Harassment Cases

CORLEY v DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION Docket No. 119773. Decided June 17, 2004. On application by the defendants for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals relating to sexual harassment claims and reinstated the circuit court order granting summary disposition for the defendants. Patricia M. Corley brought a civil rights action in the Wayne Circuit Court against the Detroit Board of Education, Joseph Smith (the plaintiffs former supervisor), and Barbara Finch (the plaintiffs former coworker), claiming a hostile work environment and adverse employment actions suffered as a consequence of the plaintiffs romantic relationship with Smith, who later had a romantic relationship with Finch. The court, Wendy M. Baxter, J., granted summary disposition for the defendants. The Court of Appeals, Neff, EJ., and Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen, JJ., reversed, determining that the alleged persistent and hostile communications could reasonably be considered communications of a sexual nature because of the past relationship between the plaintiff and Smith, and that the alleged threats, offensive remarks, and adverse working conditions established sufficient evidence of sexual harassment. 246 Mich App 15 (2001). The defendants sought leave to appeal. In an opinion per curiam, signed by Chief Justice Corrigan, and Justices Weaver, Taylor, Young, and Markman, the Supreme Court held.-. The plaintiff failed to establish that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or conduct or communication of a sexual nature. MCL 37.2103(i). She therefore failed to meet the threshold requirements for establishing sexual harassment under a hostile work environment theory or quid pro quo theory. The plaintiffs allegations that Smith warned her not to interfere with his relationship with Finch, and threatened her with consequences if she did, concerned hostile, but not sexual, matters. Allegations of Finch’s conversations about the plaintiff and Finch’s relocation of the plaintiffs work station conveyed nothing more than enmity between romantic rivals, not conduct or communication of a sexual nature. Reversed; circuit court order reinstated. Justice Cavanagh, joined by Justice Kelly, dissenting, stated that the issue in this case is sufficiently closely drawn and jurisprudentially significant that the Supreme Court and the parties would benefit from full briefing and argument, instead of the case being settled by an opinion per curiam after a perfunctory fifteen minutes of oral argument on the application seeking leave to appeal. Civil Rights — Sexual Harassment — Pleading. A plaintiff in a civil rights action for sexual harassment must plead, as a threshold matter, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or conduct or communication of a sexual nature (MCL 37.2301[i]). Plunkett & Cooney, PC. (by Christine D. Oldani and Kenneth L. Lewis), for the defendants. PER CURIAM. In this sexual harassment action, plaintiff claims to have suffered an adverse employment action as a consequence of a prior romantic relationship with one of the defendants, MCL 37.2103(i) (ii), and a hostile work environment, MCL 37.2103(i) (iii). We conclude that plaintiffs complaint does not allege facts sufficient to show sexual harassment under either theory and, therefore, fails as a matter of law. We reverse the Court of Appeals decision pertaining to plaintiffs sexual harassment claims and reinstate the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for defendants. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and defendant Joseph Smith were employed by the Detroit Board of Education to work in its adult education program at the Golightly Vocational Center. Plaintiff was employed part-time as a counselor, and defendant Smith was her supervisor. During the course of their employment, plaintiff and Smith became romantically involved in a relationship that lasted three or four years. The relationship ended when Smith started dating another employee, defendant Barbara Finch. Plaintiff alleges that after Smith and Finch became involved, defendant Smith repeatedly threatened plaintiff with adverse employment action if she said or did anything that interfered with his relationship with Finch. Plaintiff also alleges that Finch taunted, embarrassed, and humiliated her by causing plaintiffs work station to be moved and by engaging in “catty” conversations with others that were about plaintiff and intended to be overheard by her. According to plaintiff, the alleged harassment culminated when she was discharged at the conclusion of the 1995-1996 school year. Plaintiff filed suit, claiming sexual harassment, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Regarding the sexual harassment claim, plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to two species of harassment prohibited by the Michigan Civil Rights Act: a hostile working environment, MCL 37.2103(i)(iii), and quid pro quo sexual harassment, MCL 37.2103(i)(ii). Pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), the circuit court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, ruling that plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition regarding the sexual harassment claims, reasoning that the alleged persistent and hostile communications could reasonably be considered communications of a sexual nature because defendants “disliked” plaintiffs “continued presence in the workplace as Smith’s former paramour.” Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence of quid pro quo sexual harassment because she suffered adverse employment actions as a result of “her ‘submission’ to Smith’s prior” romantic overtures. The panel additionally reasoned that the alleged threats, offensive remarks, and adverse working conditions established sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment. Defendants seek leave to appeal to this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews de novo the resolution of a summary disposition motion. A motion “under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the basis of the pleadings alone.” “The purpose of such a motion is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion should be granted if no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” “A motion under MCR 2.116(0(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint.” In evaluating such a motion, a court considers the entire record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, including affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. III. ANALYSIS We turn initially to whether plaintiff alleges facts sufficient under MCR 2.116(0(10) to establish a claim of sexual harassment actionable under either a quid pro quo theory or a hostile work environment theory, MCL 37.2103(i)(ii), (iii). “Sexual harassment” is defined in MCL 37.2103(i) as: [UJnwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: (ii) Submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting the individual’s employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing. (iii) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, public accommodations, public services, educational, or housing environment. Thus, as a threshold matter, plaintiff must allege facts showing that she was subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances,” “requests for sexual favors,” or “conduct or communication of a sexual nature” before she can establish actionable sexual harassment under a hostile work environment theory or a quid pro quo theory. MCL 37.2103(i). Plaintiff does not contend that defendants made either unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors. We thus turn to the third element of MCL 37.2103(i) to determine if she was subjected to “conduct or communication of a sexual nature.” “Sexual nature” is not defined in the statute. Where a term is not defined in the statute, we will review its ordinary dictionary meaning for guidance. “Sexual” is defined, in part, as “of or pertaining to sex” or “occurring between or involving the sexes: sexual relations” “Nature” is defined as a “native or inherent characteristic.” Utilizing these two commonly understood definitions, we conclude that actionable sexual harassment requires conduct or communication that inherently pertains to sex. The conduct and communication alleged by plaintiff do not meet this definition. Plaintiff contends that defendant Smith repeatedly warned plaintiff not to interfere with his relationship with Finch and threatened her with consequences if she did. The Court of Appeals, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, concluded that the threats could constitute unwelcome sexual communications because they stemmed from Smith’s past intimate relationship with plaintiff. 