 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grow v. W.A. Thomas Co.8/6/1999
FOR PUBLICATION
Defendants W.A. Thomas Company (defendant) and Dennis Arquette appeal as of right from the trial court's judgment for plaintiff in this sexual harassment case involving an alleged hostile work environment. We affirm in part, vacate the judgment in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
Plaintiff began working for defendant in March 1994. Plaintiff testified that from the very beginning Arquette, her supervisor, subjected her to continuous sexual harassment. We do not deem it necessary to describe in detail the specific conduct described by plaintiff. It is sufficient to note that plaintiff testified that Arquette's alleged conduct toward her included sexually explicit comments and unwanted kissing and groping. Plaintiff testified that she complained about Arquette's conduct to both another supervisor and the plant manager, and that these men personally witnessed some of Arquette's sexually related conduct in the workplace, but that no action was taken to punish the sexual harassment or to prevent further occurrences.
Plaintiff testified that after Arquette began berating her for things such as her attitude, work product and attendance record, she quit. Plaintiff testified that defendant sent her a copy of a newly formed sexual harassment policy and ordered her to return to work. Plaintiff complied, but found the harassment had turned from sexual to something more hostile. After four days back on the job, plaintiff quit again. She described for the jury the emotional distress she suffered, including a suicide attempt and various physical ailments.
Defendants denied that plaintiff was subject to a sexually related hostile work environment. Arquette stated that although he may have touched plaintiff in passing, or given her a casual hug on occasion, he denied ever touching her in a sexual manner. In addition, defendant's plant manager denied witnessing any inappropriate conduct by Arquette, and denied that plaintiff ever complained of sexual harassment prior to her quitting. Defendants presented evidence regarding its investigation of Arquette's conduct, which failed to reveal any corroboration of plaintiff's allegations.
Defendants also presented evidence that plaintiff, rather than Arquette, was the one who made sexually crude comments and engaged in offensive behavior in the workplace. In addition, defendants presented the testimony of some of plaintiff's former employers, who testified that the reasons for plaintiff's leaving previous employment were insubordination and poor attendance, contrary to plaintiff's representations on her employment application with defendant.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a hostile work environment pursuant to the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. On defendants' motion, plaintiff's constructive discharge claim was summarily dismissed, thus leaving only her claim for emotional distress damages. A mediation evaluation for $125,000 was accepted by plaintiff and rejected by defendants.
After a six-day jury trial, the jury found defendants liable and awarded plaintiff $80,555 in emotional distress damages. The court awarded plaintiff $43,376.66 in attorney fees and costs, and $37,827.50 in mediation sanctions, bringing the total judgment to $192,684. This appeal followed.
II.
Defendants raise several challenges to the instructions given to the jury. A trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Lagalo v Allied Corp, 233 Mich App 514, 519; 592 NW2d 786 (1999). We review the instructions in their entirety, an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|