way which deprives or tends to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affects the status of an employee.” M.C.L. § 37.1202(1)(b), (c). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If a defendant produces such evidence, the presumption is rebutted, and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s reasons were not the true reasons, but a mere pretext for discrimination. Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 469 Mich. 124, 666 N.W.2d 186, 193 (2003) (citations omitted) (addressing claim of pregnancy discrimination); see also Hall v. McRea Corp., 238 Mich.App. 361, 605 N.W.2d 354, 359 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs rebuttal of the employer’s
holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that burdenshifting analysis applies to handicap discrimination as well holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to  1983 claims holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims