Moll v. Parkside Livonia Credit Union

• Decision Date: 30 October 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-73856.,80-73856.
• Citation: 525 F. Supp. 786
• Parties: Eva MOLL, Plaintiff, v. PARKSIDE LIVONIA CREDIT UNION, a State-Chartered Credit Union; Leslie Burrell; William Munch; Robert Hall; Jack Karagozian; Robert Bellfy; John Fieber; and Edward Jagdmann, all jointly and severally, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

525 F. Supp. 786

Eva MOLL, Plaintiff, v. PARKSIDE LIVONIA CREDIT UNION, a State-Chartered Credit Union; Leslie Burrell; William Munch; Robert Hall; Jack Karagozian; Robert Bellfy; John Fieber; and Edward Jagdmann, all jointly and severally, Defendants.

No. 80-73856.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

October 30, 1981.

Richard J. Clark, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiff.

Dennis R. Pollard, Birmingham, Mich., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEWBLATT, District Judge.

I FACTS

This is a sex discrimination action brought by Eva Moll (hereinafter Plaintiff) against Parkside Livonia Credit Union (hereinafter Defendant). In 1975, Plaintiff began employment with Defendant in the position of assistant manager. This continued until mid 1977. At that time, due to the illness of Defendant's manager, Plaintiff was appointed to the position of manager of Defendant credit union.

In February of 1978, Plaintiff was demoted to the position of bookkeeper. The demotion was accompanied by a commensurate reduction in wages and employee benefits. Plaintiff claims that she was demoted because of gender-based discrimination. Furthermore, Plaintiff insists that even after her demotion to bookkeeper, she was required to do the work of an assistant manager.

Defendant, on the other hand, insists that the demotion had nothing to do with sex discrimination. Moreover, Defendant denies that Plaintiff was required to—in effect —work as an assistant manager while she was paid as a bookkeeper.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the following statutes: the Elliott-Larsen Act, M.C.L.A. § 37.2101 et seq; Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq; the Federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 206(d). Plaintiff seeks to recover back pay and compensatory and punitive damages under both the Elliott-Larsen Act and Title VII. The compensatory damages are designed to cover the medical costs that resulted from the mental anguish that Plaintiff suffered from the alleged discrimination. The punitive damages are sought in order to compensate Plaintiff for the humiliation and embarrassment that stemmed from the alleged discrimination.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is entitled to nothing more than back pay. Pursuant to this position, Defendant has submitted a Rule 12(c) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Motion asking this court to grant judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages under the Elliott-Larsen Act.

Defendant's theory is based on a belief that the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan Worker's Compensation Act bars Plaintiff from recovering compensatory damages under the Elliott-Larsen Act. Furthermore, Defendant has, under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asked this Court to strike Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages under the Elliott-Larsen Act on the ground that such damages are not recoverable under Michigan law.

Defendant has also moved for a judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff's demand for compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII. Moreover, Defendant has moved to strike Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial under Title VII. Finally, contending that Plaintiff has no basis for an Equal Pay Act claim, Defendant has moved for a judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Equal Pay Act issue.

Defendant's motions compel this Court to consider a number of important questions in the field of employment discrimination law. The various questions will be dealt with herein.

II PLAINTIFF'S ELLIOTT-LARSEN COMPENSATORY DAMAGE CLAIM and the WDCA EXCLUSIVE REMEDY BAR

The first issue to be decided is whether the exclusive remedy provision of the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) (M.C.L.A. § 418.131) operates as a bar to Plaintiff's claim for mental and physical injury damages under the Michigan Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. § 37.2101 et seq. This difficult issue has been the source of a split of authority within this district. The then Chief Judge of the district, Judge Kennedy, has opined that the exclusive remedy provision of WDCA is indeed a bar to mental damages under the Federal Equal Pay Act. Judge Churchill has expressed a similar view. See Branham v. Massey Ferguson, Civ. No. 76-70345 (January 9, 1978). On the other hand, Judge Feikens has written an opinion that narrows the applicability of the WDCA bar in employment discrimination cases. For the reasons to be set out below, this Court has come to the conclusion that Judge Feikens has advanced the better argument.

The point of departure in any analysis of the instant issue is the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Stimson v. Bell Telephone Co., 77 Mich.App. 361, 258 N.W.2d 227 (1977). In Stimson, the Court held that the WDCA bar applied where Plaintiff sought damages for a mental breakdown that was allegedly caused by gender-based employment discrimination. Plaintiff's breakdown led to an inability to continue employment in the Stimson case.

