MEEK v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Case Details
- Citation
- 193 Mich. App. 340
- Judge(s)
- Before: Jansen, P.J., and Wahls and Hood, JJ.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Michigan
- Circuit
- 6th Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's statute of limitations dismissal of pre-March 1984 discrimination claims under the continuing-violations doctrine, but affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the employment discrimination claims.
Excerpt
MEEK v MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Docket No. 123240. Submitted January 8, 1991, at Detroit. Decided November 26, 1991; approved for publication March 25, 1992, at 9:10 A.M. Leave to appeal denied, 440 Mich —. Gloria and Fred Meek brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against the Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Richard Schulz, alleging violation of Gloria Meek’s civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of alleged sexual and religious harassment during her employment with Michigan Bell from 1977 through 1984. The court, Thomas J. Foley, J., granted partial summary disposition for the defendants, finding that an action for conduct predating March 19, 1984, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court also granted summary disposition for the defendants with regard to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and granted the defendants’ motion in limine, finding that evidence concerning most of the pre-March 19, 1984, incidents was not admissible. The plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The acts of defendant Michigan Bell’s employees before March 19, 1984, constituted a continuous course of discriminatory conduct sufficient to invoke the continuing-violations exception to the statutory limitation period. Plaintiffs’ claim based on the pre-March 19, 1984, violations therefore was not barred by the statute of limitations. The conduct of defendant Schulz amounted to a present violation that occurred within the limitation period and therefore was not barred. 2. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ preliminary motion to suppress the introduction of evidence of any actions predating March 19,1984. 3. The court did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs did _not allege extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendants sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. References Am Jur 2d, Fright, Shock, and Mental Disturbance §§4-7; Job Discrimination § 2292. Modem status of intentional infliction of mental distress as independent tort; "outrage”. 38 ALR4th 998. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 1. Limitation of Actions — Civil Rights — Employment Discrimination — Continuing Violations. The statute of limitations applicable in actions alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act will not bar an action for earlier acts of discrimination that would otherwise be barred where an act of discrimination occurs within the limitation period and there is a continuous course of discriminatory conduct sufficient to constitute a continuing violation; factors to be considered in determining whether such a course of conduct exists include the subject matter, frequency, and degree of permanence of the alleged discriminatory acts (MCL 600.5805[8]; MSA 27A.5805[8]). 2. Torts — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and may be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson (by Alan B. Posner), for the plaintiffs. Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman (by Thomas G. Kienbaum and Robert W. Powell) (Laura D. White, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, of Counsel), for the defendants. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Wahls and Hood, JJ. Per Curiam. Plaintiffs filed the present action against defendants for alleged violations of plaintiff Gloria Meek’s civil rights under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. On April 9, 1987, defendants answered plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that the complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On November 3, 1989, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for partial summary dispositiom on the ground that the statute of limitations barred recovery for alleged conduct predating March 19, 1984; granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition in regard to allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and granted defendants’ motion in limine, finding that evidence concerning most of the actions predating March 19, 1984, was not admissible. Plaintiffs appeal as of right, alleging that an action regarding the pre-1984 incidents was not time-barred because they fell within the continuing-violation doctrine and that the trial court erred in dismissing the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Gloria Meek (hereafter plaintiff) claims that from 1977 through 1984, she was subjected to instances of sexual and religious harassment. Specifically, plaintiff complains that in 1977 a supervisor indicated to her that he did not want a female working for him and gave her a cartoon drawn by other employees that berated women. The cartoon was eventually posted on employee bulletin boards and on employees’ desks. In 1978, plaintiff was transferred and placed under the supervision of another supervisor, who told plaintiff that there was no need for her to make a lot of money because she had a working spouse, that she should work inside or at home, and that plaintiff, like all Jews, was rich. This supervisor also commented that because plaintiff was a woman she should show more compassion in disciplining the crews and that she should not fill out an injury report after she broke her nose on the job. Following an uneventful transfer, plaintiff was transferred to another office, where the supervisor told her that she should be home caring for the kids, that she was taking jobs away from men, and that Jews have lots of money and fancy homes. In 1981, following a maternity leave, plaintiff was denied a raise allegedly because of the pregnancy. Plaintiff claims that later in 1981 and in 1982 another supervisor told her that Jewish women do not work, that plaintiff should be at home, that he did not like women in men’s positions, and that plaintiff failed his expectations of a Jewish woman. In 1983, another supervisor told plaintiff that he did not want her ideas, but rather those ideas submitted by the guys. After May of 1984, plaintiff was supervised by defendant Schulz. Plaintiff claims that defendant Schulz told her to put her purse away or he would take disciplinary action, to wear pants with pockets so that she could keep a wallet in them like men do, and to wear shoes like the other guys. Defendant Schulz also called plaintiff "chubbly,” a combination of chubby and ugly, and described a ring given to her by her husband as a Jewish-American-princess ring. Further, other employees under defendant Schulz’ supervision called her a Jewish-American princess and asked who she had slept with in order to get her job. After plaintiff was terminated from employment, she filed suit against defendants Michigan Bell and Schulz. First, we address plaintiffs’ allegation that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for partial summary disposition on the basis that an action concerning the conduct occurring before March 19, 1984, was barred by the statute of limitations. An action alleging employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrued. MCL 600.