'We disagree. After their intimate relationship ended, their working relationship became difficult, but defendant Smith’s alleged threats that he would fire plaintiff if she interfered with his new relationship were not inherently sexual in nature. Verbal or physical conduct or communication that is not sexual in nature is not sexual harassment. For this reason, we conclude that plaintiff cannot meet the threshold requirement to establish either a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim or hostile work environment sexual harassment claim against defendant Smith. Regarding defendant Finch, plaintiff alleges that Finch contributed to a hostile work environment by engaging in “catty” conversations about plaintiff and by causing plaintiffs work station to be relocated. As discussed above, plaintiff must establish that the asserted conduct or communication were of a sexual nature. That is, that Finch’s conduct or communication inherently pertained to sex. Here, the asserted communication by Finch conveyed nothing more than Finch’s personal animosity towards plaintiff. MCL 37.2103(i) does not forbid the communication of enmity between romantic rivals, even if the predicate for the dislike is sexual competition, as long as the conduct or communication is not inherently sexual. In summary, what may have been sexual in this case did not involve harassment, while what did involve harassment was not sexual. It cannot be said by any understanding of the language of MCL 37.2103 that plaintiff was subject to “sexual harassment.” Thus, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold requirement to establish sexual harassment by Finch because this connection between sex and the alleged conduct and communication is missing. IV CONCLUSION Plaintiffs claim fails as a matter of law because she has not established evidence of conduct or communication of a “sexual nature” as required to support a claim of sexual harassment. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to plaintiffs sexual harassment claims and reinstate the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(0(10). Corrigan, C.J., and Weaver, Taylor, Young, and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred. . Plaintiff simultaneously held full-time employment with the Detroit Board of Education. The facts relevant to this case involve only plaintiffs part-time employment at Golightly. Defendants Smith and Finch have since married. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition regarding breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 246 Mich App 15, 25-26; 632 NW2d 147 (2001). Plaintiff did not appeal those rulings. 246 Mich App 22. 246 Mich App 23. Stanton v Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611, 614; 647 NW2d 508 (2002). Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 193; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129-130; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Id. at 118-120. Cox v Bd ofHosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 18; 651 NW2d 356 (2002). Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1990). Id. See Haynie v Dep’t of State Police, 468 Mich 302, 312; 664 NW2d 129 (2003); see also Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306, 321; 628 NW2d 63 (2001) (reiterating that the Civil Rights Act is not so broad as to bar all conduct that is in any way related to sex). Haynie, supra at 310. Because plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we need not decide the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8). CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. While the majority sees fit to dispose of this case by an opinion per curiam after a perfunctory fifteen minutes of oral argument on the application, I believe that defendant’s application for leave should be granted and this case should be decided only after full briefing and argument. The Court of Appeals opinion in this case is published. Further, the issue presented is jurispruden-tially significant and is more closely drawn than the majority would have the reader believe. I am unclear whether the result reached by the majority is correct. Additionally, I am troubled by the majority’s quick resort to the dictionary, without any consideration of the purpose or principles underlying Michigan’s Civil Rights Act and without any examination of the federal cases that have considered this issue. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent because this Court, and the parties, would be better served by granting defendant’s application for leave. KELLY, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.

CYNTHIA SMITH-PRICE, Plaintiff v. CHARTER BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, d/b/a CHARTER HOSPITAL, and JAY LAWS, joint and severally Defendants No. COA99-1523 (Filed 18 May 2004) 1. Appeal and Error— appealability — bankruptcy court action — mootness Defendant employer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff employee’s appeal in a negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, retaliation for reporting illegal, unprofessional, and immoral conduct, negligent supervision, and negligent retention of employees case is allowed because the order of the bankruptcy court disallowing plaintiff’s claims against defendant has rendered moot the issue of whether defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims. 2. Appeal and Error— preservation of issues — assignments of error Although defendant contends that plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to follow N.C. R. App. R Rule 10(c) which requires each assignment of error to state plainly, concisely, and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned, the notice of appeal sufficed as an assignment of error directed to the order of summary judgment. 3. Emotional Distress— negligent infliction — duty of care The trial court did not err by granting defendant co-worker’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on defendant co-worker communicating false and misleading information regarding plaintiff’s employment behavior and job performance to defendant company, because plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant co-worker owed her a duty of care or that he breached such a duty. 4. Emotional Distress— intentional infliction — extreme and outrageous conduct required The trial court did not err by granting defendant co-worker’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence does not show extreme and outrageous conduct on defendant’s part. 5. Libel and Slander— slander — good faith The trial court erred by granting defendant co-worker’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s slander claim, because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant acted in good faith in accusing plaintiff of sexual harassment. Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 20 September 1999 by Judge Russell G. Walker, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 2004. Gray, Newell, Johnson & Blackmon, LLP, by Angela Newell Gray, for plaintiff-appellant. Smith Moore LLP, by Julie G. Theall, for defendant-appellee Charter Behavioral Health Systems. Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves LLC, by Lucretia D. Guia, for defendant-appellee Jay Laws. MARTIN, Chief Judge. In her amended complaint in this action against defendants Charter Behavioral Health Systems (“Charter”), Jean Hubbard (“Hubbard”), Charter’s Director of Nursing, and Jay Laws (“Laws”), a mental health specialist at Charter, plaintiff alleges claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and retaliation for reporting illegal, unprofessional and immoral conduct. Plaintiff also alleged claims against defendant Charter for negligent supervision and negligent retention of three of its employees. All defendants filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the action against Hubbard with prejudice, and defendants Charter and Laws moved for summary judgment. Materials before the trial court at the hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment disclose that plaintiff, a registered nurse, and Laws worked in the children’s unit at Charter’s Greensboro facility. Although Laws was under the direct supervision of plaintiff, she had no administrative authority. As early as November 1997, plaintiff complained about Laws’ tardiness, abuse of phone privileges, failure to follow policy, insubordination and his inappropriate sexual relationship with a co-worker. She also expressed dissatisfaction with Charter’s under-staffing, but Charter took no corrective action. On 5 February 1998, Laws arrived late at work, which, according to plaintiff, was not