Monique Turner v. Department of Corrections
353323
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff began as a corrections officer at Detroit Reentry Center in 2015; coworker Raphael Goudy repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances, threats, and followed her off duty.
- Plaintiff reported Goudy repeatedly (oral reports and formal complaints); MDOC investigated but often found complaints outside its discriminatory-harassment policy.
- Plaintiff obtained a PPO against Goudy; MDOC nonetheless kept both on site and later advised separation efforts; Goudy was criminally charged and temporarily barred, then returned to work.
- Goudy later posted about plaintiff on Facebook and was briefly disciplined; plaintiff filed suit under ELCRA in May 2018 alleging disparate treatment (sex), hostile-work-environment (sexual harassment), and retaliation.
- Six months after suit, MDOC transferred plaintiff to the midnight shift (10 p.m.–6 a.m.); plaintiff contends the transfer and other actions were discriminatory/retaliatory.
- At summary-disposition stage the trial court denied MDOC’s motion; this appeal addresses whether summary disposition should have been granted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment — transfer to midnight shift | Transfer was an adverse action motivated by sex; similarly situated male (Goudy) was not moved | Transfer made for legitimate staffing reasons (need female coverage, seniority); not discriminatory | Allowed to proceed as to transfer: plaintiff made a prima facie case and raised triable issue of pretext and comparator evidence |
| Disparate treatment — PPO enforcement, reprimand, failure to stop harassment | Enforcement of Goudy’s PPO forced leave; reprimand and MDOC’s inaction were adverse and sex-based | PPO enforcement and reprimand were nondiscriminatory and justified; no similarly situated male showing | Other disparate-treatment claims dismissed: PPO enforcement and reprimand not shown to be discriminatory; failure-to-stop lacked comparator evidence |
| Hostile work environment (sexual harassment) | Repeated unwanted sexual advances, threats, taunting, calls, and off-duty stalking created severe/pervasive hostile environment; MDOC vicariously liable | Conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive; MDOC investigated and took remedial steps | Summary disposition denied: factual disputes exist on severity/pervasiveness, employer notice, and adequacy of remedial action |
| Retaliation (transfer and other actions) | Transfer and some adverse acts followed protected complaints and suit and were intended to punish her for complaining | No causal link; adverse acts were nondiscriminatory and temporally remote | Transfer-based retaliation claim may proceed (sufficient circumstantial evidence); other retaliation claims dismissed for lack of pretext/causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456 (Mich. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting in Michigan discrimination law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for proving disparate treatment by inference)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 US 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation: materially adverse standard that might dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (Mich. 2003) (elements of hostile work environment claim under ELCRA)
- Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368 (Mich. 1993) (employer may avoid liability if it adequately investigated and took prompt appropriate remedial action)
- Chambers v Trettco, Inc., 463 Mich 297 (Mich. 2000) (notice standard and adequacy of employer remedial action)
- Elezovic v Bennett, 274 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (totality of circumstances for hostile-work-environment assessment)
- Harris v Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 US 17 (U.S. 1993) (severity and pervasiveness standard)
- Meyer v City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (definition of adverse employment action)