# Lytle v. Malady

> Michigan Supreme Court · July 1, 1998 · 458 Mich. 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534546

## Case

- **Full name:** Lytle v. Malady (On Rehearing)
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 1, 1998
- **Citations:** 458 Mich. 153; 579 N.W.2d 906
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brickley
- **Judges:** Brickley, Mallett, Boyle, Taylor, Weaver, Kelly, Cavanagh
- **Cited by:** 230 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534546

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that written policy in employee handbook that “[n]o employee will be terminated without proper cause or reason and not until management has made a careful review of the facts” was insufficient to overcome express disclaimer that “[t]he contents of this booklet are n…
- holding “that provisions in a handbook will not create enforceable rights when the handbook expressly states that such provisions are not intended to create an employment contract” (citing Heurtebise v. Reliable Bus. Computers, 452 Mich. 405, 550 N.W.2d 243 (1996))
- explaining that at the pretext stage, “mere disproof of an employer’s proffered [legitimate] reason [for the adverse action] is insufficient to survive summary [judgment], unless such disproof also raises a triable question of [unlawful] motive, not mere falsity”
- explaining that Michigan’s four-part test is an “adaptation of the United States Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas test”
- describing the fourth part of the prima facie case as requiring the plaintiff to show that he "was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination," but explaining that "[t]his four part test is an adaptation of the United States Suprem…

## Opinion text

Brickley, J.
I concur with the majority to the extent that it dismisses plaintiff’s claims of age and sex discrimination. However, for the reasons set forth in my opinion in Lytle v Malady, 456 Mich 1, 67-68 ; 566 NW2d 582 (1997), I dissent from the majority’s rationale regarding plaintiff’s wrongful-termination claim. I would uphold summary disposition for the defendant because “plaintiff failed to raise a question of material fact that the defendant had just cause to terminate the plaintiff as part of its reduction in force.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534546. Public record. Not legal advice.