Piecka v. Genesys Reg'l Med. Ctr.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Decision Date: 19 August 2021
• Docket Number: 356315
• Citation: Piecka v. Genesys Reg'l Med. Ctr., 356315 (Mich. App. Aug 19, 2021)
• Parties: MICHELLE PIECKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENESYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ASCENSION GENESYS MEDICAL CENTER, ASCENSION GENESYS HOSPITAL, and KATHERINE ROBERTSON-CAIN, Defendants-Appellees.

MICHELLE PIECKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENESYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ASCENSION GENESYS MEDICAL CENTER, ASCENSION GENESYS HOSPITAL, and KATHERINE ROBERTSON-CAIN, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 356315

Court of Appeals of Michigan

August 19, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 20-113888-CZ

Before: Stephens, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Michele Piecka alleged that her employer discriminated and retaliated against her, and constructively terminated her employment based on her sex. The circuit court summarily dismissed Piecka's claims raised under the civil rights act, and on reconsideration also dismissed her claim that she had been wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. For the most part, the circuit court correctly determined that no factual issues exist. However, Piecka did create a genuine issue of material fact that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex by giving a similarly situated male employee preferential treatment with regard to seeking additional work hours. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Michele Piecka began working in a part-time, nonunion position at the hospital in 2014.^[1]Katherine Robertson-Cain was the Director of Perioperative Services, covering several departments in the hospital. Robertson-Cain and Piecka were close personal friends, and Robertson-Cain recommended Piecka for the position. Piecka briefly held other positions before becoming a clerk in the preadmissions testing (PAT) department. She worked the morning shift and Robert Petrik worked in the afternoon. Their supervisor was Melissa Sparks, and Robertson-Cain supervised Sparks. The PAT also included about 13 to 15 unionized nurses, two other clerks with different job duties, and a receptionist.

Piecka described that beginning in early 2018, Sparks began a campaign of harassment directed at her. Evidence established that Sparks treated everyone, male and female, poorly. However, Piecka noted that Sparks gave Petrik preferential treatment. Petrik was assigned less work, held to a lesser standard, and rewarded with additional hours, including overtime-benefits denied to Piecka. Piecka took these concerns to Robertson-Cain, and believed Robertson-Cain intervened on her behalf as some of the issues abated.

Piecka further described that because of their friendship Robertson-Cain shared information about potentially illegal actions. Piecka believed that Robertson-Cain violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 42 USC 1320d et seq., on a regular basis by sharing patients' private medical information with her husband and looking at neighbors' and coworkers' medical charts to satisfy her curiosity. On one occasion, Robertson-Cain asked Piecka to look at the surgical information of another employee and on another, asked Piecka to pull an employee's surgical chart and give it to a particular nurse. Piecka questioned Robertson-Cain's motives, but ultimately performed the requested actions. Piecka also alleged that Robertson-Cain covered up two employees' jail time to protect their nursing licenses and jobs, fired two nurses for reporting defective surgical gowns to the state, and covered up employees' spouses accessing their work email accounts. Piecka expressed her concerns to Robertson-Cain but reported her actions to no one else.

Eventually, Piecka and Robertson-Cain had a falling out in their personal life. Sometime after that, Robertson-Cain allegedly told Piecka that her job would be absorbed into a unionized department, thereby dissolving her position. Piecka promptly started looking for a new position, found one, and resigned. She later discovered that Robertson-Cain had lied about the position being dissolved.

Piecka filed suit against the hospital and Robertson-Cain, alleging claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (WDPP), as well as retaliation, retaliatory harassment, and discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. The WDPP claim relied on Piecka's objections to Robertson-Cain's illegal activities, which Piecka alleged led Robertson-Cain to lie about her position being dissolved. The CRA claims were based on the preferential treatment given to Petrik and Piecka's constructive discharge. After discovery, defendants sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that Piecka could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliatory discharge, or retaliatory harassment under the CRA. Further, defendants asserted that Piecka had not identified an objective legal source to support her WDPP claim. For all of the claims, defendants contended that Piecka could not prevail as she resigned to take new employment and therefore had not suffered an adverse employment action.

Piecka retorted that Robertson-Cain's lie about the dissolution of her position amounted to a constructive discharge. Further, Piecka insisted that her mistreatment at the hands of Sparks, along with Petrik's receipt of additional regular and overtime hours, were adverse employment actions. Piecka asserted that she had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and retaliatory harassment in violation of the CRA. As to her WDPP claim, Piecka posited that Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich.App. 519; 854 N.W.2d 152 (2014), supported her claim.

The circuit court summarily dismissed Piecka's claims under the CRA, finding no evidence that the cited adverse employment actions were caused by defendants' discriminatory intent. The court permitted the WDPP claim to proceed, but abbreviated Piecka's damages due to a failure to mitigate.

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. Piecka cited a factual dispute regarding the reasonableness of her job search after being constructively discharged. Defendants argued that the WDPP claim should have been dismissed as well. The circuit court ultimately agreed with defendants, summarily dismissing Piecka's claims in their entirety. Piecka appeals.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo both issues of statutory interpretation and a court's resolution of a summary disposition motion. Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich. 1, 5; 878 N.W.2d 784 (2016); Rowland v Washtenaw Co Road Comm, 477 Mich. 197, 202; 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) "tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint . . . ." Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200, 206; 815 N.W.2d 412 (2012). The trial court must consider the evidence submitted by both parties "in the light most favorable" to the nonmoving party. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition is proper where there is no "genuine issue regarding any material fact," and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

We review for an abuse of discretion a court's decision on a motion for reconsideration. Farm Bureau Ins Co v TNT Equip, Inc, 328 Mich.App. 667, 672; 939 N.W.2d 738 (2019). "A trial court abuses its discretion if it chooses an outcome outside the range of principled outcomes." Id.

III. CRA CLAIMS

The Elliott-Larsen civil rights act (CRA) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of sex, MCL 37.2202(1)(a), and from retaliating or discriminating against an employee who reports a CRA violation, MCL 37.2701(a). Piecka raised violations of both provisions and the circuit court summarily dismissed both. We address each in turn.

A. RETALIATION

MCL 37.2701(a) prohibits employers from retaliating or discriminating "against a person because the person has opposed a violation of [the CRA], or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [the CRA]." In other words, "an employer is liable if it retaliates against an employee for having engaged in protected activity, e.g., opposing a violation of the [CRA]'s antidiscrimination provision." White v Dep't of Transp, Mich. App, ; N.W.2d (2020) (Docket No. 349407); slip op at 7. A prima facie retaliation claim requires proof that: "(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." Garg v Macomb Co Comm Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich. 263, 273; 696 N.W.2d 646 (2005) (cleaned up).

A protected activity for purposes of the CRA is "opposing a violation of the [CRA]'s antidiscrimination provision." White ____, Mich.App. at ____; slip op at 7. Nothing formal is required. "Regardless of the vagueness of the charge or the lack of formal invocation of the protection of the act, if an employer's decision to terminate or otherwise adversely [a]ffect an employee is a result of that employee raising the spectre of a discrimination complaint, retaliation prohibited by the act occurs." McLemore v Detroit Receiving Hosp & Univ Med Ctr, 196 Mich.App. 391, 396; 493 N.W.2d 441 (1992). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Piecka, she engaged in a protected activity. Piecka notified Robertson-Cain that Petrik received preferential treatment. Even if Piecka did not expressly assert that the preferential treatment was based on sex, her communication sufficiently "rais[ed] the spectre of a discrimination complaint."

Further, defendants clearly were aware of the protected activity. Robertson-Cain, a department director at the hospital, admitted that she knew of Piecka's complaints.

There...