Legal Opinion
Hamed v. Wayne County
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 29, 2011No. Docket 139505PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMary Beth Kelly, J.
We granted leave to appeal in this case to determine the scope of an employer’s vicarious liability for quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services under Michigan’s Civil Rights Act (CRA).1 Specifically, we consider whether Wayne County and its sheriffs department may be held vicariously liable for a civil rights claim under MCL 37.2103(i) based on a criminal act of a deputy sheriff committed during working hours but plainly beyond the scope of his employment. We hold that defendants may not be held vicariously hable for quid pro quo *6sexual harassment affecting public services…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Sharon Karibian v. Columbia University, John Borden, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees v. Mark Urban, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Corley v. Detroit Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Chambers v. Trettco, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority v. A.B.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2014
- Rebekah Buetenmiller v. Macomb County JailCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
- In re MedinaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
- Jennifer Cox v. Evansville Police Department and The City of Evansville Babi Beyer v. The City of Fort WayneIndiana Supreme Court · 2018
- Stephens v. Worden Insurance Agency, LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.