Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 29, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
142162 Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
SHIRLEY D. VINSON, Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
Plaintiff-Appellant, Mary Beth Kelly
v SC: 142162 Brian K. Zahra,
COA: 292579 Justices
Oakland CC: 2008-0088623-CZ
ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2010
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Record evidence that the defendant resolved to eliminate manual dialing, which only the
plaintiff utilized because her disability required her to work from her home, and that the
defendant terminated the plaintiff with the stated intent to replace her with an able-bodied
individual who could work in the defendant’s office, established a rebuttable prima facie
case of discrimination under the Persons with Disability Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101
et seq. The circuit court erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not create a prima facie case
because she admitted that she had no evidence that the defendant took any adverse action
against her because of her disability. Rather, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in that
regard was ambiguous. Further, the subject of reasonable accommodation was not
addressed in her deposition. The circuit court also erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not
plead her failure of reasonable accommodation claim. See Complaint, ¶ 20.
The circuit court’s alternative basis for granting summary disposition to the
defendant – that the plaintiff did not bear her burden to establish that the defendant’s
purported non-discriminatory basis to terminate her was a mere pretext – was also
erroneous. The defendant claimed that it terminated the plaintiff because its auto-dialing
system could only be operated from its office, and the plaintiff could not utilize the auto-
dialing system because she could only work from her home. However, the defendant
provided no evidentiary support for its claim that the auto-dialing system could not be
operated from the plaintiff’s home. Therefore, the plaintiff was not obligated to establish
that the defendant’s purported non-discriminatory basis for its termination of the plaintiff
was a mere pretext for its discriminatory action. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Michigan, 469 Mich 124, 134 (2003). We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit
Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 29, 2011 _________________________________________
p0426 Clerk
Shirley D Vinson v. Abn Amro Mortgage Group Inc
Combined Opinion