FILED JULY 29, 2011 

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N 

SUPREME COURT 

TARA KATHERINE HAMED, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v No. 139505 

WAYNE COUNTY and WAYNE 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SERGEANT KENNETH DARWISH, 

CORPORAL NETTIE JACKSON, 

SHERIFF WARREN C. EVANS, and 

DEPUTY REGINALD JOHNSON, 

 Defendants. 

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH 

MARY BETH KELLY, J. 

We granted leave to appeal in this case to determine the scope of an employer’s 

vicarious liability for quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services under 

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Opinion Chief Justice: 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Justices: 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Marilyn Kelly 

Stephen J. Markman 

Diane M. Hathaway 

Mary Beth Kelly 

Brian K. Zahra 
2

Michigan’s Civil Rights Act (CRA).1

 Specifically, we consider whether Wayne County 

and its sheriff’s department may be held vicariously liable for a civil rights claim under 

MCL 37.2103(i) based on a criminal act of a deputy sheriff committed during working 

hours but plainly beyond the scope of his employment. We hold that defendants may not 

be held vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services 

under traditional principles of respondeat superior. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of 

Appeals’ judgment and reinstate the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition in 

defendants’ favor. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

In August 2001, Livingston County deputy sheriffs arrested plaintiff, Tara 

Katherine Hamed, on a warrant for unpaid child support. Because plaintiff also had 

outstanding warrants for probation violations in Wayne County, the Livingston County 

deputies later transferred plaintiff to the custody of Wayne County. Wayne County 

deputies transported plaintiff to the Wayne County jail. When plaintiff arrived at the jail, 

Deputy Reginald Johnson was the only officer on duty in the inmate registry area.2

 

While alone with plaintiff, Johnson subjected her to sexually charged comments and 

offers for better treatment in exchange for sexual favors. Plaintiff resisted these 

advances, but Johnson transferred plaintiff into an area of the jail not subject to 

 

1

 MCL 37.2101 et seq. 

2

 Wayne County jail regulations require that a female officer be in attendance when 

female inmates are present. The officers who transported plaintiff to the jail informed a 

supervisor that Johnson was the only deputy on duty. The supervisor advised the officers 

to leave plaintiff with Johnson. 
3

surveillance cameras and sexually assaulted her. Shortly thereafter, a female deputy 

transported plaintiff to another part of the jail. After her release, plaintiff reported the 

incident to departmental authorities. The Wayne County Sheriff’s Department 

terminated Johnson’s employment, and the state subsequently charged Johnson with 

criminal sexual conduct, of which he was ultimately convicted.3

 

In 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint against Johnson, Wayne County, the Wayne 

County Sheriff’s Department, and the Wayne County Sheriff, among others, alleging 

various claims of gross negligence.4

 In 2006, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint, 

adding civil rights claims of quid pro quo and hostile-environment sexual harassment 

pursuant to MCL 37.2103(i). Defendants then moved for summary disposition under 

MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that, under the CRA, jails are excluded from liability 

and, because defendants had no notice of Johnson’s sexually harassing conduct, they 

could not be vicariously liable for his actions. 

The circuit court granted defendants summary disposition in two separate orders 

and dismissed all of plaintiff’s civil rights claims. It concluded that plaintiff’s hostileenvironment claim failed because defendants had no prior notice that Johnson was a 

sexual predator. The circuit court also dismissed plaintiff’s quid pro quo sexual 

 

3

 See MCL 750.520c(k). 

4

 The only remaining defendants are Wayne County and the Wayne County Sheriff’s 

Department. Plaintiff received a default judgment against Johnson; Johnson, while a 

defendant in plaintiff’s action, is not a party to this appeal. Thus, for the purposes of this 

opinion, our references to “defendants” encompass only the institutional defendants. 
4

harassment claim on the basis that defendants are not vicariously liable for the criminal 

acts of sheriff’s department employees.5

 

Plaintiff then appealed the circuit court’s decision only with regard to her quid pro 

quo sexual harassment claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and applied this Court’s 

analysis in Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc6

 to hold that “[e]mployers are 

vicariously liable for acts of quid pro quo sexual harassment committed by their 

employees when those employees use their supervisory authority to perpetrate the 

harassment.”7

 The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had established a viable quid pro 

quo sexual harassment claim because “Johnson used his authority as a sheriff’s deputy to 

exploit plaintiff’s vulnerability . . . .”8

 We granted leave to consider whether defendants 

may be held vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public 

services under MCL 37.2103(i).9

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review de novo whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the circuit 

court’s grant of summary disposition.10 Whether defendants may be held vicariously 

liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting a public service under the CRA is a 

 

5

 See Zsigo v Hurley Med Ctr, 475 Mich 215; 716 NW2d 220 (2006). 