uncommon. After plaintiff confronted Laws about his tardiness, excessive phone calls, taking “off orders” and his attitude at work, he angrily walked away from plaintiff. Laws returned a few minutes later, claiming taking “off orders” was not his job, and threw a packet of papers containing a job description at plaintiff, hitting her in the chest. Plaintiff testified in her deposition that the impact caused her little physical pain, but the incident was emotionally traumatic. After this episode, plaintiff enlisted the help of the assistant director of nursing, Kathy Williams, who agreed that defendant Laws should be sent home for the day for insubordination. At the request of Williams, plaintiff prepared a written statement of the events to submit to Hubbard the following day. Although Laws was not scheduled to work the following day, he came into Charter and submitted a report claiming plaintiff had sexually harassed him. An investigation of the allegation was promptly initiated by Charter. Some employees corroborated Laws’ complaints while others expressed no knowledge of inappropriate behavior by plaintiff. However, because of the allegations, plaintiff was moved to the adult unit of the hospital while Laws remained on the children’s unit. On or about 10 February 1998 plaintiff took a medical leave due to the stress caused by the accusations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and plaintiff gave notice of appeal. On 16 February 2000, Charter filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.. By order dated 3 March 2000, this Court stayed all further proceedings in this case until notified that the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 had been lifted. Such notification was received by this Court on 16 July 2003. Plaintiff’s Appeal as to Defendant Charter On 22 October 2001, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware disallowed plaintiffs claims against Charter in full. .Charter has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal of the order granting summary judgment in its favor on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim against Charter has been disallowed by the Bankruptcy Court, rendering the issues between plaintiff and Charter in this appeal moot. Whenever, during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law. In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979). “An appeal which presents a moot question should be dismissed.” Dickerson Carolina, Inc. v. Harrelson, 114 N.C. App. 693, 698, 443 S.E.2d 127, 131 (1994). The order of the Bankruptcy Court disallowing plaintiff’s claim against Charter has rendered moot the issue of whether Charter was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Charter’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal is, therefore, allowed. Plaintiff’s Appeal as to Defendant Laws I. “[T]he standard of review on appeal from summary judgment is whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Bruce-Terminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998). Summary judgment is appropriate when “viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant,” Id., “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003). The moving party must establish the lack of any triable issue of material fact “by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681-82, 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002) (citation omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating that the [nonmoving party] will be able to make out at least a prima facie case at trial.” Id. (citation omitted). Although summary judgment is seldom granted in negligence cases, it may be granted where the evidence shows “a lack of any negligence on the part of the defendant.” Surrette v. Duke Power Co., 78 N.C. App. 647, 650, 338 S.E.2d 129, 131 (1986). II. Initially, defendant Laws argues that plaintiffs appeal should be dismissed because plaintiff has not followed the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure which require each assignment of error to “state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.” N. C. R. App. P. Rule 10(c). “An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references.” Id. Each of plaintiff’s assignments of error state, “The trial court erred by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim of . . . .” An appeal from an order granting summary judgment raises only the issues of whether, on the face of the record, there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the notice of appeal suffices as an assignment of error directed to the order of summary judgment. Ellis v. Williams, 319 N.C. 413, 415, 355 S.E.2d 479, 481 (1987); Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P.A. v. Miller, 73 N.C. App. 295, 297, 326 S.E.2d 316, 319 (1985). Plaintiff’s assignments of error are clearly sufficient. III. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by granting defendant Laws’ motion for summary judgment as to her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The negligent act upon which plaintiff’s claim is grounded is that Laws “communicat[ed] false and misleading information regarding the Plaintiff’s employment behavior and job performance to the defendant company.” To establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that “(1) the defendant negligently engaged in conduct, (2) it was reasonably foreseeable that such conduct would cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress . . . , and (3) the conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress.” Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 327 N.C. 283, 304, 395 S.E.2d 85, 97, reh’g denied, 327 N.C. 644, 399 S.E.2d 133 (1990). “In order to establish actionable negligence, plaintiff must show (1) that there has been a failure to exercise proper care in the performance of some legal duty which defendant owed to plaintiff under the circumstances in which they were placed; and (2) that such negligent breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury.” Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co., 310 N.C. 227, 232, 311 S.E.2d 559, 564 (1984). In this case, plaintiff presented no evidence to establish that defendant Laws owed her a duty of care or that he breached such a duty. Therefore, an essential element of plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is unsupported by the evidence and summary judgment was properly allowed. See Guthrie v. Conroy, 152 N.C. App. 15, 25, 567 S.E.2d 403, 411 (2002). IV. Plaintiff next contends the trial court erred by granting defendant Laws’ motion for summary judgment as to her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: “1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant 2) which is intended to cause and does in fact cause 3) severe emotional distress.” Waddle v. Sparks, 331 N.C. 73, 82, 414 S.E.2d 22, 27 (1992) (citation omitted). Conduct is extreme and outrageous when it is “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.” Briggs v. Rosenthal, 73 N.C. App. 672, 677, 327 S.E.2d 308, 311 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 314 N.C. 114, 332 S.E.2d 479 (1985). The behavior must be more than “mere insults, indignities, threats, . . . and . . . plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate or unkind.” Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 79 N.C. App. 483, 493, 340 S.E.2d 116, 123 (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 140 (1986). The determination of whether the alleged conduct is considered extreme and outrageous is a question of law for the trial judge, however, the jury must determine whether the conduct is “sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.” Id. at 490-91, 340 S.E.2d at 121. The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, does not, as a matter of law, show extreme and outrageous conduct on Laws’ part. Plaintiff asserts that prior to 5 February 1998, defendant Laws failed to follow policies and procedures, took excessive personal phone calls, and failed to perform certain tasks. On 5 February 1998, when plaintiff confronted Laws, he threatened to make accusations against her, yelled at her, walked off his assignment and then, when he returned, threw a package of papers at plaintiff. The next day he filed a complaint of sexual harassment against plaintiff. Although defendant’s behavior was undeniably churlish and ill-mannered, it does not rise to the level of the extreme and outrageous conduct which is required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Hogan, 79 N.C. App. at 490, 340 S.E.2d at 121 (extreme and outrageous behavior found where defendant made sexually suggestive remarks and physical insinuations to plaintiff and when she refused his advances he