14 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barrett v. Kirtland Community Collegegreen2 sentences2025The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination” under -9- ELCRA Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 319 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001) (citations omitted). 2025The employee’s charge must clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discrimination” under -9- ELCRA Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 319 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001) (citations omitted). | 3 | 13 |
Cremonte v. Michigan State Policegreen2 sentences2016See Cremonte v Mich State Police, 232 Mich App 240 , 244 n 4; 591 NW2d 261 (1998) (where the plaintiff’s writings to his superiors did not raise the specter of a discrimination complaint, nor did they contain any hint of -4- any illegality on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff had no evidence that he had opposed a violation of the CRA), and Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 319 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001) (to make a “charge” under the CRA, the employee must “clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discriminati 2016See Cremonte v Mich State Police, 232 Mich App 240 , 244 n 4; 591 NW2d 261 (1998) (where the plaintiff’s writings to his superiors did not raise the specter of a discrimination complaint, nor did they contain any hint of -4- any illegality on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff had no evidence that he had opposed a violation of the CRA), and Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 319 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001) (to make a “charge” under the CRA, the employee must “clearly convey to an objective employer that the employee is raising the specter of a claim of unlawful discriminati | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meyer v. City of Center Line
green
2 sentences2017“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) that this was known by the defendant, (3) that the defendant took an . . . action adverse to the plaintiff, and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse . . . action.” [Meyers v City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 568-569 ; 619 NW2d 182 (2000).] To engage in a protected activity under MCL 37.2701(a), a plaintiff must clearly convey to an objective defendant that she is “raising the specter o 2017“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) that this was known by the defendant, (3) that the defendant took an . . . action adverse to the plaintiff, and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse . . . action.” [Meyers v City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 568-569 ; 619 NW2d 182 (2000).] To engage in a protected activity under MCL 37.2701(a), a plaintiff must clearly convey to an objective defendant that she is “raising the specter o | 2 | 2017–2017 |
McLemore v. Detroit Receiving Hospital & University Medical Center
green
2 sentences2016McLemore v Detroit Receiving Hosp & Univ Medical Center, 196 Mich App 391, 396 ; 493 NW2d 441 (1992). 2016McLemore v Detroit Receiving Hosp & Univ Medical Center, 196 Mich App 391, 396 ; 493 NW2d 441 (1992). | 2 | 2001–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.