 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymal v. Baergen6/8/2004
idential discussions, all related to giving counsel background on himself, MTD, and the allegations in the lawsuit.
The trial court found a conflict of interest existed and that Clark's counsel attempted to take an adverse action against Baergen and MTD. The order entered by the trial court provided that "the motion to disqualify Clark's counsel is granted, and Clark's counsel is disqualified from further representation of the Clark defendants in this matter and from representing any party in any matter where such party is adverse in any way to Herman Baergen and/or MTD System Inc."
This Court granted Clark's application for leave to appeal the disqualification order, limited to the issues raised in the application. Rymal v Baergen, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 25, 2003 (Docket No. 243795). A motion for summary disposition filed by Clark was denied by the trial court, and on April 2, 2003, an order was entered by the trial court granting plaintiff's motion for order approving settlement and for entry of judgment. The order reflects that plaintiff and Clark settled the lawsuit for $200,000.
C. Summary Disposition
Defendants Baergen and MTD (hereinafter "defendants") filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Defendants first argued that Baergen had no liability under the CRA because, citing Jager, supra , the CRA does not provide for individual, supervisor liability. Defendants further argued that there was no MTD work environment, let alone a hostile work environment, and that plaintiff's allegations related solely to her employment with Clark. This argument was made by defendants in reliance on plaintiff's deposition testimony that her work for MTD, which involved general clerical work, including billing, making bank deposits, and paying bills, was done on evenings and Saturdays, totaled about twelve to fifteen hours per week, and was done from her home. The remainder of defendants' argument pertained to the SRCA claim.
Oral argument was presented to the trial court on the motion for summary disposition, and the court took the matter under advisement, subsequently issuing a written opinion. After reviewing the factual background of the case and presenting an overview, the trial court next stated that " hile perhaps unartfully worded, plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to put defendant MTD on notice of claims of retaliation, hostile work environment, and quid pro quo sexual harassment." Regarding the claim of retaliation, the trial court ruled that plaintiff had not established that her participation in protected activity, rejection of Baergen's sexual advances and complaint to the Clark executive, was a significant factor in MTD's employment actions. The trial court further stated:
Although plaintiff claims defendant Baergen's behavior toward her at defendants Clark changed after her rejection of his proposition, she testified she left the dinner [where the proposition was made] and proceeded to a regular distribution meeting for defendant MTD that defendant Baergen also attended without incident. Despite the allegations of ongoing problems with defendant Baergen at defendants Clark, the record does not suggest plaintiff had any problems with defendant Baergen at defendant MTD until April 2000 (some siX months later) when he took over the bookkeeping duties for defendant MTD. However, plaintiff's remaining duties with defendant MTD were not apparently affected.
While perhaps suggestive of a possible causal connection, the remoteness in time of the single incident related to defendant MTD does not establish plaintiff's presumed protected activities were a signifi
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.
|
|