screamed profane names at her, threatened her with bodily injury and slammed a knife down on the table in front of her); Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C. App. 47, 53, 502 S.E.2d 15, 20 (1998), aff'd, 352 N.C. 343, 532 S.E.2d 175 (2000) (extreme and outrageous behavior found where defendant frightened and humiliated plaintiff with cruel practical jokes, made obscene comments to her, made indecent physical suggestions and threatened her personal safety); McLain v. Taco Bell Corp., 137 N.C. App. 179, 527 S.E.2d 712, disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 357, 544 S.E.2d 563 (2000) (extreme and outrageous behavior found where defendant, after physically assaulting plaintiff, began masturbating, and ejaculated on plaintiff); compare with Wilson v. Bellamy, 105 N.C. App. 446, 468, 414 S.E.2d 347, 359, disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 558, 418 S.E.2d 668 (1992) (extreme and outrageous behavior was not found where defendant engaged in kissing and heavy petting with an intoxicated plaintiff while others were present); Hogan, 79 N.C. App. at 493, 340 S.E.2d at 122-23 (extreme and outrageous behavior was not found where defendant yelled and threw menus at plaintiff and interfered with her supervision of employees). Because plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of the element of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial court properly granted defendant Laws’ motion for summary judgment as to that claim. V. In her final argument, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by granting defendant Laws’ motion for summary judgment as to her claim for defamation. To prevail on a claim of defamation, “a plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant made false, defamatory statements of or concerning the plaintiff, which were published to a third person, causing injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.” Tyson v. L’Eggs Products, Inc., 84 N.C. App. 1, 10-11, 351 S.E.2d 834, 840 (1987). “In North Carolina, the term defamation applies to the two distinct torts of libel and slander.” Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 153 N.C. App. 25, 29, 568 S.E.2d 893, 898 (2002). Slander is defined as “the speaking of base or defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business, or means of livelihood.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1559 (4th Ed. 1968). In this case, plaintiff argues that defendant Laws slandered her by making accusations that she had sexually harassed him. “However, even if it is determined that a statement is slanderous, the law recognizes certain communications as privileged.” Long v. Vertical Technologies, 113 N.C. App. 598, 601, 439 S.E.2d 797, 800 (1994). “The essential elements for the qualified privilege to exist are good faith, an interest to be unheld, a statement limited in its scope to this purpose, a proper occasion and publication in a proper manner and the proper parties only.” Id. at 602, 439 S.E.2d at 800. “Additionally, a qualified privilege may be lost by proof of actual malice on the part of the defendant.” Id. There is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether defendant’s allegations were true. Laws testified that plaintiff sexually harassed him by rubbing his head and telling him his head was “sexy,” hugging him inappropriately, making explicit sexual comments about his penis, and by pulling her clothing aside so as to expose her bra and thong. Hubbard testified in her deposition that although she “initially was not sure [Laws] was telling the truth,” she felt like “there was something going on” even though she could not substantiate the accusations. However, in her deposition, plaintiff denied all of Laws’ accusations. Therefore, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the truth of Laws’ accusations. Moreover, although Laws had a legitimate interest in reporting any incidents of improper sexual advances or conduct to plaintiff’s supervisor, there is evidence which would support a finding that he did not act in good faith, so as to be entitled to a qualified privilege. There was evidence that Laws filed his sexual harassment claim the morning after he was sent home for insubordination, having never before mentioned any alleged sexual harassment on plaintiff’s part. There was also evidence that during the 5 February 1998 incident, Laws threatened to tell Charter’s administration that plaintiff was having a relationship with another employee, William Bynum. Therefore, there are genuine issues of fact as to whether defendant Laws acted in good faith in accusing plaintiff of sexual harassment and the trial court should not have granted summary judgment as to her claim for defamation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judges HUDSON and GEER concur.

LAURA TARRANT, Plaintiff v. FREEWAY FOODS OF GREENSBORO, INC., d/b/a WAFFLE HOUSE, FREEWAY FOODS, INC., d/b/a WAFFLE HOUSE, JESSE YUN, DOUG KINGTON, SR., and JOHN DOE, Defendants No. COA03-210 (Filed 6 April 2004) 1. Appeal and Error— appealability — dismissal of two claims — voluntary dismissal of remaining claims An appeal was not interlocutory where only two of four claims were dismissed by the trial court, but the other two were later voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff as part of a settlement. There is nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate; any delay would impede rather than expedite resolution of the matter. 2. Employer and Employee— wrongful termination — workers’ compensation claim The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy for asserting her workers’ compensation rights where plaintiff was injured, collected temporary disability, returned to work, and was then terminated because she had “cost the company a lot of money.” 3. Employer and Employee— retaliatory discharge — temporal requirement The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs claim under REDA (the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act) where the employer admitted that plaintiffs firing was in retaliation for a workers’ compensation claim and the question was the length of time between the filing of the claim and the retaliation. The major concern is whether plaintiff was fired for asserting her workers’ compensation claim; strictly requiring a close temporal relationship between the claim and the retaliation would allow employers to circumvent the statute. 4. Arbitration and Mediation— employment contract — existence of arbitration agreement Claims arising from an employment termination were remanded for determination of whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Appeal by plaintiff and defendant Freeway Foods, Inc., from order entered 8 October 2002 by Judge John R. Jolly, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 2004. Faith Herndon for plaintiff appellant-appellee. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by John W. Ormand III and Charles E. Coble, for defendant appellant-appellee. Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher; and Ferguson, Stein, Chambers Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by Margaret Errington for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers Amicus Curiae. McCullough, Judge. This case arises out of plaintiffs termination from employment. Plaintiff asserted one claim under the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) and one claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff also sued for slander and conversion. In response, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate her claims. Plaintiff Laura Tarrant was employed by defendant Freeway Foods of Greensboro, Inc., in 1989. In 1993, plaintiff sustained a work-related back injury and was compensated under North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act. For the first several years after the injury, plaintiff continued to work. In 1996, plaintiff’s compensable back injury worsened, and she required surgery. Around June of 1996, she was put on a leave of absence because of her back surgery and condition. At this time, defendant paid temporary total disability benefits during plaintiff’s period of disability. In early 1997, plaintiff’s physician assigned restrictions, including limiting plaintiff to lifting items no greater than thirty pounds. Also, in 1997 and 1998, plaintiff’s doctors indicated that she was still disabled from working part time and recommended further surgical procedures. During 1997 and most of 1998, defendant and its insurance carriers paid plaintiff total disability benefits. Plaintiff was unable to work for defendant or any other employer. On or about 23 October 1998, the parties settled plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim. The