Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zarza v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

August 5, 2019

Karen Zarza, Plaintiff,
v.
Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Defendant.

          David R. Grand U.S. Magistrate Judge.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL [4]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior U.S. District Judge.

         On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Karen Zarza, through counsel, commenced this employment discrimination retaliation action against Defendant Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (“U of M”). Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) [4] filed on April 10, 2019. The Court now finds the Motion suitable for determination without a hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion and DISMISS without prejudice Counts II-V of the Complaint.

         Statement of Facts

         In October 2003, Plaintiff Karen Zarza began working for Defendant U of M as a janitorial supervisor. In August 2013, and again in July 2014, one of Plaintiff's custodian subordinates injured himself on the job. On July 20, 2015, the custodian filed a workers' compensation action pertaining to the injuries that occurred at work under Plaintiff's supervision.

         After pursuing the workers' compensation claim, the custodian was fired. On May 8, 2017, the custodian filed an employment discrimination action against U of M in federal district court. Plaintiff, as the custodian's supervisor and as the employee who prepared the incident reports following his accidents, testified in connection with the district court lawsuit.

         On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff met with the head of her department to discuss the custodian's termination. At the meeting, she informed the department head of her belief that the custodian had been wrongfully terminated. She also accused U of M of fabricating evidence in connection with the custodian's termination.

         On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff had a second meeting with the department head, a human resources representative, and her office manager concerning the custodian's case. Plaintiff claims that, at this meeting, she advised her department head that she would testify honestly in the ongoing lawsuit, which included disclosing her objections to U of M's treatment of the custodian.

         Following the meetings with her superiors, Plaintiff began experiencing harassment and hostility in the workplace. On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave. On November 10, 2017, she was fired.

         On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On September 13, 2018, the EEOC issued a Notice of a Right to Sue.

         Procedural History

         On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Count I), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (Count II), Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”) (Count III), the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) (Count IV), and Michigan's Worker's Disability Compensation Act (“WDCA”) (Count V).

         Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaration that U of M's actions constitute unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 504, the ADA, PWDCRA, FMLA, and WDCA.

         On April 10, 2019, Defendant filed this Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) [4]. Plaintiff filed a Response [7] on April 24, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.