiff's age discrimination claim is based upon that portion of the Civil Rights Act that provides that an "employer" shall not

[f]ail 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 ... age. [M.C.L. § 37.2202(1)(a); M.S.A. § 3.548(202)(1)(a).]

A plaintiff may attempt to prove age discrimination using different methods. Wolff v. Automobile Club of Michigan, 194 Mich.App. 6, 11, 486 N.W.2d 75 (1992). As explained in Reisman v. Regents of Wayne State Univ., 188 Mich.App. 526, 538-539, 470 N.W.2d 678 (1991):

To prove...