 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kecskes v. Paramount Newport Corp.2/16/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant Vincent Wood appeals as on leave granted the trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and denying defendant's motion for summary disposition of plaintiff's sex discrimination claim under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2202(1)(a); MSA 3.548(202)(1)(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Paramount Newport Corporation (Paramount), brought this action alleging, inter alia, that during her employment she was subjected to repeated acts of sexual harassment by James Cosgrove, Paramount's chief financial officer. Plaintiff named as defendants Paramount, Cosgrove, and Wood, an owner and officer of Paramount. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Wood had knowledge of Cosgrove's inappropriate behavior and failed to effectively remedy the situation. Defendant moved for summary disposition on the ground that he could not be held personally liable under the Civil Rights Act for Cosgrove's alleged acts of sexual harassment. The trial court, Judge Timothy Kenny, granted defendant's motion, and entered an order to that effect. Judge Kenny determined that no basis existed for holding defendant liable in his individual capacity. Judge Kenny noted that in his official capacity, defendant's alleged knowledge of Cosgrove's tendencies, and defendant's inaction in that regard, were potentially relevant to Paramount's ultimate liability on principles of respondeat superior.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, raising the same arguments she had raised in her response to defendant's motion for summary disposition, as well as one additional argument. Plaintiff argued for the first time that the public policy underlying the Civil Rights Act required a denial of summary disposition. Plaintiff maintained that because Paramount's assets had been sold during the pendency of this litigation, defendant, as Paramount's primary shareholder, should not be permitted to hide behind the corporate form to evade liability. Judge Kenny denied reconsideration in a ruling from the bench. Judge Kenny reiterated his prior bases for granting summary disposition, and further determined that plaintiff's public policy argument was meritless. Judge Kenny stated that his prior ruling was correct and that no legal basis existed for holding Wood personally liable under the Civil Rights Act. Finally, Judge Kenny granted plaintiff's request that the order granting summary disposition to defendant be amended to clarify that defendant was dismissed from this action in his individual capacity only. For reasons not apparent from the record, no order was entered to reflect Judge Kenny's ruling on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
This case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Jeanne Stempien. Plaintiff thereafter filed a renewed motion for reconsideration pursuant to MCR 2.613(B), which provides that an order may be set aside or vacated by a judge empowered to rule on the matter . Plaintiff also cited in support of her motion MCR 2.604, MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f), and MCR 2.119(F).
Judge Stempien entertained plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and determined that Judge Kenny's grant of summary disposition for defendant constituted an error of law. Judge Stempien granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition.
On appeal, defendant first argues that Judge Stempien erroneously determined that he may be held personally liable under the Civil Rights Act even though he did not participate in the alleged acts of harassment. Defendant also argues that Judge Stempien erred in granting plaintiff's renewed motion for reconsideration because it was not prope
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.
|
|