Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Mich.: Black employee’s race claims dismissed where she could not identify white comparator, (Jun 16, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The employee testified that she heard an unidentified white female employee had been accused of stealing, but she failed to provide the name or job title of that individual, or any evidence pertaining to her or the alleged incident.

A federal district court in Michigan has dismissed race discrimination and harassment/hostile work environment claims brought by a Black female employee of an urgent care clinic who was fired for making inappropriate comments to a police officer who sought treatment at the clinic and his supervisor. The employee failed to identify a similarly situated white employee who made inappropriate comments to a patient and was not fired; thus she failed to make out a prima facie showing of race discrimination. She also failed to establish that the alleged harassment or hostile work environment was based upon her race or gender (Hightower-Mathis v. NextCare Michigan Providers, PLLC, No. 23-13310 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 13, 2025)).

The employer operated an urgent care clinic in Michigan. The employee, an African-American female, worked at the clinic as a patient service specialist. Her job was to stay at the front desk and register patients. On July 5, 2022, a police officer came to the clinic for treatment wearing his uniform. The employee did not know him and had never met him before. One of her coworkers, also an African-American female, registered the officer.

Inappropriate questions. Although the employee was not involved in registering him, she asked him how long he had been on the police force and if he had ever killed anyone. The employee testified that she did not typically ask patients if they have killed anyone and that her questions were not relevant for registration or treatment. The officer reported this interaction to his supervisor and, as a result, his supervisor came to the clinic and also had a difficult conversation with the employee.

Contract termination. The employee’s conduct caused the local police department to terminate its contract with the clinic. The clinic terminated the employee on July 6. An HR employee testified that the employee was terminated because she made inappropriate comments to the two police officers, which caused the employer to lose the contract that it had with the police department.

The employee’s supervisor, along with the HR official, and the employer’s Regional Vice President made the decision to terminate the employee. The HR official had never met the employee and did not know her at the time of the termination decision. The employee was not aware of any other patient service specialists who were not terminated after making inappropriate comments to a patient. The employee was also not aware of any other situations with the clinic’s employees that involved the police. She was unaware of any employees who replaced her as a patient service specialist. The employee never complained to the employer that she felt she was being harassed.

Following her termination, the employee sued the employer, alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII, Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), and 42 USC § 1981 and gender/sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and ELCRA. The employer moved for summary judgment.

Race discrimination claims. The employee did not submit any evidence to establish that the employer replaced her as a patient service specialist with someone outside of her protected class. That left her to establish the final element of a prima facie case by showing that she was treated differently than a similarly situated, non-protected employee. During her deposition, the employee testified that she was not aware of any white patient service specialists who made inappropriate comments to a patient and were not fired. She testified that she heard an unidentified white female employee had been accused of stealing but was not fired, at least to her knowledge.

Notably, the employee failed to provide the court with the name or job title of that individual, or any evidence whatsoever pertaining to this employee, or any facts regarding the alleged incident. “On this scant and incomplete evidence, a reasonable jury could not find that” this unidentified employee was similarly situated to the employee, the court stated. Accordingly, the court dismissed the employee’s race discrimination claims because she failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Gender discrimination claims. The employee’s claim that she was unlawfully terminated because of her gender failed based on her own deposition testimony. During her deposition, she testified that the employer’s termination of her employment had nothing to do with her gender.

Harassment/hostile work environment claims. The employee sought to proceed with harassment/hostile work environment claims, under both Title VII and ELCRA, based upon both race and gender. The employer asserted that these claims failed for multiple reasons, including that they were procedurally barred because the employee failed to include them in her EEOC charge. But even if she had included them, those claims would still fail, the court explained.

The employee could not establish a harassment/hostile work environment claim based upon either race or gender. She testified that she did not believe that the employer harassed her based upon her race or gender. Thus, the employee could not establish that the alleged harassment or hostile work environment was based upon her race or gender. The employee also admitted that she never complained to the employer that she felt like she was being harassed.

Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion and the employee’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The case is No. 23-13310.

Judge: Cox, S.

Attorneys: Rejanae Thurman (Thurman Legal Center) for LaQuinta Hightower-Mathis. Joseph A. Starr (Starr, Butler, Alexopoulos, & Stoner) for NextCare Michigan Providers, PLLC.

Companies: NextCare Michigan Providers, PLLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge MichiganNews