Jansen, RJ.
Defendant1 appeals as of right from a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff in this sexual harassment case. We affirm.
[562]*562Defendant, a corporation engaged in managing food service operations for various businesses, hired plaintiff as a temporary cook in June 1995, intending to use plaintiff in various locations pending possible placement in a permanent position. Defendant initially assigned plaintiff to take the place of a cook at ADP, Inc., in Ann Arbor. During this assignment, while the regular on-site supervisor was on vacation, defendant assigned a temporary supervisor, Paul Wolshon. According to the evidence at trial, Wolshon immediately commenced a pattern of sexually harassing plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her claims of assault and sexual assault at the close of her proofs at trial, and she withdrew her claim of retaliatory discharge before closing argument. The jury found in plaintiffs favor with respect to her claim of sexual harassment.
This appeal essentially concerns an employer’s vicarious liability (respondeat superior) in a sexual harassment case brought under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. The arguments made by the employer in this case have been squarely rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth, 524 US 742; 118 S Ct 2257; 141 L Ed 2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v Boca Raton, 524 US_; 118 S Ct 2275; 141 L Ed 2d 662 (1998).2 The Supreme Court held that the labels “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environ[563]*563ment” are not controlling for purposes of establishing employer liability. Ellerth, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 648, 655. However, for any sexual harassment preceding the employment decision to be actionable, the conduct must be severe or pervasive. Id., p 648. Further, an employer can be liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment where the employer’s own negligence is a cause of the harassment. Id., p 651. An employer is negligent with respect to sexual harassment if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to stop it. Id.
First, defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to establish a claim of sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment is meritless.3 During a one-week period in July 1995, Paul Wolshon, a “float manager” (but not plaintiff’s full-time manager) engaged in numerous incidents of sexually harassing plaintiff. There was evidence that Wolshon rubbed plaintiff’s buttocks, grabbed her breasts, asked plaintiff to go to a hotel and have oral sex with him, and rubbed whipped cream on plaintiff’s hands and stated, “Now tell everybody you were creamed by Paul.” One of plaintiff’s co-workers also testified that Wolshon stated that he would like to put whipped cream on his tongue and put it between plaintiff’s legs and lick plaintiff’s breasts. The same co-worker also saw Wolshon grab plaintiff’s breasts. Plaintiff also testified [564]*564that these types of harassing incidents occurred every day of the week that Wolshon was her supervisor.
Defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s allegations are “a discrete, singular set of occurrences” that were not sufficiently outrageous to form a single incident of hostile work environment is incorrect and meritless. The evidence preferred by plaintiff was clearly sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim of sexual harassment because it was severe or pervasive. Therefore, the jury’s finding that Wolshon sexually assaulted or molested plaintiff through the use of his supervisory powers over her is entirely supportable by the evidence presented. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on this basis.
Further, defendant’s claims that the terms of plaintiff’s employment were not affected by her rejection of Wolshon’s overtures and that plaintiff did not believe that any terms of her employment would be affected by accepting or rejecting the sexual overtures are likewise without merit. Plaintiff was discharged from her position on September 11, 1995. Defendant claimed that she was discharged because of her failure to arrive for work or call regarding her absence. Plaintiff claimed that she was never told why she was discharged. Even if the discharge was not related to the sexual harassment incidents, the terms of plaintiff’s employment were clearly affected; that is, Wolshon’s harassment toward her was severe or pervasive and created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Id., p 648; Faragher, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 675; Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc, 510 US 17, 21; 114 S Ct 367; 126 L Ed 2d 295 (1993); Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 382-383; 501 [565]*565NW2d 155 (1993). It is not necessary that a plaintiff suffer economic harm or tangible discrimination. Harris, supra, p 21.
All that was necessary was that plaintiff show that the supervisor created a hostile work environment, which the evidence at trial showed that she did. Thus, we turn to the question of the employer’s vicarious liability.
With respect to the question of vicarious liability, the Supreme Court held:
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence .... The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. ... No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. [Ellerth, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 655; Faragher, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 689.]
