Negligent hiring & retention; Negligent supervision & training; Foreseeability; Actual or constructive knowledge; Employee criminal conduct; Background check; Hearsay; MRE 801(c) & 802; Loss of consortium

The court held that defendant-employer was entitled to summary disposition on plaintiffs’ negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims arising from an employee’s sexual misconduct toward customers. Defendant’s employee (defendant-Harnden) sexually harassed plaintiffs while they were shopping at defendant’s gas station store, and plaintiffs alleged defendant negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained him. On appeal, the court first held that defendant had no duty to conduct a background check because employers are “generally not automatically required to conduct ‘in-depth’ background investigations,” and plaintiffs cited no authority showing that defendant was required to do so. The court next held that defendant lacked actual or constructive notice making the employee’s conduct foreseeable. The employee’s prior convictions were “substantially different from the sexual misconduct at issue,” and the length of time between the prior conduct and the later sexual misconduct weighed against foreseeability. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on one plaintiff’s alleged report to another employee because there was “no evidence that plaintiffs reported Harnden’s inappropriate statements to defendant” before the later incident. The court further held that the negligent-supervision and negligent-training claims failed because the employee’s conduct was “outrageous and fell outside social norms,” and Michigan law permits employers to assume employees will not engage in criminal conduct. The court also held that plaintiffs’ testimony about what a trooper allegedly said about prior misconduct was inadmissible hearsay, and even if admissible, it did not show defendant knew or should have known of those alleged encounters. Finally, the court held that the loss-of-consortium claim failed because it “stands or falls” with the underlying negligence claim. Affirmed.