By Anna Christine Zorn
In Sobotka v. Olympia Ent., Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a wrongful termination action brought on by Plaintiff Albert Sobotka, against his employer, Defendant Olympia Entertainment, Inc. Olympia Entertainment manages Little Ceasars Arena (the “Arena”) in Detroit, Michigan, home of the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League (NHL). Plaintiff was a longtime Zamboni driver at the arena and was terminated following an incident in which he urinated into the Zamboni ice-pit. Plaintiff claims the incident was a result of his prostate condition and that the firing was a discriminatory action based on both his age and disability.
Facts
In late January 2022, while in a meeting, Plaintiff’s supervisor told Plaintiff something along the lines of “you’re old.” Days later, after completing an ice-resurfacing and parking the Zamboni in the garage, Plaintiff urinated into what is known as a “snow pit.” Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, one of his ice-crew members witnessed the incident as the doorway into the garage was open. Even though Plaintiff’s back was to the door, it was clear to the witness what had taken place. The witness reported the incident to the Arena’s Human Resources (HR) department. Two days later, Plaintiff was questioned about the incident by HR and his direct supervisor. Plaintiff openly admitted to urinating into the ice pit. Not only that, Plaintiff admitted that it was a “common practice” among the ice-crew staff. As a result, Plaintiff was suspended for a week while HR conducted an investigation. Later during the investigation, Plaintiff disclosed to HR that his doctor had diagnosed him with an undisclosed prostate issue. Following a nearly two-week investigation, Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff’s supervisor, as well as two higher level supervisors, all agreed that immediate termination was the correct course of action. The Arena immediately hired a replacement from another area of the company who was 29 years younger than Plaintiff.
Two months after his termination, Plaintiff filed a claim of age discrimination and a claim of disability discrimination against Defendant. In turn, Defendant moved for summary judgement for both claims. The two questions most relevant are: 1) Was the reason for Plaintiff’s termination (urinating at work in an open space) pretextual? and 2) Was Plaintiff’s prostate issue a disability upon which Defendant based their termination?
Age Discrimination Claim
To succeed on an age discrimination claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) they were a member of a protected class, (2) they were subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) they were qualified for the job, and (4) the job was subsequently given to another person under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. The defendant then must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. If they are able to do so, the plaintiff can then rebut by showing the provided reason was merely pretextual. This is where Plaintiff rests his argument in this case. It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a protected class member due to his age and he faced an adverse employment action (termination). Plaintiff was qualified for the job given his 50+ years of experience with the organization and the hired replacement was 29 years younger than Plaintiff. Defendant argues the only reason for Plaintiff’s termination was the urination incident and the disputed “you’re old” statements were not a factor in the decision. These age related statements were not made in the presence of the ultimate decision maker for Plaintiff’s termination, therefore there was no direct evidence of any age-related animus toward Plaintiff. However, there was evidence that Plaintiff’s supervisor, who made the “you’re old” comment, shared his opinion with the ultimate decision-maker. Therefore, a jury could reasonably infer that Plaintiff’s termination was in part influenced by the supervisor’s opinion, and in turn Plaintiff’s age. In a summary judgement motion, the moving party need only show there is a question of material fact. Here, there is clearly a question of fact regarding the weight of the “you’re old” statements that should be left for a jury to decide.
Disability Discrimination Claim
In Michigan, an employee can claim disability discrimination by showing (1) the employer knew of the employee’s disability, (2) the employer perceived the disability as substantially limiting the employee’s ability to perform life activities, and (3) the employer believed the disability to be unrelated to the employee’s ability to perform their work duties.
Here, Defendant argues that the second element cannot be met. Although Plaintiff disclosed to HR during the investigation that he was diagnosed with a “prostate issue,” Plaintiff fails to provide further evidence that Defendant regarded this issue as limiting their abilities to perform life activities. No further details were provided to Defendant regarding the “prostate issue” or its effects on the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant lacked sufficient information to conclude that Plaintiff was disabled, and that said disability led to the incident at hand. Therefore, Plaintiff’s speculation is insufficient to prove disability discrimination.
Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to establish sufficient facts to prove disability discrimination, however, a question of fact still remains as to the age discrimination claim. In a summary judgement motion, a court must view the facts the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and Plaintiff claimed the “you’re old” statements were a relevant factor in his terminations. Therefore, it must be left to a jury to determine whether the statements in fact affected Plaintiff’s termination. As a result, the court granted Defendant’s summary judgment motion related to Plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination, but denied Defendant’s motion regarding Plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination.
Anna is a 3L at the University of Illinois-Chicago. She can be reached at azorn3@uic.edu
