The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; MCL 37.2202(1)(a); MCL 37.2103(k); Claims of quid pro quo & hostile work environment sexual harassment; McCalla v Ellis; Elezovic v Ford Motor Co

Noting that in both quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, a plaintiff must establish “that the sexual conduct was unwelcome[,]” the court held that in “light of the totality of the evidence, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the conduct was unwelcome.” Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendants-employer (the city) and a former city employee (Jackson). The court noted that “when plaintiff and Jackson met they were both city employees” and their jobs “served as the manner in which they met. But, Jackson did not have supervisory authority over plaintiff. Although plaintiff disputed whether she flirted with [him], it was undisputed that the two exchanged personal phone numbers. When plaintiff went to Jackson’s office to assist him in completing forms, she performed a sex act. Yet, plaintiff did not identify a demand by Jackson for the sex act in return for an employment benefit, and [she] had the burden of establishing such a nexus.” In addition, she “continued her relationship with Jackson outside of working hours.” Further, she “did not notify any of her superiors of any unwelcome acts or notify” police. When she was informed “of performance issues in her” existing role with the city, she asked him to help her find “a new position with the city. When a position opened up in Jackson’s” department, she “interviewed for and accepted the position. But, Jackson did not participate in the interview process.” The court noted that her “financial benefits from Jackson predated her employment in” his department. Further, the “financial arrangement did not reflect a nexus between an unwelcome sexual act and an employment benefit, but a personal benefit to plaintiff in light of her monetary issues. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, reasonable minds could not differ on the issue that [her] preexisting personal and financial arrangements occurred before her employment in Jackson’s” department. The court additionally noted that she “suffered from persistent personal financial issues and poor performance evaluations while in the various positions she held at the city.”