M Civ JI 105.12 Employment Discrimination - Quid Pro Quo Harassment - Burden of Proof

On plaintiff’s claim of quid pro quo harassment, plaintiff has the burden of proving:

(a) that the employer or [ its / his / her ] agent subjected plaintiff to unwelcome [ sexual advances / requests for sexual favors / other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature ]; and

(b)

(i) that the employer or [ its / his / her ] agent explicitly or implicitly made the plaintiff’s submission to such conduct or communication a term or condition to obtain employment; and

or

(ii) that the employer or [ its / his / her ] agent used plaintiff’s submission to or rejection of such conduct or communication as a factor in a decision affecting the plaintiff’s employment; and

(c) that [ he / she ] suffered damages.

A decision affecting the plaintiff’s employment must be a tangible employment action. To be a tangible employment action, the action must constitute a change in employment status such as hiring, firing, or failing to promote.

To prove that the submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication was a factor in a decision, plaintiff must demonstrate that the tangible employment action which [ he / she ] suffered was because of [ his / her ] rejection of, or submission to, the harassment.

Your verdict will be for the plaintiff if the plaintiff has proved all of those elements.

Your verdict will be for the defendant if the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of those elements.

Comment

MCL 37.2202(1)(a); MCL 37.2103(j); Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297 (2000); Haynie v Michigan, 468 Mich 302 (2003); Champion v Nationwide Security, 450 Mich 702 (1996); 2023 PA 6; 2023 PA 31.

History

Added June 2006. Amended January 2020, October 2023.