6 Champion v Nation Wide Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). 

7 Hamed v Wayne Co, 284 Mich App 681, 693; 775 NW2d 1 (2009). 

8 Id. 

9 Hamed v Wayne Co, 486 Mich 996 (2010). 

10 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 
5

question of law that we review de novo.11 To the extent that defendants’ arguments 

require us to interpret the meaning of the CRA, our review is also de novo.12 When 

interpreting the meaning of a statute, we discern the Legislature’s intent by examining the 

language used.13 We read the statutory language in context and as a whole, considering 

the plain and ordinary meaning of every word.14 If the language is clear and 

unambiguous, then we apply the statute as written without judicial construction.15

III. ANALYSIS 

A. QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER THE CRA

The CRA recognizes that freedom from discrimination because of sex is a civil 

right.16 Accordingly, the act prohibits discrimination because of sex in employment, 

places of public accommodation, and public services.17 MCL 37.2103(i) broadly defines 

“discrimination because of sex” as follows: 

 Discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment. Sexual 

harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, 

 

11 See Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 155, 159; 645 NW2d 643 (2002). 

12 Id. 

13 Danse Corp v Madison Hts, 466 Mich 175, 181-182; 644 NW2d 721 (2002). 

14 Herman v Berrien Co, 481 Mich 352, 366; 750 NW2d 570 (2008). 

15 Danse Corp, 466 Mich at 182. 

16 MCL 37.2102(1). 

17 MCL 37.2202 (employment); MCL 37.2302 (public accommodations and public 

services). For purposes of this opinion, we assume, without deciding, that the Wayne 

County jail is a “public service” as defined by MCL 37.2301(b). 
6

and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature 

under the following conditions: 

 (i) Submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or 

condition either explicitly or implicitly to obtain employment, public 

accommodations or public services, education, or housing. 

 (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. [Emphasis added.] 

The first two subdivisions of MCL 37.2301(i) describe quid pro quo sexual harassment, 

while the third subdivision refers to hostile-environment sexual harassment.18 

 A plaintiff alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services must 

show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he or she was subjected to any of the 

types of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication described in the statute and (2) 

that the public service provider or the public service provider’s agent made submission to 

the proscribed conduct a term or condition of obtaining public services or used the 

plaintiff’s submission to or rejection of the proscribed conduct as a factor in a decision 

affecting his or her receipt of public services.19 

 

18 Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 310; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). 

19 See id. (stating the test for quid pro quo sexual harassment in the employment context). 

For purposes of our analysis, we also assume, without deciding, that plaintiff can 

establish the elements of quid pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services. 
7

 When the harassment was committed by an agent and the plaintiff is pursuing a 

civil rights claim against the principal, as in this case, a court must always “determine the 

extent of the employer’s vicarious liability . . . .”20 We require this analysis because the 

CRA specifically incorporates common-law agency principles.21 Thus, if a defendant is 

not vicariously liable for the acts of its agent under traditional principles of respondeat 

superior, the plaintiff’s claim under the CRA fails as a matter of law. 

B. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 

 The doctrine of respondeat superior is well established in this state: An employer 

is generally liable for the torts its employees commit within the scope of their 

employment.22 It follows that “an employer is not liable for the torts . . . committed by an 

employee when those torts are beyond the scope of the employer’s business.”23 This 

Court has defined “within the scope of employment” to mean “‘engaged in the service of 

his master, or while about his master’s business.’”24 Independent action, intended solely 

to further the employee’s individual interests, cannot be fairly characterized as falling 

 

20 Id. at 311. 

21 Id. We reached this conclusion in Chambers because MCL 37.2201(a) “expressly 

defines ‘employer’ to include agents,” thereby incorporating common-law agency 

principles into the act. Chambers, 463 Mich at 311. 