Although the Stimson result was quite clear, the rationale behind the result was not entirely consistent. Throughout, the court emphasized that the nature of the damages sought was extremely important in deciding whether the exclusive remedy bar applied. The Court pointed out that this was necessary because sex discrimination is not usually regarded as within the scope of WDCA. If, however, the damages sought were to be the guide, then a sex discrimination claim seeking damages for a mental breakdown could be read to fall within the exclusive remedy provision. See Stimson, supra at 366-67, 258 N.W.2d 227. This followed from the fact that WDCA provides damages for mental injuries arising out of employment. See Stimson, supra at 366-67, 258 N.W.2d 227.

Later in the opinion, however, the Court stressed that Plaintiff's injury had led to disability. In a spirit of approval, the Court cited Professor Larson for the proposition that physical disability resulting from employment discrimination was close enough to the type of situation contemplated by WDCA to invoke the WDCA exclusive remedy bar. See Stimson, supra at 368-69, 258 N.W.2d 227.

Judge Kennedy interpreted Stimson as a directive to look to the type of damages sought rather than the elements of the claim that caused the damages. This was the gist of Judge Kennedy's opinion in Schroeder v. Dayton-Hudson, 456 F.Supp. 652, 653 (1978). If the damages sought were covered by WDCA, then, according to Judge Kennedy, the exclusive remedy provision barred additional damages. Nowhere in the Schroeder opinion is there any indication that the injury caused had to amount to a disability. See generally Schroeder, supra.

This trend was halted in 1979 when Judge Feikens decided Freeman v. Kelvinator, 469 F.Supp. 999 (1979). In Freeman, Judge Feikens expressed strong disagreement with the policy of using WDCA to bar damages for the entirely distinct phenomenon of employment discrimination. The Chief Judge argued that the purposes of the two statutes were dramatically different, and therefore, it would be most inappropriate to apply the WDCA bar to an employment discrimination action. See Freeman, supra at 1000.

In analyzing the significance of Stimson, Judge Feikens concentrated on the Stimson court's discussion concerning disability. These remarks were, according to Judge Feikens, controlling. As a result, Freeman held that the exclusive remedy bar is applicable only where the mental injuries caused by employment discrimination lead to actual disability.

This Court will, of course, look to the statute in question as a first resort. The Michigan Civil Rights Act, better known as the Elliott-Larsen Act, was designed to outlaw discrimination in employment, public accommodation and education. See M.C. L.A. § 37.2102. It is readily apparent that the Elliott-Larsen Act is an unusually wide ranging civil rights Act. The protected classifications, for example, include height, weight, and marital status as well as age, race, religion, national origin and sex.¹ This contrasts with Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, which includes only race, sex, religion and national origin within its protective ambit.² Moreover, the Elliott-Larsen Act provides for both legal and equitable remedies. See M.C.L.A. § 37.2801. Title VII, on the other hand, provides for equitable remedies only.³

Although the Elliott-Larsen Act is a more sweeping measure than Title VII, the federal statute is not totally irrelevant in the Michigan Civil Rights scheme. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, a state agency authorized to administer the Elliott-Larsen Act, see M.C.L.A. § 37.1601, has issued a set of interpretive guidelines designed to clarify the Act. These guidelines indicate that it is appropriate to consider Title VII law as a guide in interpreting the Elliott-Larsen Act.⁴ In light of this, the Title VII case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) comes to mind. In Gardner-Denver, the Supreme Court laid to rest any doubts about the separate and distinct nature of a Title VII action filed by the allegedly aggrieved employee. The Court pointed out that Title VII rights and remedies are entirely independent from the provisions of other statutes. See generally Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, supra. If the Michigan Civil Rights Commission guidelines are to be taken seriously, then Gardner-Denver must be considered in deciding the instant case.

Finally, this Court cannot resist a reference to the well-known Michigan Supreme Court cases of Pompey v. General Motors Corp., 385 Mich. 537, 189 N.W.2d 243 (1971) and Holmes v. Haughton Elevator Co., 404 Mich. 36, 272 N.W.2d 550 (1978). These two cases stand for the proposition that racial discrimination claims (Pompey) and age discrimination claims (Holmes) can be brought even where the plaintiff does not timely file within the Elliott-Larsen Act time limit. Here...