 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beagle v. General Motors Corp.12/27/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff Bruce Beagle appeals by right the trial court's order of judgment entered in accordance with the jury's verdict of no cause of action. Defendant Cindy Kayanek cross appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for directed verdict. We affirm.
I. DISMISSAL OF GM
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing GM and granting summary disposition in favor of GM pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). On appeal, plaintiff is essentially arguing that GM could be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment; thus, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of GM. The trial court's grant of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on appeal. Munson Medical Center v Auto Club Ins Assoc, 218 Mich App 375, 382; 554 NW2d 49 (1996). '"When reviewing a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the trial court must consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.'" Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464, 471; 652 NW2d 503 (2002), quoting Meyer v Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 574; 619 NW2d 182 (2000). "Summary disposition is appropriate where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact." Jager, supra.
At the October 13, 1999 motion hearing, the trial court dismissed the sexual harassment, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts against GM. With respect to the sexual harassment (ELCRA) claim, the trial court stated that plaintiff never reported the alleged numerous sexual harassment incidents to anyone at GM until after the August 15th incident. Although plaintiff argues that the trial court engaged in factfinding in making this finding, we disagree. There was no dispute regarding this fact. Plaintiff admitted that he did not report any of the alleged incidents until after the last incident that occurred on August 15. When plaintiff made this report, GM conducted a prompt investigation. The trial court concluded that GM had a good defense to vicarious liability because (1) GM had a program in place to investigate and take appropriate action where sexual harassment is alleged, (2) plaintiff knew about the GM policy and failed to take advantage of it, and (3) GM did take action once a report was made. Thereafter, the court granted summary disposition in favor of GM on the sexual harassment claim.
ELCRA prohibits an employer from discriminating because of sex, which includes sexual harassment. MCR 37.2202(1); MCL 37.2103(i); Jager, supra. In this case, plaintiff's sexual harassment claim against GM is based on a hostile work environment. MCL 37.2103(i)(iii) provides:
(i) Discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions:
(iii) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment . . . or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment . . . environment.
In order to demonstrate a claim of hostile environment harassment, an employee must prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) the employee belonged to a protected group;
(2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex;
(3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication;
(4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|