Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chambers v. Trettco, Inc

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2000No. 114085, Calendar No. 5Published

1DissentKelly, J.

I cannot join the majority’s disposition of plaintiff’s claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of such harassment, pursuant to the Michigan *327Civil Rights Act (MCRA)1 and Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). But, the majority has misinterpreted Champion and added an element, one not found in the MCRA.

I. THE PRIMA FACIE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS

The MCRA specifically includes sexual harassment as a form of discrimination because of sex. MCL 37.2103(f); MSA 3.548(103)(i). “Sexual…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. EllerthSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Radtke v. EverettMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Champion v. Nation Wide Security, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Kubczak v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API