- In Chambers v Trettco, Inc, (July 31, 2000) the Michigan Supreme rejected by a six to one margin the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for imposing liability under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act on employers for sexual harassment allegedly committed by supervisors.
- Two years ago, in Faragher v Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the standard by which employers are held liable under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") for sexual harassment committed by supervisors. The court determined that the labels "hostile environment" and "quid pro quo" are irrelevant for determining employer liability. Instead, the court decided that an employer is automatically liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor that results in a "tangible employment action." But, when no tangible action is taken by the supervisor, the employer may raise an affirmative defense that: (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
- The employee in Chambers brought suit in state court under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She alleged that for a one week period, a supervisor rubbed her buttocks, grabbed her breasts and repeatedly propositioned her for sexual favors. At trial, the jury concluded that the employer was liable for both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. The court of appeals followed Faragher and Ellerth and ignored the labels quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. The court affirmed judgment for the employee because the employer could not have established the affirmative defense.
- The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that the labels quid pro quo and hostile environment are relevant for determining liability under Michigan law. According to the court, an employer is automatically liable for quid pro quo harassment which occurs when an agent of the employer uses submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication as a factor in decisions affecting employment. When submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication is not factored into an employment decision, there is no quid pro quo harassment though the conduct may still create a hostile work environment. An employer is not automatically liable for a hostile work environment even when it is created by a supervisor. To establish such a claim, an employee must show some fault on the part of the employer. That is, an employee must show that the employer failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action after reasonable notice of the alleged harassment.
- The court explained that notice of sexual harassment is adequate if, by an objective standard, the totality of the circumstances were such that a reasonable employer would have been aware of a substantial probability that sexual harassment was occurring. The court further explained an employer's remedial action is adequate if it reasonably served to prevent future harassment of the employee.
- Applying its ruling to the facts, the court decided that the trial court should have dismissed the claim for quid pro quo harassment because no decisions affecting the employee's employment were made. However, the court determined that the employee had established the existence of a hostile environment and returned the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the employee had presented enough evidence to demonstrate that the employer failed to rectify the problem after adequate notice.
- The Chambers case is significant because unlike Faragher and Ellerth, which placed the burden of proving the affirmative defense on the employer, the court in Chambers placed the burden of proving fault in hostile environment cases on the employee. Additionally, with respect to hostile environment harassment, the Chambers court did not distinguish between conduct perpetrated by a supervisor and conduct perpetrated by a coworker. Thus, under Michigan law, regardless of who creates the hostile environment, the employer is not liable unless it failed to take prompt, remedial action after having received adequate notice. However, as a practical matter, employees are likely to file claims under Title VII or both federal and state law. (Note: filing a civil rights complaint with the EEOC or MDCR is a prerequisite to filing a claim under Title VII.)
- Ultimately, this case serves as yet another reminder of the importance not only of having a sexual harassment policy that is distributed to every employee, but of immediately investigating and, if necessary, remedying any incidents of sexual harassment. The ability to avoid all liability for hostile environment sexual harassment by taking such actions is an opportunity that no employer can afford to miss.
Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Title VII Standard for Imposing Liability for Sexual Harassment under Michigan Law
This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers | Last reviewed March 26, 2008
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
Was this helpful?