The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) (MCL 37.2101 et seq.); Race & sex discrimination; Hecht v. National Heritage Acads., Inc.; MCL 37.2202(1)(a); Adverse employment action; Chen v. Wayne State Univ.; Suspension reduced to a written reprimand; Sexual harassment; MCL 37.2103(i); Hostile work environment; Haynie v. State; Respondeat superior liability; Radtke v. Everett; Distinguishing Weberg v. Michigan (Unpub.)

Concluding that plaintiff offered no evidence that her suspension reduced to a written reprimand was a materially adverse employment action, the court held that her failure to show an adverse action precluded relief on her race and sex discrimination claims under the ELCRA. As to her sexual harassment claim, while it found that she could show the existence of a hostile work environment, the claim failed because she could not establish respondeat superior liability. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants-employer (the city) and supervisor (Cashion). It determined that there was “no evidence that plaintiff’s discipline altered the circumstances and conditions [of] plaintiff’s employment at all—let alone materially.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to her, the record showed that her “job duties were altered due to plaintiff’s continuing mental health problems as a result of Cashion’s actions on [4/16/16]. Plaintiff was not able to continue her full job duties shortly after the incident and had restricted work capacity. The disciplinary actions taken against plaintiff as a result of the 2017 Internal Affairs report did not alter these circumstances. Plaintiff provided no evidence that the ultimate reprimand she received changed her job duties in any way.” Further, she did not offer any “evidence that the reprimand resulted in her being overlooked for or denied a promotion or transfer, prevented her from going back to the job duties she had prior to the incident, decreased her wage or salary, or caused any other alteration in her employment that would not otherwise have occurred.” As to her sexual harassment claim, the court concluded that there were “triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff met the second, third, and fourth prongs.” However, the claim failed on the fifth prong. While she told “the Internal Affairs’ investigators that Cashion touched her arm and leg/thigh, she admitted that she did not inform them that Cashion touched her vaginal area or sexually assaulted her. She only described the incident as such in the documents provided after the litigation commenced. Therefore, the city could not have taken any remedial action based on the single extreme incident that arguably caused the hostile work environment because it had no notice of the specific sexual nature of” the alleged conduct during its investigation.