In the present case, the jury found that defendant failed to take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known that plaintiff had been sexually harassed. This finding is supportable by the evidence presented at trial. Plaintiff testified that she spoke to Kevin McLaughlin, the regional director of operations for HDS, on the telephone on July 6, 1995. McLaughlin asked plaintiff if something was wrong, and [566]*566McLaughlin testified that he could sense that something was bothering plaintiff. Plaintiff indicated that she could not express her complaints of Wolshon at that time because Wolshon was standing next to her. McLaughlin told plaintiff that he would be at ADP, Inc., on July 8, 1995, and would speak to her at that time. It is disputed whether McLaughlin went there on July 8. He testified that he went there, but plaintiff made no attempt to talk to him. However, plaintiff testified that McLaughlin never went to ADP that week.
When plaintiffs regular supervisor, Jennifer Hostutler, returned to work on July 11, 1995, plaintiff reported her specific complaints regarding Wolshon.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jansen, RJ.
Defendant1 appeals as of right from a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff in this sexual harassment case. We affirm.
[562]*562Defendant, a corporation engaged in managing food service operations for various businesses, hired plaintiff as a temporary cook in June 1995, intending to use plaintiff in various locations pending possible placement in a permanent position. Defendant initially assigned plaintiff to take the place of a cook at ADP, Inc., in Ann Arbor. During this assignment, while the regular on-site supervisor was on vacation, defendant assigned a temporary supervisor, Paul Wolshon. According to the evidence at trial, Wolshon immediately commenced a pattern of sexually harassing plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her claims of assault and sexual assault at the close of her proofs at trial, and she withdrew her claim of retaliatory discharge before closing argument. The jury found in plaintiffs favor with respect to her claim of sexual harassment.
This appeal essentially concerns an employer’s vicarious liability (respondeat superior) in a sexual harassment case brought under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. The arguments made by the employer in this case have been squarely rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth, 524 US 742; 118 S Ct 2257; 141 L Ed 2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v Boca Raton, 524 US_; 118 S Ct 2275; 141 L Ed 2d 662 (1998).2 The Supreme Court held that the labels “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environ[563]*563ment” are not controlling for purposes of establishing employer liability. Ellerth, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 648, 655. However, for any sexual harassment preceding the employment decision to be actionable, the conduct must be severe or pervasive. Id., p 648. Further, an employer can be liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment where the employer’s own negligence is a cause of the harassment. Id., p 651. An employer is negligent with respect to sexual harassment if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to stop it. Id.
First, defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to establish a claim of sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment is meritless.3 During a one-week period in July 1995, Paul Wolshon, a “float manager” (but not plaintiff’s full-time manager) engaged in numerous incidents of sexually harassing plaintiff. There was evidence that Wolshon rubbed plaintiff’s buttocks, grabbed her breasts, asked plaintiff to go to a hotel and have oral sex with him, and rubbed whipped cream on plaintiff’s hands and stated, “Now tell everybody you were creamed by Paul.” One of plaintiff’s co-workers also testified that Wolshon stated that he would like to put whipped cream on his tongue and put it between plaintiff’s legs and lick plaintiff’s breasts. The same co-worker also saw Wolshon grab plaintiff’s breasts. Plaintiff also testified [564]*564that these types of harassing incidents occurred every day of the week that Wolshon was her supervisor.
Defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s allegations are “a discrete, singular set of occurrences” that were not sufficiently outrageous to form a single incident of hostile work environment is incorrect and meritless. The evidence preferred by plaintiff was clearly sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim of sexual harassment because it was severe or pervasive. Therefore, the jury’s finding that Wolshon sexually assaulted or molested plaintiff through the use of his supervisory powers over her is entirely supportable by the evidence presented. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on this basis.
Further, defendant’s claims that the terms of plaintiff’s employment were not affected by her rejection of Wolshon’s overtures and that plaintiff did not believe that any terms of her employment would be affected by accepting or rejecting the sexual overtures are likewise without merit. Plaintiff was discharged from her position on September 11, 1995. Defendant claimed that she was discharged because of her failure to arrive for work or call regarding her absence. Plaintiff claimed that she was never told why she was discharged. Even if the discharge was not related to the sexual harassment incidents, the terms of plaintiff’s employment were clearly affected; that is, Wolshon’s harassment toward her was severe or pervasive and created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Id., p 648; Faragher, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 675; Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc, 510 US 17, 21; 114 S Ct 367; 126 L Ed 2d 295 (1993); Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 382-383; 501 [565]*565NW2d 155 (1993). It is not necessary that a plaintiff suffer economic harm or tangible discrimination. Harris, supra, p 21.
All that was necessary was that plaintiff show that the supervisor created a hostile work environment, which the evidence at trial showed that she did. Thus, we turn to the question of the employer’s vicarious liability.
