|
No. 131655
| Pamela Perez, |
|
George Washington |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Ziolkowski, R.) |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company and Daniel P. Bennett, |
|
Julia Turner Baumhart |
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan Manufacturers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Trial Lawyers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Pamela Perez began working at the Ford Motor Company Wixom plant in December 1990, as an hourly employee. She claims that Daniel Bennett, a Ford manager working at the plant, sexually harassed her for the first time during the summer of 1999, when he offered her money to buy lingerie to model for him. Later, Bennett made a remark about meeting after work. In August 1999, Perez was in Bennett’s office. He exposed himself to her and offered her money for a hotel room. Perez did not report these incidents at the time; she disclosed them during a June 2001 deposition that she gave in a lawsuit brought by another woman who claimed to be a victim of Bennett’s harassment. Perez filed her own lawsuit in October 2001, alleging that she was harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment, and that both Ford and Bennett were liable to her under the Civil Rights Act. Perez claimed that Ford had notice of a hostile work environment at its Wixom plant due to complaints about Bennett made by other women. Both defendants filed a motion for summary disposition; Ford argued that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hostile work environment. The circuit judge granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Perez’s claims. Perez appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s ruling with regard to Ford, although the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary disposition to Bennett. The other complaints made against Bennett gave Ford constructive notice that a hostile environment existed at the Wixom plant, the Court of Appeals stated. Ford appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). On remand, the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, again concluded that the trial court erred in granting Ford’s motion for summary disposition. The appeals court also ruled that the trial judge erred in granting summary disposition to Bennett. The defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court requested oral argument on the issue whether the record submitted to the trial court created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ford was on notice of the sexual harassment.
Top of Page
|
