 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kitchen v. City of Brighton11/18/2004
UNPUBLISHED
Defendants Brighton Area Fire Authority (BAFA) and Brighton Fire Chief Larry Lane appeal from the trial court's order denying the imposition of sanctions on plaintiff for frivolous actions under MCL 600.2591 and frivolous pleadings under MCR 2.114. Because the positions taken by plaintiff at the time of filing of the complaint presented an arguable cause of action, the trial court did not commit clear error. We affirm.
We review a trial court's denial of sanctions based on frivolous pleadings and claims for clear error. Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654, 661; 641 NW2d 245 (2002). A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id., 661-662 For the purposes of imposition of sanctions, a claim or pleading is "frivolous" if: (1) the party's primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party; (2) the party had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying his or her legal position were true; or (3) the party's legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit. Id., 662. Whether a claim was frivolous must be based on the particular facts and circumstances and the claims or defenses at issue at the time they were made. Jerico Construction, Inc v Quadrants, Inc, 257 Mich App 22, 36; 666 NW2d 310 (2003). Under MCR 2.114, sanctions are mandatory if a court finds that a pleading was signed in violation of a court rule or a frivolous action or defense was pleaded. Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576; 669 NW2d296 (2003).
Plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and sex discrimination are based on Michigan's Civil Rights Act, (CRA) MCL 37.2101 et seq. To establish discrimination based on a hostile work environment within the meaning of the CRA, a plaintiff must show that: (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 communication was intended to or did substantially interfere with the employee's employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, and (5) respondeat superior. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 382; 501 NW2d 155 (1993).
As the cause of action was contemplated at the time of filing, plaintiff's testimony provided some evidence of the elements required by the act to avoid the imposition of sanctions. Because the CRA prohibits discrimination based upon sex, plaintiff is a member of a protected group. Asplaugh v Comm on Law Enforcement Standards, 246 Mich App 547, 554-555; 634 NW2d 161 (2001). Plaintiff also alleged that Lane made comments to her based on sex. Plaintiff testified that she told Lane several times that such behavior was unwelcome. This unwelcome conduct in turn substantially interfered with plaintiff's employment, as she allegedly curtailed the number of fire calls to which she responded because she wanted to avoid contact with Lane. Furthermore, she testified that she searched for another job because Lane was verbally abusive to her. Plaintiff's deposition testimony provided some evidence in support of the first four elements of a hostile work environment claim as it was then constituted under the CRA. But because Lane was her supervisor, rather than her actual employer, she cannot establish the fifth element, respondeat superior, and the trial court properly granted Lane's motion for summary disposition. Additionally, there was a reasonable basis for plaintiff to believe that the BAFA could be liable for Lane's conduct on a the
Page 1 2 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|