 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymal v. Baergen6/8/2004
0 Mich 702, 708-709; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). The issue presented to us is whether there was sufficient evidence to create a factual issue on whether plaintiff's rejection of Baergen's advances was a significant factor in employment decisions concerning plaintiff, such that the quid pro quo sexual harassment claim against MTD should proceed to trial.
Because this claim is against MTD, the evidence must be viewed in the context of adverse employment actions tied directly to MTD, as opposed to Clark. This does not, however, mean that Baergen's Clark-related actions cannot be considered as circumstantial evidence of his intent and motivation for making MTD decisions affecting plaintiff. There was evidence of a reduction of plaintiff's MTD duties and responsibilities and a significant reduction in salary in close temporal proximity to plaintiff's rejection of Baergen's advances and desire to rekindle the prior sexual relationship. This, along with the extensive evidence of the post-October 1999 verbal abuse, the letter drafted by Baergen following the "old friends" dinner, and the Clarkrelated adverse employment decisions, provided circumstantial evidence of a significant causal connection between the unwelcome communication and Baergen's MTD employment decisions, sufficient to show that any reasons for the decisions may have been pretextual and sufficient to survive summary disposition.
To establish a claim of hostile environment sexual harassment in the workplace, a plaintiff must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to conduct or communication on the basis of sex; (3) it was unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee's employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. Chambers, supra at 311, quoting Radtke v Everett , 442 Mich 368, 382383; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). The issue presented to us on this claim is whether there was evidence, sufficient to survive summary disposition, showing the existence of a hostile work environment in relation to plaintiff's MTD employment, such that the claim against MTD should proceed to trial.
Clearly, there was sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment predicated on abusive behavior closely following the rejection of Baergen's unwelcome attempt to resume a sexual relationship and predicated on Baergen's numerous comments to plaintiff which were of a sexual nature and which questioned her sexual activities. See Haynie, supra at 309. The more difficult issue is whether there was evidence of a hostile "MTD" work environment. Defendants argue that there was no actual MTD work environment, and alternatively, because plaintiff worked out of her home, and because there was no evidence of verbal abuse and angry outbursts at her home, there can be no claim for a hostile work environment. We disagree. While the evidence indicated that Baergen's intimidating, hostile conduct and communications occurred on the premises at Clark, there was evidence that MTD work was being performed at Clark by plaintiff and Baergen on a regular basis. Essentially, the Clark and MTD work environments were one in the same. As the trial court noted, Baergen was wearing two hats, and those hats, including the MTD hat, were being worn on Clark's premises. Summary dismissal was not appropriate.
Finally, in regard to the retaliation claim as to both MTD and Baergen, there was sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition. The issue presented to us on this claim is whether there was sufficient eviden
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|