Background
Samuel Balogun, a Nigerian-born officer with the Detroit Police Department since 2000, was terminated following an Internal Affairs investigation arising from a 2019 altercation with a fellow neighborhood police officer, Tania Stribling. After Balogun verbally confronted Stribling and allegedly placed his hands near her neck, an investigation was initiated. The arbitrator who heard Balogun’s termination appeal found insufficient evidence that he had physically choked Stribling, but determined he had lied multiple times during the investigation by denying he was ever alone in the room with her — a statement he ultimately recanted at arbitration. Under DPD policy, making an untrue statement was grounds for termination, and the arbitrator upheld his dismissal on that basis.
Balogun had also attempted to file an EEO complaint the day after the investigation began, alleging sexual harassment by Sergeant Velma Hampton — a complaint he acknowledged was partly motivated by a belief that Hampton was “going after” him. No evidence of harassment was found. In July 2022, Balogun sued the City of Detroit under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), asserting claims of employment discrimination (race, national origin, and sex), retaliation for the EEO complaint, and hostile work environment based on his national origin. The Wayne Circuit Court granted the City’s motion for summary disposition on all claims, and Balogun appealed.
On appeal, Balogun argued that similarly situated officers — Stribling, Sergeant Denmark, and Sergeant Hampton — also lied during the investigation but were not terminated, giving rise to an inference of discriminatory motive. He further contended that the continuation of the investigation after Stribling clarified she was not threatened was retaliatory, and that repeated mockery of his Nigerian accent by colleagues created an actionable hostile work environment.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition on all three claims. On the discrimination claim, the court held that Balogun failed to establish the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case — circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. The court found that none of the proposed comparators (Stribling, Denmark, or Hampton) were shown to have actually lied during the investigation, and that even if their recollections differed, inconsistent memory does not constitute intentional dishonesty. The court also noted that none of those officers were themselves subjects of an Internal Affairs investigation, making them not “similarly situated in all relevant respects” to Balogun. On the sex discrimination sub-claim, the court found Stribling was not similarly situated because, unlike Balogun, she had no prior disciplinary record for swearing at colleagues.
On the retaliation claim, the court held that Balogun failed to establish a causal connection between his EEO complaint and his termination. The Internal Affairs investigation had been initiated before his EEO complaint was filed, the investigators were instructed to treat the EEO process as separate, and DPD policy required any initiated investigation to be completed regardless of subsequent events. These facts negated any inference that the EEO complaint was a significant factor in the adverse employment action.
On the hostile work environment claim, the court found that while Balogun was subject to unwelcome comments about his Nigerian accent — satisfying the first three prima facie elements — the evidence did not establish that a reasonable person would find the conduct severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The comments were sporadic and of disputed frequency, were never physically threatening, and did not interfere with Balogun’s work performance. Critically, Balogun had told his supervisor he was not bothered by the comments, never formally complained about them, and himself participated in national-origin-based joking by calling colleagues “dumb Americans.” Additionally, the most specific alleged statements by Sergeant Hampton all predated the three-year ELCRA limitations period and were therefore not directly actionable.
Key Takeaways
- To serve as a valid comparator under ELCRA’s McDonnell Douglas framework, a proposed comparator must be nearly identical to the plaintiff in all relevant respects — including being subject to the same type of disciplinary proceeding; witnesses in an Internal Affairs investigation are not similarly situated to the subject of that investigation.
- An EEO complaint filed after an Internal Affairs investigation has already been initiated cannot establish the required causal connection for a retaliation claim when department policy mandated completion of all initiated investigations.
- A hostile work environment claim under ELCRA requires more than sporadic, offensive comments; a plaintiff’s own participation in similar joking, failure to complain to supervisors, and contemporaneous statements that he was not bothered by the conduct all weigh heavily against finding the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive.
- Statements barred by ELCRA’s three-year limitations period may be used only as background evidence of a broader pattern and cannot independently sustain a hostile work environment claim.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision offers a detailed application of the “similarly situated” comparator analysis in the context of police department internal investigations, reinforcing that the disciplinary posture of a proposed comparator — not merely their shared duty of truthfulness — is a material factor in determining whether differential treatment gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Employers defending ELCRA claims can point to this case for the proposition that witnesses in an investigation are categorically distinct from its subject for comparator purposes.
The hostile work environment analysis is also instructive: the court’s emphasis on the plaintiff’s own participation in national-origin banter and his contemporaneous denial of being bothered — absent any formal complaints — underscores that subjective offense alone is insufficient under ELCRA’s reasonable-person standard. For employment counsel advising clients on documentation and complaint procedures, the case highlights how an employee’s failure to register contemporaneous objections can significantly undermine an otherwise viable hostile environment claim.