By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-After several court rulings determined a plaintiff may proceed to a jury trial against a state defendant in matters under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Michigan Department of Transportation settled a sexual harassment claim brought against one of its employees.
In Jane Doe v. Michigan Dep't of Transportation, $2.75 million was awarded to Doe through a settlement after the Michigan Supreme Court chose to not hear the case following a Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
"The good news is we have published law. There is no more question," said plaintiff's attorney Blake K. Ringsmuth. "(Doe) holds her head up high that she made law for people in similar situations."
Background
The case originally began to be litigated in August 2015 after several years of sexual harassment in an Upper Peninsula MDOT office, said Ringsmuth of RingsmuthWuori PLLC in Traverse City.
Doe was an executive assistant in the office when she began to be harassed by an individual who was at a higher level than her, although he was not her direct supervisor.
"She declined his interest, but it became clear he was not going to take no for an answer," Ringsmuth said. "He continually bombarded her with notes, attention and touching of an unwanted nature."
Both individuals approached their mutual supervisor, who said it was a very serious matter and said he would try to handle it. That supervisor attempted to handle it informally without success, and shortly after he retired, the harasser was picked to replace him as being in charge of the entire office.
Ringsmuth said that a co-worker of Jane Doe sent a written complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office after not hearing a response from a verbal complaint a year or two prior. That written complaint sparked an investigation that led to this case being filed.
"During the course of the investigation, some of the investigators remarked it was the worst case of sexual harassment they had ever seen in their years of investigating," Ringsmuth said. "Eventually, Jane Doe and the person who sent in the written complaint had to move away from where they lived because the community blamed her since the harasser was a well-known member of the community."
Case progression
The case progressed for about 18 months before the defendant tried to move the case from the circuit court to the Court of Claims and also filed a motion for summary disposition.
Two weeks later, on June 5, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case back to the circuit court.
"We obviously took a different position, that the Court of Claims Act says that any right to a jury and circuit court jurisdiction that existed before the Court of Claims Act was amended was preserved," Ringsmuth said.
The Court of Claims ruled in favor of the plaintiff by stating it was well established that in Michigan, plaintiffs enjoy the right to a jury trial under the ELCRA and that appellate courts extended that right to claims against the state or state agencies.
The defendant appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals, which again ruled in favor of Doe by stating the Whistleblowers' Protection Act provides a pathway to a jury trial for a case like this.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case after the defendant appealed the COA's ruling.
"Their argument was that the Court of Claims Act changed everything, it gave the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction to these claims," Ringsmuth said of the defendant. "They argued there was no right to a jury trial that pre-existed the change to the Court of Claims Act."
Litigation strategy
To spark the rounds of appeals, Ringsmuth said his strategy heading into the case was to show it simply wasn't a "he said, she said" type of case.
"She had kept a lot of this material that he had given her, and the reason she kept it and didn't turn it in to anyone for years is because she felt that her life was truly in danger by this case," Ringsmuth said.
The retired office supervisor proved to be a key witness, Ringsmuth said.
"We deposed him after he had been retired for a couple of years, and he testified pretty truthfully about what she reported to him, about what he had done in return, and that he had been aware that he tried to get the guy to stop harassing her," Ringsmuth said. "He did what he felt he was able to do, which clearly wasn't enough under the law, and it didn't help her. He was truthful in his testimony, though, and that substantiated a lot."
Settlement
After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Ringsmuth felt the case would then head to trial before having a discussion with the defendant about a possible settlement.
"I think at some point, the state realized they were out of procedural maneuvers to delay the trial, and when we were all looking at actually getting in front of a jury, the facts of the case and the impact on Jane Doe was pretty undeniable, including to the state," Ringsmuth said.
After evaluating the risks of a jury trial for both sides, a couple of weeks of settlement talks allowed the case to come to a conclusion.
"One of the things that Jane Doe felt very good about is that when there are future claims of civil rights violations against the state or its agencies, including universities, people will have the right to hold their government accountable by a jury of their peers," Ringsmuth said. "There's no question that if you have the right facts, you can get to a jury of regular folks who will be able to hold the government accountable when appropriate."
Defense attorney Michael Dittenber did not respond to requests for comment on this case.
Published: Mon, Mar 04, 2019