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8), Mair v Consumers Power Co, 419 Mich 74, 77; 348 NW2d 256 (1984). Our Supreme Court in Sumner v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 427 Mich 505; 398 NW2d 368 (1986), recognized an exception to the statute of limitations for continuing violations. The Sumner Court stated that an exception exists where an employee challenges a series of allegedly discriminatory acts so sufficiently related as to constitute a pattern where only one of the acts occurred within the limitation period. Id. at 528. The Sumner Court also set forth the factors to be considered in determining whether a continuing course of discriminatory conduct exists: The first is subject matter. Do the alleged acts involve the same type of discrimination, tending to connect them in a continuing violation? The second is frequency. Are the alleged acts recurring (e.g., a biweekly paycheck) or more in the nature of an isolated work assignment or employment decision? The third factor, perhaps of most importance, is degree of permanence. Does the act have the degree of permanence which should trigger an employee’s awareness of and duty to assert his or her rights, or which should indicate to the employee that the continued existence of the adverse consequences of the act is to be expected without being dependent on a continuing intent to discriminate. [Id. at 538, quoting Berry v LSU Bd of Supervisors, 715 F2d 971, 981 (CA 5,1983).] In the present case, we hold that the prior actions of the employees of defendant Michigan Bell constituted a continuing violation sufficient to avoid the statutory limitation period. All the discriminatory events alleged by plaintiff involved the same subject matter: gender and religion. Also, the derogatory remarks made to plaintiff were not isolated to work assignments or employment decisions, but, rather, were recurring with nearly every new supervisor she was employed under. It was these same supervisors who denied plaintiff merit raises and favorable evaluations. Lastly, their acts did not have such a degree of permanence that plaintiff should have asserted her rights earlier. Over approximately nine years, plaintiff had several supervisors. It was reasonable for plaintiff to believe that with each transfer and chanjge in supervision the discriminatory conduct would cease. However, with almost each new supervisor came a new wave of harassment. We believe that the acts of defendant Michigan Bell’s employees exhibited a continuous course of discriminatory conduct sufficient to invoke the continuing-violations exception to the statutory limitation period. We also hold that the conduct of defendant Schulz amounted to a present violation that occurred within the limitation period. The mere existence of continuing harassment is insufficient if none of the relevant conduct occurred within the limitation period. Sumner, p 539. Defendants do not contest the allegedly discriminatory conduct of defendant Schulz, and we believe that the post-March 1984 actions of Schulz were intrinsically connected to the pre-March 1984 violations. Therefore, we hold that plaintiffs’ claim alleged a continuing violation and that an action' concerning the pre-March 1984 violation is not barred by the statute of limitations. Considering our holding that the prior incidents constitute a part of a continuing violation and, thus, are not barred by the statute of limitations, we must now consider whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ preliminary motion to suppress the introduction of evidence of any actions predating March 19,1984. The decision whether to admit certain evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Brunson v E & L Transport Co, 177 Mich App 95, 104; 441 NW2d 48 (1989). The trial court held that because there was no connection between the acts themselves and no relationship between the parties involved, evidence of these prior acts had no probative value and had potential for prejudice. Considering that we have found the existence of a continuing violation sufficient to avoid the application of the limitation period, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the admission of this testimony. Finally, we address whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition of the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Liability for the separate cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress has been found "only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Roberts v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 422 Mich 594, 602-603; 374 NW2d 905 (1985), quoting 1 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, comment d, pp 72-73. Plaintiffs deposition alleged that defendant Schulz told plaintiff to put her purse away, to wear pants with pockets so she could keep a wallet in them like men do, and to wear shoes like the other guys. Defendant Schulz also called defendant chubbly, a combination of chubby and ugly, in front of the crew and described a ring given to her by her husband as a Jewish-American-princess ring. In addition, employees under defendant Schulz’ supervision called plaintiff a Jewish-American princess and asked plaintiff who she had slept with to get her job. Accepting these factual allegations as true, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that these allegations clearly do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. MCR 2.116(C)(8), Scameheorn v Bucks, 167 Mich App 302, 306; 421 NW2d 918 (1988). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Similar Rulings
