Noecker v. Department of Corrections

• Decision Date: 20 December 1993
• Docket Number: Docket No. 127059
• Citation: Noecker v. Department of Corrections, 512 N.W.2d 44, 203 Mich.App. 43 (Mich. App. 1993)
• Parties: , 64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 317 Audra K. NOECKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 44

512 N.W.2d 44

203 Mich.App. 43, 64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 317

Audra K. NOECKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 127059.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 19, 1993, at Lansing.

Decided Dec. 20, 1993, at 9:15 a.m.

Released for Publication March 4, 1994.

Marks, Svendsen & Bird, P.C. by William P. Marks, Sturgis, for the plaintiff.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and A. Peter Govorchin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the defendant.

Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and SHEPHERD and MURPHY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the circuit court entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding that defendant discriminated against plaintiff, its former employee, on the basis of her marital status. We reverse.

Plaintiff is a registered nurse. In the summer of 1985, plaintiff interviewed for a position at the Lakewood Correctional Facility in Coldwater, which was scheduled to open that fall. Plaintiff specified that she was only interested in working the day shift because, as a wife and mother, she wanted to provide transportation for her children from school and to care for her children after school. Douglas Wills, defendant's employee conducting the hiring for the facility, indicated that plaintiff would be hired as an RN II and would work the day shift.

Shortly thereafter plaintiff resigned her prior job and began her position with defendant; however, she was told that she was classified as an RN I at a decreased salary, that she would not be working the day shift, and that she would be working at the women's prison and would not be transferring to the Lakewood Correctional Facility. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to her supervisors about the unfulfilled employment promises. As a result of her complaints, defendant began a series of tactics designed to force plaintiff to resign. One tactic defendant used was to assign plaintiff to the night shift, knowing that she wanted to work the day shift because of her family obligations. Defendant had apparently successfully used this tactic to force the resignation of other employees who had complained about the terms of their employment.

After plaintiff endured defendant's efforts to make her work life unpleasant for several months, plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed this action against defendant, alleging in part that defendant had discriminated against her in violation of the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq. Plaintiff contended that defendant had discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status by assigning her to the night shift, which defendant knew she did not wish to work because of her family obligations. The jury concluded that the defendant had discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her marital status and awarded plaintiff $37,715.60. The circuit court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In a related action, the Court of Claims held in favor of plaintiff on her wrongful discharge claim against defendant, awarding her $21,380.

Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because defendant's conduct can not be considered discrimination based on marital status under the Civil Rights Act. While we find defendant's conduct reprehensible, we agree that defendant did not discriminate against defendant on the basis of her marital status.

During the period relevant to this suit, § 202 of the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2202; M.S.A. § 3.548(202), provided in part:

(1) An employer shall not:

(a) Fail or refuse to hire, or recruit, or 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 which 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.

The purpose of the act is to prevent discrimination directed against a person because of that person's membership in a certain class and to eliminate the effects of offensive or demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases. Radtke v. Everett, 442 Mich. 368, 379, 501 N.W.2d 155 (1993); ...