|
No. 122457
| Linda M. Gilbert, |
|
Mark R. Bendure (313) 961-1525 |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| vs
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Wayne -- Murphy, J.) |
|
|
| Daimlerchrysler Corporation, |
|
Elizabeth P. Hardy (248) 645-0000 |
|
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| _______________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on
Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply
Brief>>
Chamber of Commerce of the United States Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Chamber of Commerce Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Background
Linda M. Gilbert sued her employer, DaimlerChrysler; her contention is that she was continuously subjected to abusive comments and conduct, creating a hostile work environment, from 1992 until the trial of her case in 1999. She did not claim any unwanted physical contact or that she was forced to leave her job; she remained an employee of DaimlerChrysler after her trial. Following a seven-week trial, a jury awarded Gilbert $21 million for sex discrimination. DaimlerChrysler unsuccessfully challenged the verdict at the trial level and in the Court of Appeals. DaimlerChrysler appeals. Among other issues, DaimlerChrysler contends that the damage award is excessive and punitive in nature and has no relationship to any damage Gilbert might have suffered. DaimlerChrysler also argues that Gilbert's trial attorney inflamed the jury by repeated references to the Holocaust and defendant's German ownership, distorted the evidence, and misstated the law. Third, DaimlerChrysler claims that the trial court erred by permitting Gilbert's counsel to elicit medical opinions from a social worker who testified as an expert witness. Finally, DaimlerChrysler argues that the evidence did not show that it knew or should have known of the sexual harassment Gilbert claims. Whenever DaimlerChrysler received a complaint from Gilbert, the company took prompt remedial action, DaimlerChrysler claims. Gilbert responds in part that the damage award was justified by the evidence and that state law does not impose a maximum award for sexual harassment suits. Gilbert also maintains that her counsel's closing argument and questions were within the bounds of fair adversarial argument and that DaimlerChrysler's counsel only objected once during closing argument. She argues that the trial court acted reasonably in allowing the social worker to testify as an expert because his licensure and expertise allowed him to make psychiatric diagnoses. Gilbert also contends that DaimlerChrysler is directly responsible for the sexual abuse; she claims that supervisors were involved in the abuse. As a result, and because the abuse was so pervasive, DaimlerChrysler should have known about it, Gilbert argues.
Top of Page
|
