 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trouten v. Autozone12/7/2004
ON REMAND
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff sued defendant for sexual harassment, alleging that four of defendant's employees sexually harassed her during the course of her twenty-six-month employment with defendant at an Autozone store. The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). After plaintiff appealed as of right to this Court, we found many of plaintiff's claims untenable and therefore affirmed the circuit court's order in part. Trouten v Autozone, Inc (Trouten I), unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 15, 2003 (Docket No. 232690), slip op, pp 4-6. However, we remanded the case for trial with regard to one of plaintiff's claims -- her allegation that a store manager, William Hall, engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment. Id. at 4, 6. Defendant appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which has remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274; 681 NW2d 342 (2004) (Corley II). See Trouten v Autozone, Inc (Trouten II), 471 Mich 879, 879; 686 NW2d 487 (2004). We discern nothing in Corley II that serves to change our prior analysis. Accordingly, we once again affirm the circuit court's ruling in part, reverse it in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.
In Trouten I, we stated:
The only allegation that fits within the quid pro quo framework here is plaintiff's contention that a store manager, Hall, treated her harshly because she had "broke heart." Plaintiff cites Corley v Detroit Bd of Education, 246 Mich App 15; 632 NW2d 147 (2001) [(Corley I), reversed by Corley II, supra]. We agree that Corley supports plaintiff's argument, because Corley acknowledged that a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim can be premised on an employer's (or an employer's agent's) adverse treatment of an employee due to a past, consensual, romantic relationship. See id. at 20-23. Under Corley , if plaintiff can establish a constructive discharge like that at issue in Champion [v Nationwide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702, 711; 545 NW2d 596 (1996)], and that resulted from the circumstances of a prior romantic relationship between her and Hall, then her quid pro quo sexual harassment claim can succeed. While such a claim might not ultimately succeed at trial, plaintiff has set forth at least some facts demonstrating (1) that Hall viewed his earlier relationship with plaintiff as romantic and (2) that Hall treated plaintiff harshly and made her working conditions intolerable because of the termination of this relationship. Accordingly, we conclude that the summary dismissal of this claim was inappropriate and that a remand for trial is necessary. [Trouten I, supra at 4.]
The Supreme Court's opinion in Corley II does not change our analysis. In Corley II, the pertinent facts were as follows:
Plaintiff was employed part-time as a counselor, and defendant Smith was her supervisor. During the course of their employment, plaintiff and Smith became romantically involved in a relationship that lasted three or four years. The relationship ended when Smith started dating another employee, defendant Barbara Finch. Plaintiff alleges that after Smith and Finch became involved, defendant Smith repeatedly threatened plaintiff with adverse employment action if she said or did anything that interfered with his relationship with Finch. Plaintiff also alleges that Finch taunted, embarrassed, and humiliated her by causing plaintiff's work station to be moved and by engaging in "catty" conversations with others that were about plaintiff and intended to be overheard by her. [Corley II, supra at 276.]
The Supreme Court, examining the language
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|