Legal Opinion

Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 2003No. Docket 119407PublishedCited by 152 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, C.J.

In this pregnancy discrimination case, we have been asked to decide whether the trial court erred by denying defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan’s (bcbsm) motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We hold that because plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between her pregnancy and bcbsm’s failure to hire her, bcbsm was entitled to a finding of no cause of action as a matter of law. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by152 opinions

  1. Mark Laster v. City of KalamazooCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  2. Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  4. Craig v. Oakwood HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health ServicesMichigan Supreme Court · 2005

147 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API