 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woolner v. Allegan County9/27/2005
assment before May 2002 because Deetz sent his offensive emails to his superiors; because her supervisor, Christine Jurkas, witnessed some of the offensive incidents; and because she complained to Campbell in 2001. We disagree.
A plaintiff can demonstrate knowledge on the part of the employer by showing that she complained to higher management or by showing that the harassment was so pervasive that it gave rise to the inference of knowledge or constructive knowledge. Sheridan v Forest Hills Public Schools, 247 Mich App 611, 621; 637 NW2d 536 (2001). "Higher management" means "someone in the employer's chain of command who possesses the ability to exercise significant influence in the decision-making process of hiring, firing, and disciplining the offensive employee." Id. at 622. There is no evidence that Jurkas possessed the requisite control over Deetz, and indeed she was apparently inferior to Deetz in the County's chain of command. A complaint to Campbell might be sufficient, but plaintiff only indicated to Campbell that Deetz was "out of control," which is too vague to constitute sufficient notice. See Sheridan, supra at 624; see also Chambers v Trettco, Inc (On Remand), 244 Mich App 614; 624 NW2d 543 (2001). Most of the emails, jokes, and pictures either were not "sexual in nature," meaning "conduct or communication that inherently pertains to sex" Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 279; 681 NW2d 342 (2004) (emphasis in original), or they "could be considered equally offensive to both male and female employees." Linebaugh v Sheraton Michigan Corp, 198 Mich App 335, 341; 497 NW2d 585 (1993). We do not find the remainder objectively sufficient to put Allegan County on notice.
Plaintiff next contends that Allegan County's remedial measures were inappropriate. We disagree. Our Supreme Court has explained that "the relevant inquiry concerning the adequacy of the employer's remedial action is whether the action reasonably served to prevent future harassment of the plaintiff." Chambers, supra at 319. The only negative workplace experience plaintiff encountered after Deetz was placed on leave was being "snubbed" by her co-workers, but this was dealt with by Campbell's meeting with the co-workers. There is no question that Allegan County's response, placing Deetz on administrative leave, "reasonably served to prevent future harassment." We find no authority in support of plaintiff's assertion that Deetz's severance payment negated the appropriateness of this response, nor do we perceive any logical reason why an employer cannot resolve a problem through negotiation. Allegan County's response was appropriate after it received notice.
Plaintiff next argues that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the county unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her right to complain of sexual harassment when it terminated her in August 2003. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show (1) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that the defendant knew of the plaintiff's involvement in protected activity; (3) that the defendant's actions adversely affected the plaintiff's employment; and (4) that the adverse employment action was causally connected to the protected activity. Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Services, 472 Mich 263, 273; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). Close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse actions may support an inference of a causal link. Rymal, supra at 303. However, as with retaliation under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, retaliation under the CRA requires more than proof of temporal proximity alone. Taylor v Modern Engineering, Inc, 252 Mich App 655, 661-662; 653 NW2d 625 (2002). Plaintiff pro
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|