Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its unpublished decision in Burkhardt v Flint Community Schools.  The Plaintiffs were two experienced, female, white teachers who alleged that they were discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, and race in violation of the Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).

Plaintiffs were teachers at Mott High School.  All Mott teachers were on a different pay schedule than other K‑12 teachers in the school district; additionally, Mott teachers were paid on an hourly basis, while other K‑12 teachers were salaried.  When Mott closed in 2014, Plaintiffs were transferred to Northwestern High School.  Around the same time, the District and the teachers’ union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement, which did not explain how transitioning Mott teachers would be placed onto the new K‑12 pay/salary schedule. The District and union negotiated a plan for step placement.  At the same time, financial difficulties resulted in a wage freeze for teachers, implemented via a Memorandum of Understanding between the District and union.  After the financial difficulties were addressed, the District and union entered into another Memorandum of Understanding addressing step placement for new teachers.

As a result of the various events described above, Plaintiffs alleged that the step‑placement decisions were a violation of the ELCRA because they disparately treated and disparately impacted Plaintiffs.  Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that they were treated differently from similarly‑situated employees because Plaintiffs were paid less.  Plaintiffs also argued that they were differently impacted because the agreements between the District and union had a negative impact on older, white, and female teachers as compared to others outside those classes.

The court disagreed with both arguments.  As to Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment theory, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs were required to demonstrate how they were treated differently from similarly‑situated individuals.  However, Plaintiffs only explained how they were treated differently from general K‑12 teachers rather than teachers who, like them, had been transitioned from Mott.  The court concluded that because Plaintiffs were not similarly‑situated to general K‑12 teachers, they could not make out a claim under a disparate treatment theory.  Similarly, Plaintiffs were required to explain how they were differently impacted than other comparable employees to make out a disparate impact case.  Instead, Plaintiffs compared themselves to newly‑hired teachers not impacted by the pay freeze.  Plaintiffs did not demonstrate how they were disproportionately impacted by the pay freeze compared to other teachers whose pay was frozen.

Ultimately, the court determined that Plaintiffs could not establish a violation of the ELCRA and dismissed the case.  The opinion, which is accessible here, is recommended reading for those who would like to learn more about the basic requirements of disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under the ELCRA.