With respect to the question of vicarious liability, the Supreme Court held:
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence .... The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. ... No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. [Ellerth, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 655; Faragher, supra, 141 L Ed 2d 689.]
In the present case, the jury found that defendant failed to take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known that plaintiff had been sexually harassed. This finding is supportable by the evidence presented at trial. Plaintiff testified that she spoke to Kevin McLaughlin, the regional director of operations for HDS, on the telephone on July 6, 1995. McLaughlin asked plaintiff if something was wrong, and [566]*566McLaughlin testified that he could sense that something was bothering plaintiff. Plaintiff indicated that she could not express her complaints of Wolshon at that time because Wolshon was standing next to her. McLaughlin told plaintiff that he would be at ADP, Inc., on July 8, 1995, and would speak to her at that time. It is disputed whether McLaughlin went there on July 8. He testified that he went there, but plaintiff made no attempt to talk to him. However, plaintiff testified that McLaughlin never went to ADP that week.
When plaintiffs regular supervisor, Jennifer Hostutler, returned to work on July 11, 1995, plaintiff reported her specific complaints regarding Wolshon. Hostutler asked plaintiff to write down her allegations, which plaintiff did. Plaintiff also testified that she spoke to McLaughlin, who told her that he would investigate the matter. Plaintiff testified that McLaughlin never asked her what happened regarding Wolshon and that no one from HDS ever contacted her or informed her of any results of the investigation.
In reviewing the evidence and all legitimate inferences drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, Mason v Royal Dequindre, Inc, 455 Mich 391, 397; 566 NW2d 199 (1997), plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Ellerth and Faragher. That is, defendant is subject to vicarious liability for an actionable hostile environment created by Wolshon, plaintiffs immediate supervisor. Assuming that plaintiff was not discharged for reporting Wolshon’s actions, although there is no tangible employment action, defendant may raise the affirmative defense that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and cor[567]*567rect promptly any sexually harassing behavior and that plaintiff failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by defendant or to otherwise avoid harm. Here, the jury could have, and apparently did, reject McLaughlin’s testimony and accept plaintiff’s testimony regarding defendant’s attempts to prevent or correct Wolshon’s sexually harassing behavior. Accordingly, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant was vicariously liable for Wolshon’s sexually harassing behavior because defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly Wolshon’s behavior.
The facts of the present case are as compelling as those in Ellerth or Faragher to support a finding in favor of the plaintiff. In Ellerth, the plaintiff did not allege that she suffered a tangible employment action at the hands of her supervisor, but the Supreme Court held that this was not dispositive. Rather, the employer is still subject to vicarious liability for the supervisor’s activity, but the employer has the opportunity to assert and prove the affirmative defense to liability. Ellerth, supra, p 655. In Ellerth, the plaintiff clearly alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment created by the supervisor, but she did not inform anyone in authority about the supervisor’s conduct, despite knowing that the employer had a policy against sexual harassment. Id., p 645. Summary judgment against the plaintiff was reversed, and the district court was given the opportunity to decide whether to allow the plaintiff to amend her pleadings or supplement discovery.
Similarly, in Faragher, the plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment created by two supervisors, and the plaintiff reported the behavior to [568]*568another supervisor, who took no action against the other two supervisors. Further, the employer failed to disseminate its policy against sexual harassment among its employees and its officials made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors, such as the two involved in this case. The employer also failed to include any assurance that the harassing supervisors could be bypassed in registering complaints. Faragher, supra, p 689. The Supreme Court held, as a matter of law, that, under those circumstances, the defendant could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to prevent the supervisors’ conduct Id., p 690. Therefore, the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reinstated by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the basis of respondeat superior. The jury could properly find that defendant was vicariously liable for the acts of its supervisor.
Finally, defendant argues that the trial court’s instruction to the jury that an employer is strictly liable if a supervisor sexually assaults or molests an employee through the exercise of his supervisory powers was erroneous. We find that any error in the trial court’s instruction regarding strict liability was harmless, MCR 2.613(A), because there is ample evidence of a hostile work environment sufficient to establish defendant’s vicarious liability, and the jury specifically found that defendant failed to take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known that plaintiff had been sexually harassed, a finding that is supported by the evidence presented at [569]*569trial. Moreover, there was no specific finding by the jury that defendant was strictly liable.
Affirmed.
Markey, J., concurred.