agreement did not prevent plaintiff from working for defendant in the future. In 1999, plaintiff worked for other employers. Later that year, she applied to work for defendant and was rehired by Larry Davis, a Unit Manager. At that time, plaintiff was physically able to do the job. Plaintiff claims that when she was leaving the store after being hired, the District Manager for defendant, Ken Tindall, inquired about plaintiffs back condition and expressed concerns about whether plaintiff could do the job. According to plaintiff, Tindall asked her if she was going to behave and stated, “You’re not going to fall again, are you?” Plaintiff reported to work on 2 November 1999. On 4 November 1999, Larry Davis told plaintiff that her employment with defendant had been terminated. Plaintiff alleges that Davis told her that her job performance was fine, but she “cost the company a lot of money.” Plaintiff contacted Ken Tindall and other managers and told them that she was not too disabled to do the job. However, the managers disagreed. They told plaintiff that she agreed that she could not work for defendant again when she settled her workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff filed claims for (1) violation of North Carolina’s Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA), (2) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (3) slander, and (4) wrongful conversion. In response, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to stay action and compel plaintiff to submit her claims to binding arbitration. In support of its motion to compel arbitration, defendant presented evidence tending to show that when she was rehired in 1999, plaintiff completed and signed the standard “Waffle House” employment application. The documents in the application include an Application for Hourly Employment, a form which contains an arbitration clause. In the arbitration clause, employees agree to resolve all disputes arising out of employment through binding arbitration. Although plaintiff acknowledged signing some application documents, defendant was unable to locate the actual Application for Hourly Employment that plaintiff signed. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s REDA claim and claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, but did not dismiss the slander and conversion claims. The court denied defendant’s motion to stay action and compel arbitration. Both sides appeal. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by: (1) dismissing the REDA claim and (2) dismissing the claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In contrast, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) denying defendant’s motion to stay action and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, (2) by failing to make and enter sufficient findings of fact. Before addressing these issues, we must evaluate defendant’s contention that this appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory. I. Interlocutory Appeal Defendant argues that plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory. We disagree. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(a) (2003), a judgment is either final or interlocutory. Our Supreme Court has explained this distinction: A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381, reh’g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (2003), final judgments are immediately appealable. However, interlocutory orders are only appealable in a limited set of circumstances. The purpose of the restrictions on the right to appeal immediately from an interlocutory ruling “is to prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial divisions to have done with a case fully and finally before it is presented to the appellate division.” Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). We decline to dismiss this case because plaintiff’s appeal is not interlocutory. Originally, plaintiff filed four causes of action. The first two claims were for violations of the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The remaining two claims were for slander and wrongful conversion. On 4 October 2002, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s REDA claim and plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, but refused to dismiss the other two claims for slander and wrongful conversion. At that point, plaintiff’s appeal would have been interlocutory because the entire case was not disposed of. However, on 7 February 2003, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims for slander and wrongful conversion as part of a settlement agreement with defendant. At this juncture, we believe that the interests of justice would be furthered by hearing the appeal. All claims and judgments are final with respect to all the parties, and there is nothing left for the trial court to determine. Therefore, the rationale behind dismissing interlocutory appeals, the prevention of fragmentary and unnecessary appeals, does not apply in this case. In fact, any delay on our part would impede, rather than expedite, the efficient resolution of this matter. For these reasons, we decline to dismiss the appeal and will consider the case on the merits. II. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. We agree. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2003), a party may file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In considering the motion, the court evaluates “whether the facts alleged in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[], give[s] rise to a claim for relief on any theory.” Ford v. Peaches Entertainment Corp., 83 N.C. App. 155, 156, 349 S.E.2d 82, 83 (1986), disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 694, 351 S.E.2d 746 (1987). North Carolina adheres to the at-will employment doctrine which states that “in the absence of a contractual agreement . . . establishing a definite term of employment, the relationship is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party without regard to the quality of performance of either party.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc., 347 N.C. 329, 331, 493 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1997), reh’g denied, 347 N.C. 586, 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998). However, there is a public policy exception to the rule. Brackett v. SGL Carbon Corp., 158 N.C. App. 252, 259, 580 S.E.2d 757, 761 (2003). While there is not a specific list of what actions constitute a violation of public policy, the exception has applied where the employee is fired “ ‘(1) for refusing to violate the law at the employer[’]s request, (2) for engaging in a legally protected activity, or (3) based on some activity by the employer contrary to law or public policy.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). This Court has considered whether “a claim of wrongful discharge based upon North Carolina public policy of not punishing employees for exercising their statutory rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act was tenable[.]” Salter v. E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 685, 697, 575 S.E.2d 46, 54 (2003). In Salter, we concluded that such a cause of action probably does exist, but plaintiffs claim could not succeed because there was insufficient evidence. Id,. The next time this Court considered the issue we stated unequivocally, “we agree with the reasoning of Salter on this issue.” Brackett, 158 N.C. App. at 259, 580 S.E.2d at 762. “[A] plaintiff may state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where he or she alleges the dismissal resulted from an assertion of rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act ."Id. at 260, 580 S.E.2d at 762. In this case, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss on the claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff claims that she was fired because she asserted her rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Evidence in the record reveals that plaintiff sustained a back injury in 1993 while working for defendant. The injury was compensable under North Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Act. For the first few years after the injury, plaintiff was able to continue working. However, in 1996, the injury worsened, and plaintiff required surgery. At that time, defendant paid temporary total disability benefits. During 1997 and most of 1998, plaintiff received total disability benefits because she could not work for defendant or any other employer. On 1 November 1999, defendant rehired plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegations of the events regarding her hiring and firing tend to show that she was fired because she filed a workers’ compensation claim. When plaintiff was leaving the store after being rehired, plaintiff claims that the District Manager, Ken Tindall, asked her, “Are you going to behave? You’re not going to fall again, are you?” Plaintiff also produced evidence showing what happened on the day she was terminated. A manager told plaintiff that her job performance was fine, but the company did not want her around because she cost them a lot of money. We conclude that this is sufficient evidence to allow plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim to go forward. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this claim. III. REDA Claim Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her claim under the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA). Enacted in 1992, REDA prohibits discrimination against an employee who has filed a workers’ compensation claim. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240, et. seq. (2003). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(l)(a), prevents discrimination or retaliation against an employee who does or threatens to [f]ile a claim or complaint, initiate any inquiry, investigation, inspection, proceeding or other action, or testify or provide information to any person with respect to . . . Chapter 97 of the General Statutes. REDA replaced N.C. Geni. Stat. § 97-6.1 which sought to allow employees to “pursue remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act without fear of retaliation from their employers.” Salter, 155 N.C. App. at 691, 575 S.E.2d at 50. The issue in the present case is whether a plaintiff must show a close temporal connection between the filing of the claim and the alleged retaliatory act when the employer or the employer’s agent has admitted that plaintiff was fired because she asserted her rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act. “[0]ur appellate courts indicated in applying the former provision that a plaintiff fails to make out a case of retaliatory action where there is no close temporal connection between the filing of the claim and the alleged retaliatory act.” Id. (emphasis added). However, we note that at least two of the cases that have dismissed these claims have considered the lack of a close temporal connection as one of many factors. ■ For example, in a case that applied the former statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6.1), this Court affirmed a jury verdict that denied relief to plaintiff where the evidence showed that defendant did not question the fact that plaintiff was disabled, but terminated plaintiff for misrepresenting the extent of the disability. Shaffner v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 101 N.C. App. 213, 398 S.E.2d 657 (1990), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 333, 402 S.E.2d 839 (1991). Although we stated that there was no close temporal connection between the initiation of the workers’ compensation claim and the termination, the key factor was causation. Id. at 216, 398 S.E.2d at 659. Plaintiff was not fired because he instituted a workers’ compensation claim; he was terminated because he lied about the gravity of his injuries. Id. In Salter, “[s]everal things ... [were] wrong with plaintiff’s claim.” Salter, 155 N.C. App. at 691, 575 S.E.2d at 50. We acknowledged that there was no close temporal connection between the filing of the workers’ compensation claim and plaintiff’s termination. Id. However, we also indicated that plaintiff offered “little more than mere speculation” that defendant fired her “because she filed a workers’ compensation claim.” Id. at 692, 575 S.E.2d at 50. Thus, our major concern was whether plaintiff was terminated because she filed a workers’ compensation claim, rather than timing alone. Perhaps, if plaintiff offered more evidence, there would have been a triable issue. We are not aware of any REDA case in which the employer admitted that the employee was terminated for pursuing her workers’ compensation rights. However, that is precisely what happened here. When plaintiff was rehired by defendant, a district manager allegedly asked plaintiff if she was going to behave and stated, “You’re not going to fall again, are you?” Similarly, when she was fired, plaintiff was told that her job performance was fine, but she was being terminated because “she cost the company a lot of money.” These statements strongly suggest that plaintiff was terminated because she instituted and later settled a workers’ compensation claim. We recognize that a long interval between the filing of a workers’ compensation claim and the termination of the employee could reveal that the two events were not causally related. However, such a concern does not arise where the employer openly admits that the firing was retaliatory. We believe that strictly requiring a close temporal connection would allow employers to circumvent the statute. By simply delaying the retaliatory firing for several months, an employer could prevent a REDA claim from ever going forward, even where there is direct evidence of a wrongful motive. At the very least, this case presents a triable issue. Ultimately, if this matter is not settled or resolved through binding arbitration, the jury should determine whether plaintiff was wrongfully terminated because she pursued her rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s REDA claim. IV. Arbitration Agreement The final issue we must consider is whether the parties agreed to settle their disputes through binding arbitration. When a party denies the existence of an arbitration agreement, a court must “summarily determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.” Barnhouse v. American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 151 N.C. App. 507, 508, 566 S.E.2d 130, 131 (2002). “Failure of.the court to determine this issue, where properly raised by the parties, constitutes reversible error.” Id. After a careful review of the record, we are unable to clearly determine if the trial court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement. Therefore, we respectfully remand this issue for the purpose of clarification. If there was a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiffs claims will be settled through binding arbitration. If there was not a valid agreement, plaintiff should be allowed to pursue her claims in court. For these reasons, the decision of the trial court is Reversed and remanded. Judges WYNN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.

John E. Mole vs. University of Massachusetts & others. No. 00-P-735. Suffolk. March 20, 2002. May 8, 2003. Present: Grí->nbrrg, Lenk, & Cowin, JJ. Further appellate review granted, 439 Mass. 1109 (2003). University of Massachusetts. Civil Rights, Termination of employment. Employment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Termination. Anti-Discrimination Law, Termination of employment, Prima facie case. Public Employment, Termination. Limitations, Statute of. Practice, Civil, Prima facie case, Statute of limitations. In a civil action brought by a tenured professor against the defendant university and individual defendants, alleging that the professor’s support of his wife’s sexual harassment complaint against the university inspired unlawful retaliation resulting in reductions in salary and ultimately in termination of his appointment, the judge erred in granting a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, where evidence of adverse employment actions that were unavailable as a basis for the plaintiff’s claims by virtue of the applicable statutes of limitations could be used to support an inference that subsequent acts that were not time-barred were a product of discrimination, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find a causal connection between the professor’s support of his wife’s complaint and the subsequent adverse employment decisions. [38-47] Greenberg, J., dissented. In a civil action brought by a tenured professor against the defendant university and individual defendants, alleging that the professor’s support of his wife’s sexual harassment complaint against the university inspired unlawful retaliation resulting in reductions in salary and ultimately in termination of his appointment, the professor’s administrative complaint was sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2000) and G. L. c. 15IB, and the fact that the professor was subsequently subjected to a more significant effect of the allegedly unlawful retaliation did not alter the fact that the retaliation issue had been fairly placed before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination [47-48]; further, the professor’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) was not preempted by his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), where the professor adequately pleaded interference with his right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution of intimate association with his wife [48]. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 5, 1994. A motion for summary judgment was heard by Barbara J. Rouse, J., and the case was heard by Charles T. Spurlock, J. John Foskett for the plaintiff. Christopher J. Campbell for the defendants. Michael R Czech, Frank J. Chlapowski, and Michael A. Bratt. Cowin, J. The plaintiff, formerly a tenured professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, brought proceedings against the University of Massachusetts (University) and various University employees in which he alleged that his support of his wife’s sexual harassment complaint against a department head inspired unlawful retaliation resulting first in reductions in his salary, then in termination of his appointment. Following pretrial rulings that narrowed the issues (and from which there have been no appeals), the case was tried to a jury for six days. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the judge directed verdicts in favor of the defendants Michael A. Bratt and Michael P. Czech. At the close of all the evidence, the judge directed verdicts in favor of the remaining defendants Frank J. Chlapowski and the University. Following the entry of judgments in accordance with the directed verdicts, the plaintiff appealed. Applying the standard applicable to directed verdicts, see Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 488 n.14 (2000), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence both of a prima facie case and of pretext on the part of the defendants to require submission of the case to the jury, and we accordingly reverse. 1. Prior proceedings. On May 2, 1993, the plaintiff filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination a complaint of unlawful retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, i.e., supporting his wife’s sexual harassment complaint. Following the required waiting period, see G. L. c. 151B, § 9, the plaintiff sought relief in the Superior Court under various civil rights statutes, specifically: (1) G. L. c. 151B, §§ 4(4), 4(4A) and 4(5); (2) Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2000); and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). He also sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief. Each of his statutory claims was asserted against all of the defendants: Michael P. Czech, former chair of the biochemistry and molecular biology department; Frank P. Chlapowski, acting chair; Michael A. Bratt, provost of the medical center; and the University itself. A judge of the Superior Court ruled that the “continuing violation” doctrine was inapplicable and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on those portions of the G. L. c. 15 IB claim that sought redress for conduct occurring prior to November 2, 1992 (the then applicable limitation of six months prior to the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination). Likewise, the judge granted the defendants summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s allegations under Title VII of conduct occurring prior to September 2, 1992 (240 days prior to the filing with that commission, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5[5]). The judge, in addition, granted summary judgment for the University on the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, ruling that the University was not a “person” subject to liability thereunder. Finally, the judge allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The remaining claims went to trial, resulting in the directed verdicts in question. 2. Material facts. “The question before us [in reviewing such a ruling] is . . . whether ‘anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff[].’ ” Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. at 488 n.14, quoting from Rolanti v. Boston Edison Corp., 33 Mass. App. Ct. 516, 520 (1992). Therefore, we state what the jury could have found, treating the evidence, as well as the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife, Jacqueline Anderson-Mole, each the holder of a doctoral degree in biochemistry, were engaged in research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham when they accepted an offer from the defendant Czech to join the biochemistry and molecular biology department (department) at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (medical center). The plaintiff joined as an associate professor, was subsequently granted tenure, and thereafter was granted a full professorship. Anderson-Mole joined the department on a non-tenure track. They brought with them valuable equipment and supplies as well as grants that they used to support their research work and salaries over the next several years. At the medical center, they founded and operated as codirectors the Protein Chemistry Core Facility (PCF), a research facility that, among other things, isolated and sequenced proteins and amino acids for other researchers at the medical center and other institutions. For several years, the PCF was funded in part by the Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center (DERC), an organization of scientists at the medical center (of which Czech was a member), that in turn received grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The plaintiff also received funding from the Scientific Council, a group of scientists composed of one representative from each medical center department. At the material times, faculty members at the medical center were evaluated on the basis of teaching, service and research. In 1983, Czech and the defendant Chlapowski, then an associate professor, gave the plaintiff’s teaching strongly positive evaluations. In recommending tenure for the plaintiff with “great enthusiasm,” Czech referred to him as an “exceptionally talented faculty member” and a “truly distinguished investigator,” and remarked on his “solid teaching performance,” “well respected research program,” and “outstanding service” as PCF director. Following these reviews, the plaintiff was granted tenure in 1984. He was elevated to the rank of full professor in 1987, again following enthusiastic recommendations by Czech and Chlapowski and a unanimous vote by the department’s personnel action committee. Between 1981 and 1989, the plaintiffs salary was consistently increased; he was appointed to various department committees by Czech, who confirmed that he was active and productive thereon; and he received no negative faculty evaluations regarding his performance. By 1989, the plaintiff carried the second highest teaching load in the department. In that year, Czech took a leave of absence from the position of chair of the department, his duties being assumed by Chlapowski in an acting capacity. Although on leave as chair, Czech continued to participate in faculty evaluations. During budget hearings in 1989, the Scientific Council discussed a proposal to save money by merging the plaintiff’s PCF with a neighboring peptide synthesis core facility. Various concerns regarding the operations of the PCF, including alleged difficulties encountered in working with the plaintiff, were expressed. A subcommittee was appointed to investigate and make a recommendation regarding continued funding of the PCF. On February 8, 1990, the subcommittee recommended consolidation of the two laboratories and a public search for a new director of the combined facility. On February 28, 1990, Anderson-Mole submitted to James Wells, the medical center’s equal employment opportunity compliance officer, an informal complaint of sexual harassment against Czech. The plaintiff supported his wife’s complaint. During that academic year (September, 1989, to June, 1990), the plaintiff was relieved of the majority of his teaching duties, the stated reason for which was the need to give younger faculty members teaching experience. During the summer of 1990, both the plaintiff and Anderson-Mole sought appointment as head of the new combined PCF-pepti.de synthesis core facility. Neither was a finalist for the position. In August, 1990, Aaron Lazare, then chancellor of the medical center, informed Czech that a female faculty member had submitted an informal complaint of sexual harassment against him. There was some evidence that, at the time, Anderson-Mole was the only female faculty member of the department. Czech informed Chlapowski of the complaint, also indicating to Chlapowski that Czech was already aware of a rumor that such a complaint existed (notwithstanding that complaints of this nature were understood to be confidential). On October 4, 