22 See, e.g., Zsigo, 475 Mich at 221; Bradley v Stevens, 329 Mich 556, 562; 46 NW2d 

382 (1951); Martin v Jones, 302 Mich 355, 358; 4 NW2d 686 (1942); Davidson v 

Chinese Republic Restaurant Co, 201 Mich 389, 396; 167 NW 967 (1918). 

23 Zsigo, 475 Mich at 221. 

24 Barnes v Mitchell, 341 Mich 7, 13; 67 NW2d 208 (1954), quoting Riley v Roach, 168 

Mich 294, 307; 134 NW 14 (1912). 
8

within the scope of employment.25 Although an act may be contrary to an employer’s 

instructions, liability will nonetheless attach if the employee accomplished the act in 

furtherance, or the interest, of the employer’s business.26 

 Here, there is no question that Johnson’s sexual assault of plaintiff was beyond the 

scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff. The sexual assault was an independent 

action accomplished solely in furtherance of Johnson’s own criminal interests. It cannot 

be said that any of the institutional defendants benefited in any way from Johnson’s 

criminal assault or his exercise of unlawful authority over plaintiff. In fact, Johnson’s 

behavior was expressly prohibited by defendants’ rules regarding treatment of detainees 

and defendants’ antidiscrimination policies, to say nothing of the criminal law. In short, 

there is no fair basis on which one could conclude that the sheriff or county themselves 

vicariously took part in the wrongful acts. 

 The general rule that an employer is not liable for acts of its employee outside the 

scope of its business, however, does not preclude vicarious liability in every instance. 

This Court has consistently recognized that an employer can be held liable for its 

employee’s conduct if “the employer ‘knew or should have known of [the] employee’s 

propensities and criminal record’” before that employee committed an intentional tort.27 

This inquiry involves an analysis of whether an employer had (1) actual or constructive 

 

25 2 Restatement Agency, 3d, § 7.07, p 201. 

26 See Barnes, 341 Mich at 13-16 (examining cases discussing scope of employment). 

27 McClements v Ford Motor Co, 473 Mich 373, 381; 702 NW2d 166 (2005), quoting 

Hersh v Kentfield Builders, Inc, 385 Mich 410, 412; 189 NW2d 286 (1971) (quotation 

marks omitted) (emphasis added). 
9

knowledge of prior similar conduct and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the 

employee’s propensity to act in accordance with that conduct. Under this two-pronged 

approach, the conduct at issue may be so close in time to prior similar conduct that 

knowledge under the first prong gives rise to a valid inference that the conduct was 

foreseeable under the second prong. Conversely, if an employee’s actions were 

temporally distant and the employee’s recent record suggested a change in character, 

foreseeability would not be established.28 

 We applied this principle in Brown v Brown, in which we held that the employer 

was not vicariously liable for a rape committed by its employee because, under the 

circumstances, the act was unforeseeable.29 There, the defendant’s employee repeatedly 

made sexually offensive comments to the plaintiff, a female coworker. The plaintiff 

reported the incidents to the defendant, yet it took no action, and the employee 

subsequently raped the plaintiff. In concluding that the employer was not vicariously 

liable, we noted that the employee had no prior criminal record and had never threatened 

to rape the plaintiff. We explained: 

 [An employer] cannot reasonably anticipate that an employee’s 

lewd, tasteless comments are an inevitable prelude to rape if those 

comments did not clearly and unmistakably threaten particular criminal 

activity that would have put a reasonable employer on notice of an 

 

28 This analysis does not, as the dissenting justices assert, abandon prior caselaw to hold 

that “an employee’s conduct is only foreseeable to an employer if the employee had 

recently committed the precise conduct at issue.” Post at 22 n 20. This criticism 

mischaracterizes the inquiry that must be undertaken, which has its roots in wellestablished caselaw. See McClements, 473 Mich at 381; Hersh, 385 Mich at 412. 

