Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Trettco, Incgreen2 sentences2005See Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 312, 318-319 ; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). 2005See Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 312, 318-319 ; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Rymal v. Baergengreen1 sentence2021See Rymal v Baergen, 262 Mich App 274, 313 ; 686 NW2d 241 (2004) (“Clearly, there was sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment predicated on abusive behavior closely following the rejection of [the supervisor’s] unwelcome attempt to resume a sexual relationship[, which occurred at a restaurant] . . . .). | 1 | 1 |
Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)green1 sentence2011White v Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc, 617 F3d 472, 484 (CA 6, 2010). 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is even more explicit, describing the debtor’s “duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc, 179 F3d 197, 208 (CA 5, 1999). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.green1 sentence2011White v Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc, 617 F3d 472, 484 (CA 6, 2010). 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is even more explicit, describing the debtor’s “duty to disclose all assets, including contingent and unliquidated claims.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc, 179 F3d 197, 208 (CA 5, 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSBgreen1 sentence2003The critical inquiry "is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed." [ Koester, supra at 13, 580 N.W.2d 835 (citations omitted), quoting Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, 949 F.Supp. 1236, 1245-1246 (D.Md., *149 1997), quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).] Contrary to the majority's assertion, only by acknowledging the link between sexual conduct and gender-based inequality can the sexual-harassment provision, M.C.L. § 37.2103(i), | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Southeastern Michigan Chapter, American Red Crossgreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., Jenkins v Southeastern Michigan Chapter, American Red Cross, 141 Mich App 785, 794 ; 369 NW2d 223 (1985) (regarding the Civil Rights Act race discrimination claim). [21] See also Hall v Gus Construction Co, Inc, 842 F2d 1010, 1014 (CA 8, 1988) (utilizing a "but for" test, and noting that "the predicate acts underlying a sexual harassment claim need not be clearly sexual in nature"). [22] To accept Everett's allegation that his motivation was "romantic" would assuredly turn the question into a wholly subjective characterization: precisely the characterization Everett seeks to avoid. 1993See, e.g., Jenkins v Southeastern Michigan Chapter, American Red Cross, 141 Mich App 785, 794 ; 369 NW2d 223 (1985) (regarding the Civil Rights Act race discrimination claim). [21] See also Hall v Gus Construction Co, Inc, 842 F2d 1010, 1014 (CA 8, 1988) (utilizing a "but for" test, and noting that "the predicate acts underlying a sexual harassment claim need not be clearly sexual in nature"). [22] To accept Everett's allegation that his motivation was "romantic" would assuredly turn the question into a wholly subjective characterization: precisely the characterization Everett seeks to avoid. | 1 | 1 |
Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.green1 sentence1989See Boscaglia, supra. That the conduct may be the basis for criminal prosecution or a civil claim against the individual employee does not preclude the possibility that it may also be the basis for a sexual harassment claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Radtke v. Everett
green
2 sentences2015To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, plaintiff must show the following: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex; (3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee’s employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. [Haynie, 468 Mich at 307-308 , quoting 2015To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, plaintiff must show the following: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex; (3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee’s employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. [Haynie, 468 Mich at 307-308 , quoting | 2 | 2003–2015 |
Rymal v. Baergen
green
1 sentence2021See Rymal v Baergen, 262 Mich App 274, 313 ; 686 NW2d 241 (2004) (“Clearly, there was sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment predicated on abusive behavior closely following the rejection of [the supervisor’s] unwelcome attempt to resume a sexual relationship[, which occurred at a restaurant] . . . .). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Haynie v. Department of State Police
green
1 sentence2015To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, plaintiff must show the following: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of sex; (3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication; (4) the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee’s employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. [Haynie, 468 Mich at 307-308 , quoting | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003The critical inquiry "is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed." [ Koester, supra at 13, 580 N.W.2d 835 (citations omitted), quoting Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, 949 F.Supp. 1236, 1245-1246 (D.Md., *149 1997), quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).] Contrary to the majority's assertion, only by acknowledging the link between sexual conduct and gender-based inequality can the sexual-harassment provision, M.C.L. § 37.2103(i), 2003The critical inquiry "is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed." [ Koester, supra at 13, 580 N.W.2d 835 (citations omitted), quoting Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, 949 F.Supp. 1236, 1245-1246 (D.Md., *149 1997), quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).] Contrary to the majority's assertion, only by acknowledging the link between sexual conduct and gender-based inequality can the sexual-harassment provision, M.C.L. § 37.2103(i), | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Koester v. City of Novi
green
1 sentence2003The critical inquiry "is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed." [ Koester, supra at 13, 580 N.W.2d 835 (citations omitted), quoting Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, 949 F.Supp. 1236, 1245-1246 (D.Md., *149 1997), quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).] Contrary to the majority's assertion, only by acknowledging the link between sexual conduct and gender-based inequality can the sexual-harassment provision, M.C.L. § 37.2103(i), | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Tammy S. Scusa v. Nestle U.S. A. Company, Inc., Doing Business as Friskies Petcare Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2000In Scusa v Nestle USA Co, Inc, 181 F3d 958 (CA 8, 1999), the plaintiff argued that her co-workers treated her with hostility and shunned her after she filed a sexual harassment claim against her employer and that her supervisor failed to take action to remedy the situation. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Birmingham School District v. Buck
green
2 sentences1995Birmingham School Dist v Buck, 204 Mich App 286, 287-290 ; 514 NW2d 528 (1994). 1995Birmingham School Dist v Buck, 204 Mich App 286, 287-290 ; 514 NW2d 528 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
LANGLOIS v. McDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF MICHIGAN, INC
green
2 sentences1993This Court, in Langlois v McDonald’s Restaurants of Michigan, Inc, 149 Mich App 309 ; 385 NW2d 778 (1986), recognized as one element of a sexual harassment claim the necessity that the harassment complained of be based on the complainant’s gender. 1993This Court, in Langlois v McDonald’s Restaurants of Michigan, Inc, 149 Mich App 309 ; 385 NW2d 778 (1986), recognized as one element of a sexual harassment claim the necessity that the harassment complained of be based on the complainant’s gender. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.