Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 8, 2004, Argued ; June 1, 2005, Decided ; June 1, 2005, Filed

No. 125166

Opinion

 [**853]  BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

 [*411]  TAYLOR, C.J.

At issue in this case is (1) whether the Michigan [***2]  Civil Rights Act (CRA) 1 provides a cause of action against an individual agent of an employer and (2) whether plaintiff's employer, Ford Motor Company, was entitled to a directed verdict in plaintiff's sexual harassment lawsuit against it.

We hold that ] an agent may be individually sued under § 37.2202(1)(a) 2 [***3]  of the CRA. Thus, we overrule Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich. App. 464, 485; 652 N.W.2d 503 (2002), because it held to the contrary, 3 and reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in favor of Daniel Bennett that followed Jager.

We also hold, consistently with the lower courts, that Ford was entitled to a directed verdict. Thus, we affirm the trial court and Court of Appeals judgments in favor of Ford.

I. Facts and Proceedings Below

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in November 1999 pursuant to the CRA against Ford Motor Company and Daniel Bennett, a supervisor at Ford's Wixom assembly plant [*412]  where she worked. As relevant here, her claim was that she had been sexually harassed as a result of a hostile work environment. 4 [***4] ] The CRA allows such [**854]  a lawsuit against an employer. 5

Plaintiff's lawsuit named Bennett as an individual defendant consistently with the then-controlling case of Jenkins v Southeastern Michigan Chapter, American Red Cross, 141 Mich. App. 785; 369 N.W.2d 223 (1985), 6 which held that individual supervisors could be liable under the CRA. 7

 [*413]  Regarding the specifics in her complaint, plaintiff alleged [***5]  that, while she was on the job in the summer of 1995, Bennett exposed himself to her while masturbating and requested she perform oral sex. Further, she claimed that after that he repeatedly continued to harass her by grabbing, rubbing, and touching his groin and licking his lips and making sexually related comments.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

472 Mich. 408 *; 697 N.W.2d 851 **; 2005 Mich. LEXIS 623 ***; 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1733

LULA ELEZOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, and JOSEPH ELEZOVIC, Plaintiff, v FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DANIEL P. BENNETT, Defendants-Appellees.

Subsequent History: Appeal after remand at, Remanded by Elezovic v. Bennett, 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 115 (Mich. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2007)

Prior History:  [***1]  Wayne Circuit Court, Kathleen Macdonald, J. Court of Appeals, JANSEN, P.J., and NEFF, J. (KELLY, J., concurring), affirmed. 259 Mich App 187; 673 N.W.2d 776 (2003). Supreme Court 470 Mich. 892; 683 N.W.2d 144 (2004).

Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co., 259 Mich. App. 187, 673 N.W.2d 776, 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 2649 (2003)

Disposition: Decision of Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.

CORE TERMS

notice, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual, individual liability, trial court, directed verdict, Appeals, employees, includes, individually liable, indecent exposure, labor relations, civil rights, confidentiality, letters, sex, federal court, interpretations, respondeat, workplace, expunged, hostile, lawsuit, totality of the circumstances, light most favorable, motion in limine, defendants', coworkers, words

Business & Corporate Law, Duties & Liabilities, Unlawful Acts of Agents, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Burdens of Proof, Employee Burdens of Proof, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Torts, Vicarious Liability, Employers, Business & Corporate Compliance, Unfair Labor Practices, Employer Violations, Interference With Protected Activities, Defenses, Antiharassment Policy, Employer Liability, Agency Relationships, Employment Relationships, At Will Employment, Definition of Employers, Scope & Definitions, Evidence, Admissibility, Conduct Evidence, Prior Acts, Crimes & Wrongs, Relevance, Exclusion of Relevant Evidence, Confusion, Prejudice & Waste of Time, Civil Procedure, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Abuse of Discretion, Criminal Law & Procedure, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Procedural Matters, Rulings on Evidence, Sexual Harassment, Title VII Discrimination, Employers, Harassment by Coworkers, Employees & Independent Contractors, Definition of Employees, Activities & Conditions, Civil Rights Violations, Correction & Prevention, Standards of Proof, Objective & Subjective Standards, Civil Enforcement Actions, Crimes Against Persons, Coercion & Harassment, Elements, Criminal Offenses, Miscellaneous Offenses