29 Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545, 554-555; 739 NW2d 313 (2007). 
10

imminent risk of harm to a specific victim. Comments of a sexual nature 

do not inexorably lead to criminal sexual conduct any more than an 

exasperated, angry comment inexorably results in a violent criminal 

assault.[30]

 In summary, we have consistently held that an employer’s liability for the criminal 

acts of its employees is limited to those acts it can reasonably foresee or reasonably 

should have foreseen. This is because we should not expect employers to assume that 

their employees will disobey the law. Criminal conduct is inherently arbitrary and highly 

unpredictable. As we noted in Brown, even law enforcement agencies, which are trained 

in detecting and preventing crime, cannot predict the occurrence of criminal acts.31 

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, our caselaw governing the imposition of vicarious 

liability on an employer requires more than simply the exercise of some form of authority 

by an employee. Thus, it would be anomalous to adopt a rule requiring employers that 

provide public services to protect against the criminal actions of their employees absent 

some indicia of foreseeability. Rather, foreseeability is a necessary element for imposing 

liability, and, as we recently stated in Brown, we decline to “transform the test of 

 

30 Id. at 555. Brown did not, as the dissenting justices state, “conclude[] that an 

employee’s prior violent criminal acts are generally sufficient to put a defendant on 

notice of the employee’s propensity to commit similar violent acts . . . .” Post at 22-23. 

Rather, Brown made clear that knowledge of prior violent acts potentially provides an 

employer notice of an employee’s violent propensities. Brown, 478 Mich at 561. The 

dissenting justices attempt to broaden the holding in Brown to justify their position that 

defendants’ knowledge of Johnson’s dissimilar prior violent act suffices to create a 

question of fact regarding foreseeability. 

31 Id. at 554, citing MacDonald v PKT, Inc, 464 Mich 322, 335; 628 NW2d 33 (2001). 
11

foreseeability into an ‘avoidability’ test that would merely judge in hindsight whether the 

harm could have been avoided.”32

 Michigan’s well-established rules governing respondeat superior are further 

justified by the societal burden that imposing liability for unforeseen criminal actions 

would create. Not only would holding employers vicariously liable for such acts be 

unfair, but doing so would attempt to further an impossible end by requiring employers to 

prevent harms they cannot anticipate, which are, in essence, unpreventable. The result 

would be the implementation of burdensome and impractical regulations meant to 

oversee employee conduct. Yet because such measures are sure to fail given that 

criminal conduct by its nature cannot be anticipated or foreseen, employers would 

essentially become insurers responsible for recompensing victims for the criminal acts of 

 

32 Brown, 478 Mich at 556. An “avoidability test” is the type of test the dissenting 

justices favor. In their view, defendants’ policy prohibiting male deputies from being 

alone with female inmates demonstrates, in itself, that the sexual assault was preventable 

and foreseeable. However, reliance on the policy alone to impose liability obliterates any 

real foreseeability requirement; an employer’s policy is irrelevant to assessing what the 

employer knows with respect to a specific employee. The consequence would be 

imposition of vicarious liability every time an employee disobeys the employer’s policy, 

regardless of whether the act was unforeseeable under the actual circumstances. 

Rather, as we have explained, a defendant’s specific knowledge of past 

misconduct and propensity to act in conformity with such conduct must be the focus of a 

foreseeability analysis. This analysis, which the dissenting justices term a “newly 

imposed foreseeability analysis,” post at 24, merely recognizes that foreseeability has 

always been the touchstone for when vicarious liability will be imposed. The criticism 

by the main dissent is not surprising, given that Justice CAVANAGH has previously 

expressed support for what effectively amounts to the imposition of strict liability in lieu 

of a foreseeability analysis. See Brown, 478 Mich at 570-580 (CAVANAGH, J., 

dissenting); Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich 20, 30-35; 664 NW2d 756 

(2003) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). 
12

their employees. The harm of adopting such a policy would also extend to potential 

employees with less than impeccable personal backgrounds, who would encounter 

barriers to employment because employers, out of an abundance of caution, would be less 

willing to employ these individuals out of fear that any prior indiscretion could be used in 

a lawsuit to impute knowledge to the employer that it did not have.33 

 Applying the foreseeability analysis in this case dictates the conclusion that 

defendants are not legally responsible for Johnson’s criminal acts. The majority of 

complaints against Johnson during his employment with defendants involved his failure 

to obey work-related policies, such as failure to report a change of home address, or 

unsatisfactory work performance, for example, temporarily leaving his work station while 

on duty. Some of the grievances filed against Johnson reflected more serious behavior, 

such as using a police vehicle without authorization to deliver baby formula to his home, 

allegedly making threatening calls to his landlord after receiving an eviction notice, and 

