Employment — Harassment – Retaliation

Where a plaintiff has alleged harassment and retaliation, the defendant should be awarded summary judgment on the harassment claims but not the retaliation claims.

“In a case as contentious as it is consequential, Kelly Key alleges that his former employer, the City of Detroit, not only permitted a discriminatory environment to fester but also retaliated against him when he dared to complain about it. Key, who is gay, asserts that his colleagues harassed him because of his sex and sexual orientation, and that the City’s response or lack thereof only compounded his plight. Now, after administrative remedies fell short of his expectations for justice, Key seeks redress here under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (‘ELCRA’).

“As explained below, two of his claims have merit, but four do not.

“Under Title VII and ELCRA, Plaintiff’s six-count complaint alleges harassment based on sex (Counts I and IV), harassment based on sexual orientation (Counts II and V), and retaliation (Counts III and VI).

“Plaintiff objects to the recommendations to dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V, contending that the application of the reasonable-person standard was unfair and highlighted inconsistencies in Defendant’s evidence. ... Conversely, Defendant objects to the recommendation to deny summary judgment for Counts III and VI, arguing Plaintiff failed to establish a clear causal connection between the alleged protected activity and the adverse employment actions.

“Having conducted this de novo review, this Court finds that Judge Grand’s factual conclusions are reasonably correct, that he reasonably applied the correct law, and that his legal reasoning is sound. That is, there are no prejudicial clear errors in Judge Grand’s findings or recommendations (1) to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts I, II, IV, and V or (2) to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts III and VI.

“For these reasons, Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled, Defendant’s objections will be overruled, Judge Grand’s report and recommendation will be adopted, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted and denied in part, and Counts I, II, IV, and V will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Key v. City of Detroit; MiLW 02-107981, 5 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; DeClercq, J.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.