Harold Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12515
6th Cir.2012Background
- Arrow Energy Services, Inc. employs about thirteen active rigs and eighty hourly workers across multiple states.
- Wasek was hired in April 2008 as a derrick hand and assigned to a Pennsylvania crew.
- Ottobre, a coworker, sexually harassed Wasek with touching and explicit comments on the rig.
- Wasek reported the harassment; supervisors Tripp and Smillie largely failed to intervene.
- Wasek left the Pennsylvania site after escalating incidents and was later banned from working in Pennsylvania; Arrow reassigned him to Michigan.
- Wasek filed Title VII and ELCRA claims on September 9, 2009; district court granted summary judgment for Arrow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wasek’s hostile environment claim is actionable under Title VII. | Wasek alleges repeated sexual touching and comments tied to gender. | Harassment alone is not actionable without a showing of discrimination based on sex. | No, because evidence does not show harassment occurred due to Wasek’s gender. |
| Whether Wasek’s ELCRA hostile environment claim mirrors Title VII analysis. | ELCRA should follow Oncale-based guidance and routes of proof. | ELCRA analysis aligns with Title VII and requires sex-based discrimination proof. | No, ELCRA claim fails for lack of proof harassment was because of sex. |
| Whether Arrow Energy retaliated against Wasek for protected activity under Title VII. | Wasek’s complaints to management constituted protected activity. | There was no causal link between protected activity and the Pennsylvania ban; timing is insufficient. | Summary judgment affirmed; no causal connection shown. |
| Whether ELCRA retaliation claim survives given the Title VII framework. | Same analysis should apply under ELCRA. | ELCRA retaliation analysis mirrors Title VII without additional requirements. | Affirmed; ELCRA retaliation claim rejected for same reasons as Title VII. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (establishes discrimination focus in same-sex harassment cases and evidentiary routes)
- Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., 744 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (applies Oncale framework to ELCRA same-sex harassment)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (unfulfilled threats may support harassment claims when linked to discrimination)
- Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304 (6th Cir. 1989) (opposition to discriminatory practices protected even without formal EEOC complaint)
- Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 529 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2008) (requires reasonable, good-faith belief in Title VII violation for retaliation pathway)
- Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2000) (protective opposition must be reasonable in its belief of unlawful conduct)
- Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010) (caution against proving causation by temporal proximity alone)
- Garg v. Macomb Cnty. Community Mental Health Services, 696 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2005) (adopts Title VII retaliation framework for ELCRA)
- Chen v. Wayne State Univ., 771 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (ELCRA retaliation analysis aligns with Title VII)