 

33 For a catalogue of some of the difficult questions that would confront an employer 

operating under the dissenting justices’ rule, see Brown, 478 Mich at 566-570 

(MARKMAN, J., concurring). “The rule proposed by the dissent, and the unanswered 

questions arising from that rule, would create confusion and uncertainty among 

employers throughout this state . . . .” Id. at 566. And employers would not be the only 

ones to suffer; employees would suffer as well because, were the dissenting justices’ rule 

to become law, what rational employer would ever hire anybody with any history of 

problems in his or her background? “Why would any rational employer expose itself to 

the vagaries of litigation-by-hindsight . . . where it fails to predict unpredictable behavior 

if this could all be avoided by simply firing [or failing to hire] every odd or rude or 

quirky employee?” Id. at 569-570. The rule the dissenting justices propose would result 

in those with imperfect criminal histories, or even merely a history of arrests, becoming 

increasingly unemployable. 
13

engaging in a physical altercation with a male inmate after an exchange of words.34 

Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, this past misconduct put defendants on 

notice of Johnson’s irresponsible and aggressive tendencies, which, at most, demonstrates 

that defendants were aware that Johnson had a propensity to disobey work-related 

protocol and engage in aggressive behavior when provoked. Defendants had no actual or 

constructive knowledge of prior similar criminal sexual misconduct. Even the incident of 

aggression did not put defendants on reasonable notice that Johnson would sexually 

assault an inmate; violent actions do not inevitably lead to acts of criminal sexual 

conduct.35 Because Johnson’s prior misconduct was not similar to the violent sexual 

assault he perpetrated against plaintiff, we hold that defendants may not be held 

vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment based on Johnson’s unforeseeable 

criminal act under traditional principles of respondeat superior.36

 

34 The dissenting justices misrepresent the seriousness of Johnson’s past conduct, stating 

that he “had a specific history of violent and abusive behavior toward inmates.” Post at 

22. In fact, Johnson had engaged in a single physical altercation with a male inmate in 

1988, 13 years before the sexual assault in this case. Unlike the circumstances here, 

Johnson did not initiate the altercation with the male inmate. 

35 Cf. Brown, 478 Mich at 555. 

36 The dissenting justices dismiss our foreseeability analysis, concluding that Johnson’s 

past violent act and sexual assault of plaintiff more than a decade later is sufficient to 

create a question of fact concerning defendants’ vicarious liability. According to the 

dissenting justices, defendants had notice that Johnson would sexually assault a female 

inmate because Johnson, 13 years earlier, had engaged in a physical altercation initiated 

by a male inmate. In their view, any past violent conduct may create a jury-submissible 

question regarding foreseeability. Moreover, their contention that the question of 

foreseeability should have been submitted to the jury because this matter is substantially 

similar to Hersh is unavailing. In that case, the defendant’s employee had a criminal 

conviction for similar prior conduct 10 years earlier, which the employer knew about, 

thus establishing a factual question regarding whether the employee had “vicious 
14

C. CHAMPION v NATION WIDE SECURITY, INC AND ITS PROGENY 

Plaintiff urges us to ignore these traditional common-law principles and extend the 

reasoning of this Court’s decision in Champion, which referred to the Second 

Restatement of Agency’s “aided-by-agency” exception to the rule of respondeat 

superior.37 We reject this argument because, for reasons we will explain, Champion

wrongly applied this respondeat superior exception to the CRA. 

In Champion, this Court addressed, as a matter of first impression, whether an 

employer could be held vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment under the 

CRA. In that case, the plaintiff worked as a security guard, and her immediate supervisor 

scheduled her work, trained her, oversaw her performance, and was responsible for 

disciplining her. During a weekend shift, the supervisor, who had been making sexually 

suggestive comments to the plaintiff, led her to a remote area of the building, locked her 

in a room, and demanded sex. When the plaintiff refused, the supervisor forcibly raped 

her. The plaintiff sued her employer for quid pro quo sexual harassment under the CRA. 

