Woman's FMLA and PWDCRA claims are dismissed because she didn't prove employer's knowledge
Valeria Goshton sued Arva Overton, her supervisor, and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, claiming she was terminated, rather than accommodated, when she sought medical leave for a disability--in her case hypertension. Overton filed an affidavit claiming that she was not aware that Goshton suffered from hypertension, and therefore could not have violated the State's version of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court agreed and dismissed the PWDCRA claim.
The Court also dismissed the FMLA violation claim, finding that mere "temporal proximity" (i.e., she sought leave and was immediately dismissed) was inadequate to prove a retaliatory motive: Goshton was required to proffer some other evidence to corroborate the Defendants' discriminatory or retaliatory motive. Perhaps the Defendants put a memo in Goshton's file, confirming their illegal intent? Or at least told a friendly co-worker of their violation of the law? Barring evidence of--metaphorically speaking--blood on the defendants' hands, a plaintiff cannot meet the corroborative requirement tacked to the statute by the Engler Majority of Michigan's Supreme Court.