RYMAR v MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Docket No. 120278. Submitted February 21, 1991, at Detroit. Decided August 5, 1991, at 9:25 a.m. Leave to appeal sought. Patricia Rymar brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Michigan Bell Telephone Company, her former employer, alleging that Bell, in terminating her employment because of an emotional disorder, violated the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et aeq.; MSA 3.550(101) et aeq. The court, John H. Gillis, Jr., J., denied summary disposition for Bell, which had argued that the plaintiff’s disorder was not a handicap under the act because it was related to her ability to perform her job. Bell appealed by leave granted. The Court of Appeals held: The trial court did not err in denying the motion for summary disposition. 1. A person with a temporary disability that can be remedied within a reasonable time so as to enable that person to perform the duties of a particular job has a handicap for purposes of the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an employee’s handicap. 2. In this case, there remains a question whether, within a reasonable time, the plaintiff’s disorder would cease to adversely affect her capacity to perform her job. Affirmed. Reilly, P.J., dissenting, stated that this case is indistinguishable from Ashworth v Jefferson Screw Products, Inc, 176 Mich App 737 (1989), where it was held that the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act covers only those whose disabilities are unrelated to their abilities to perform their jobs. She would reverse the trial court’s denial of summary disposition. Civil Rights — Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act — Temporary Disabilities — Employment Discrimination. A person who is unable to perform the duties of a particular position because of a temporary disability that can be remedied ■within a reasonable time so as to enable that person to perform those duties has a handicap for which that person may seek the protections against employment discrimination provided by the Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550[101] et seq.). References Am Jur 2d, Job Discrimination §§ 124,125. See the Index to Annotations under Disablied Persons; Emotioned Injury. Dib & Fagan, P.C. (by Barry S. Fagan), for the plaintiff. Albert Calille and Laura Demetry White, for the defendant. Before: Reilly, P.J., and Shepherd and Marilyn Kelly, JJ. Marilyn Kelly, J. This is an employment discrimination claim filed under the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (mhcra). MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(8). Defendant appeals the decision by leave granted. We affirm. On March 8, 1988, plaintiff took a two-month leave of absence to care for her terminally ill mother. Her mother died on March 20. Plaintiff then sought and defendant granted her a medical leave which extended through May 31, 1988. Plaintiff was unable to return to work on May 31 and requested an extension. Defendant informed her that she must return by July 1, 1988, or it could not guarantee reemployment. Plaintiff was again unable to work. She submitted a letter from her physician stating, however, that she would be able to return on August 1 at the earliest. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment on June 30,1988. On August 8, 1988, plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation. She listed her disability as an ongoing emotional disorder. On August 28, she filed this employment discrimination suit. She later withdrew her claim for workers’ compensation. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition. Defendant maintains that there is no question that, on the date of termination, plaintiff’s disability was related to her ability to perform her job. Therefore, her disability was not a "handicap” under the mhcra. Carr v General Motors Corp, 425 Mich 313; 389 NW2d 686 (1986). Alternatively, defendant claims that at the time of termination plaintiff was not in a "mentally ill restored” condition. Thus, she did not fall within the disability categories described in the mhcra. The mhcra covers only those whose disabilities are unrelated to their capacity to perform their jobs. The handicapped person seeking employment must be capable of performing the duties of the position. A disability that is related to one’s ability to perform the duties of a particular position is not a "handicap” within the meaning of the act. Carr, 315-316, 321-322. There is no question that, on the date of termination, plaintiff was unable to perform her job because of her disability. Michigan case law has consistently used the date of termination as the relevant point to assess the status of a disability. Ashworth v Jefferson Screw Products, Inc, 176 Mich App 737; 440 NW2d 101 (1989); Bowerman v Malloy Lithographing, Inc, 171 Mich App 110, 116; 430 NW2d 742 (1988); Doman v Grosse Pointe Farms, 170 Mich App 536, 542; 428 NW2d 708 (1988); Wilson v Acacia Park, 162 Mich App 638, 643-644; 413 NW2d 79 (1987). However, we are not persuaded that the date of termination is the obligatory focal point in every case. We agree with Judge Shepherd’s reasoning in his dissent in Ashworth. A mandatory fixation on the date of termination ignores the factor of time. Ashworth, 746. That factor was not relevant in the Carr case, where the plaintiff was permanently, not temporarily, disabled. Moreover, it is notable that the Supreme Court in Carr quotes the following segment from the 1976 Journal of the Senate 590: [TJf a handicapped person seeking employment meets the qualifications of the job and can attain the performance levels required within a reasonable time, he must, by law be given the same opportunity as other applicants to secure the position. [Carr, 319. Emphasis added.] A representation was made in this case that defendant denied plaintiff the same leave time as other employees. An employer must give its employee a reasonable time to heal, under like conditions as other employees, so long as the delay does not impede getting the employer’s work done. Ashworth, 747-749. In this case, on the date of termination, plaintiff’s disability was related to her ability to do her job. Her condition was not "mentally ill restored.” However, there remains unanswered a question whether, within a reasonable time, her disability would cease to adversely affect her capacity to do the work, putting her in a restored condition. Plaintiff’s mhcra claim is not so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify a right of recovery. Scameheorn v Bucks, 167 Mich App 302, 306; 421 NW2d 918 (1988). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for summary disposition as to the handicappers’ civil rights claim. Affirmed. Shepherd, J., concurred. Reilly, P.J. (dissenting). The facts of this case are not distinguishable from the facts in Ashworth v Jefferson Screw Products, Inc, 176 Mich App 737; 440 NW2d 101 (1989). I concur with the majority opinion in that case, and would reverse in this case.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.