1990, the plaintiff received, for the first time, a negative performance evaluation for the period July, 1989, to June, 1990, signed by Czech and Chlapowski. The evaluation reported that the plaintiff had been relieved of certain teaching assignments because of “consistently negative oral and written evaluations of his teaching efforts” by students. In addition, Chlapowski, in his capacity as acting department chair, now refused to appoint the plaintiff to membership on any department committees, despite the fact that the plaintiff asked to be included. By December, 1990, relations between the plaintiff and other faculty truly began to disintegrate, with the plaintiff, in the course of a faculty meeting, attacking Chlapowski’s credentials and performance as acting chair and referring to him as “Czech’s stooge.” In January, 1991, Anderson-Mole, again with the plaintiff’s support, filed with the equal employment opportunity compliance officer a formal charge of sexual harassment against Czech. Despite the confidentiality that normally attends such complaints, the officer informed Chlapowski that Anderson-Mole had filed a formal charge of sexual and professional harassment. Chlapowski erroneously believed that the charge had been leveled at himself, subsequently refusing to accept the plaintiff’s statement that the charge was directed at Czech only. By early 1991, Czech also learned that the formal complaint had been submitted. On April 24, 1991, Chlapowski filed a formal charge of scientific misconduct against the plaintiff. This arose following the negative evaluation of the plaintiff dated October 4, 1990, when the plaintiff requested that Chlapowski review certain of the plaintiff’s publications for which the plaintiff believed he had not received due credit. The review disclosed six papers listed by the plaintiff as “accepted for publication” or “in press” that had not subsequently been published, as well as articles that the plaintiff had coauthored that were published but that he had failed to list. Following normal medical center procedures, the associate dean of scientific affairs convened an investigating panel that concluded that, while the plaintiff’s conduct had been “sloppy and inappropriate,” no scientific misconduct had occurred. While most of the data contained in the six articles in question did get published, the associate dean officially reprimanded the plaintiff for “repeated inappropriate reporting of scientific achievements.” In May, 1991, the DERC voted to discontinue funding of the PCF effective December 1, 1991. The plaintiff had attempted to rebut various grounds on which the decision was apparently based, but to no avail. On May 29, 1991, Chlapowski wrote to the Scientific Council, another funding source for the PCF, requesting that the council “officially come to closure with regard to the relationship of [the plaintiff]” and that it do so “as soon as possible.” In June, 1991, the council voted to discontinue all funding for the PCF. On July 8, 1991, the plaintiff wrote to Chlapowski requesting department funding for the PCF. Chlapowski requested both a formal application and written answers to a number of questions regarding the PCF. Alleging that responses would require countless hours gathering information within and outside the medical center, and that Chlapowski had given no assurance that the application would be approved, the plaintiff did not pursue the request. In August, 1991, the medical center informed Anderson-Mole that her contract for the 1991-1992 academic year would be her last. Furthermore, Chlapowski informed Anderson-Mole that, upon the expiration of her contract, she was not to enter the plaintiff’s laboratory or, for that matter, the premises of the medical center in general. In addition, Chlapowski demanded that, during the final year of the contract, the plaintiff pay one hundred percent of Anderson-Mole’s salary, as well as her accrued vacation time, rather than the eighty percent that he had previously paid (the department bearing the remaining twenty percent). The plaintiff filed a grievance on the salary issue and prevailed. By the end of November, 1991, the plaintiff’s funding had been completely eliminated. On December 13, 1991, Czech and Chlapowski issued another negative evaluation of the plaintiff’s performance, this time for the period July, 1990, to June, 1991, in which they expressed a lack of comprehension as to how the plaintiff could remain as a faculty member. In January, 1992, Chlapowski refused to approve the plaintiff’s application for a grant from the Alzheimer’s Foundation. The reasons for the refusal are disputed, although the plaintiff suggests that Chlapowski’s stated reason was pretextual. Throughout 1992 and early 1993, Chlapowski demanded that the plaintiff contract his research activities from the three laboratory rooms that he had previously enjoyed into a single laboratory room. Despite the plaintiff’s request that the change be delayed until completion of his grievance on the subject, the change was implemented. On February 10, 1993, Chlapowski submitted an even more negative performance appraisal of the plaintiff for the period July, 1991, to June, 1992. In the evaluation, he recommended that, absent significant improvements in productivity, the plaintiff’s salary be reduced by 17.5 percent in the year thereafter. He also stated that the plaintiff had filed no grant applications, an observation that the plaintiff contested. Czech did not sign this evaluation, and claims that he did not participate in the review. However, the review incorporated by reference the previous year’s review on which Czech did collaborate. In addition, it employed plural references (“we continue to be deeply concerned;” “our conclusion remains the same”), suggesting that Chlapowski intended to reflect Czech’s opinion as well as his own. On May 2, 1993, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination alleging that the defendants retaliated against him because of his support of his wife’s sexual harassment charge. This filing also served as a filing with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The plaintiff also filed a grievance, claiming that it was a conflict of interest for Chlapowski to evaluate him. At the request of the grievance committee, Chlapowski withdrew from the evaluation process and a three-member, ad hoc personnel action committee was appointed to conduct future evaluations of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff was entitled to select one member of the ad hoc committee, with that member joining in the selection of the third, he declined to make a choice. The department members then selected two of their number to serve, with those two choosing a third. As so constituted, the ad hoc committee included Dr. Thomas Miller, a close friend of Chlapowski who had had a recent conflict with the plaintiff. The ad hoc committee conducted three evaluations of the plaintiff. In its report of June 9, 1994, for the period July 1, 1992, to April 1, 1994, the committee accused the plaintiff of being deliberately unproductive, having performed no research and making no genuine attempts to obtain funding. It voted to reduce his annual salary by 17.5 percent, recommended that his laboratory space be taken away entirely, and threatened him with an additional 17.5 percent reduction the following year if his performance did not improve. In its 1995 report for the period April 1, 1994, to March 31, 1995, the committee in fact reduced the plaintiff’s salary by a second 17.5 percent. The committee evaluated the plaintiff a final time on July 10, 1996, for the period April 1, 1995, and following, and then resigned, stating that it was a waste of time to evaluate someone who was not doing anything. In 1996, Edward Bresnick, a vice chancellor for research who had succeeded to the position of the plaintiff’s evaluator, requested that Chlapowski document his concerns about the plaintiff. By letter dated August 21, 1996, Chlapowski accused the plaintiff of a complete lack of productivity, “incorrigible and unethical” behavior, and the improper use of his university computer for personal matters. In 1997, medical center Chancellor Aaron Lazare commenced termination proceedings against the plaintiff. Czech and Chlapowski gave information used by the University in connection with these proceedings, and in 1998, they testified at the hearings. After the hearings concluded, Lazare requested that Czech review a transcript of the plaintiff’s testimony. On February 5, 1999, Czech wrote to Lazare, discrediting the plaintiff’s testimony and claiming that he had received tenure under “false pretenses.” Ultimately, the University’s board of trustees, acting on Lazare’s recommend