 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carroll v. City of Flint6/25/2002
ccurred on July 2, 1998, where Newson began by calling another female employee a "c---" and "f---ing bitch" over the radio. Newson later appeared at the picnic table where plaintiff was taking a smoking break and began swearing and then gyrating his hips while standing next to plaintiff. As plaintiff walked into the building, she turned and saw Newson with his pants unzipped and partially pulled down and he again began gyrating his hips at her. Plaintiff responded by calling Newson the "stupidest motherf-----" she had ever seen, and Newson responded by saying, "Well, f--- you. Suck this." Plaintiff created a written complaint about this incident, dated July 6, 1998. Larson then conducted an investigation and his memorandum of July 8, 1998, indicates that he interviewed several employees who corroborated plaintiff's version. After the July 2, 1998, incident, Newson grabbed his crotch and said to plaintiff, "Suck this." He also called plaintiff a "bitch" on three or four occasions and used other profane language toward plaintiff after July 2, 1998.
Plaintiff clearly testified to more than one incident of sexual harassment and, in the totality of the circumstances, a jury could reasonably conclude that the work environment was so tainted by harassment that a reasonable person would have understood that Newson's conduct had the purpose or effect of subjecting plaintiff to an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant city with regard to the sexual harassment claim because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff was subjected to an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
IV.
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Newson with regard to her stalking claim. The trial court ruled that there was insufficient evidence presented to establish the stalking claim as that claim is statutorily defined.
Plaintiff's civil action of stalking is premised on MCL 600.2954, which allows a victim to maintain a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct that is prohibited under MCL 750.411h. MCL 750.411h(1)(d) defines stalking as:
"Stalking" means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
The crux of plaintiff's stalking claim revolves around the incident in May 1998 when Newson followed plaintiff home after work, and drove slowly on her street and passed her home a couple of times. Other conduct that plaintiff testified to included that Newson called her a "bitch" on several occasions and used other profane language directed toward her. Newson also used obscene gestures toward plaintiff and actually brushed against her on more than one occasion. Further, plaintiff testified that Newson would appear in the water service clerical offices after Larson issued his January 27, 1999, memorandum directing that employees to stay away from the front offices, while other employees essentially followed the memorandum's directive.
Additionally, plaintiff testified that Newson's conduct at work causes her to look over her should and constantly watch our for him. She testified that she has suffered weight loss, lack of sleep, has headaches, "feels like a nervous wreck," and is "constantly having to watch over shoulder."
We find that, contrary to the trial court's ruling, these allegatio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|