 

propensities.” Hersh, 385 Mich at 413, 415. As we have indicated, evidence of 

dissimilar violent conduct is not reasonably predictive of violent sexual conduct. Nor can 

it be said that a reasonable employer could genuinely have foreseen Johnson’s sexual 

assault of plaintiff on the basis of a single instance of entirely dissimilar violent conduct 

that arose as a result of provocation by a male inmate 13 years earlier. The dissenting 

justices fail to recognize that the temporal distance and the dissimilarity between past 

conduct and the conduct at issue make it unreasonable to conclude that an employer 

could have foreseen that Johnson would engage in quid pro quo sexual harassment or 

commit a criminal sexual assault. 

37 Champion, 450 Mich at 712 n 6. 
15

The defendant argued that the supervisor was not acting as its agent when he raped the 

plaintiff because it had not authorized the rape.38 

The Champion Court rejected the defendant’s argument, reasoning that “under 

defendant’s construction, an employer could avoid liability simply by showing that it did 

not authorize the sexually offensive conduct.”39 The Court indicated that the defendant’s 

“construction of agency principles [was] far too narrow” and briefly cited in support the 

aided-by-agency exception articulated in § 219(2)(d) of the Second Restatement of 

Agency.40 The Court further stated that 

[the defendant’s view] fails to recognize that when an employer gives its 

supervisors certain authority over other employees, it must also accept 

responsibility to remedy the harm caused by the supervisors’ unlawful 

exercise of that authority. From his scheduling decisions that allowed him 

to work alone with [the plaintiff] to his ordering of her into a remote part of 

the building, [the supervisor] used his supervisory power to put [the 

plaintiff] in the vulnerable position that led to her rape. In fact, there is 

little doubt that [the supervisor] would have been unable to rape [the 

plaintiff] but for his exercise of supervisory authority.[41]

 

38 Id. at 705-707. 

39 Id. at 713. 

40 Id. at 712 n 6. 1 Restatement Agency, 2d, § 219(2), p 481, provides that 

[a] master is not subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting 

outside the scope of their employment, unless: 

* * * 

(d) the servant purported to act or to speak on behalf of the principal 

and there was reliance upon apparent authority, or he was aided in 

accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. 

41 Champion, 450 Mich at 712 (citation omitted). 
16

Citing multiple federal cases, the Champion Court held that “an employer [is] strictly 

liable where the supervisor accomplishes the rape through the exercise of his supervisory 

power over the victim.”42 The Court justified its holding on the basis that “employers 

rarely, if ever, authorize such conduct, [and consequently] employees would no longer 

have a remedy for quid pro quo sexual harassment.”43 

Four years later, this Court again considered a quid pro quo sexual harassment 

claim in Chambers v Trettco, Inc.

44 There, a supervisor subjected the plaintiff to sexually 

offensive conduct. After enduring this conduct for four days, the plaintiff reported the 

incidents to another supervisor and ultimately sued her employer for hostile-environment 

and quid pro quo sexual harassment. A jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, and 

the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals in Chambers referred to federal 

caselaw that applied the federal Civil Rights Act45 to hold that employers are vicariously 

liable when a supervisor victimizes a subordinate by creating a hostile work environment. 

This Court granted leave to consider whether principles derived from federal 

caselaw should apply to claims brought under Michigan’s CRA. We held that courts 

considering claims under Michigan’s CRA must adhere to Michigan precedent and the 

 

42 Id. at 713-714. Since our decision in Champion, the drafters of the Third Restatement 

of Agency have excluded the aided-by-agency exception included in the Second 

Restatement of Agency. 

43 Id. at 713. 

44 Chambers, 463 Mich 297. 

45 42 USC 2000e et seq. 
17

language of the CRA.46 We clarified the law regarding sexual harassment in employment 

under the Michigan CRA and recognized that the “statute expressly addresses an 

employer’s vicarious liability for sexual harassment committed by its employees by 

defining ‘employer’ to include both the employer and the employer’s agents.”47 Using 

this definition, we determined that the Michigan CRA specifically incorporates commonlaw principles of respondeat superior and that “whether analyzing quid pro quo 

harassment or hostile environment harassment, the question is always whether it can be 

fairly said that the employer committed the violation—either directly or through an 

agent.”48 

After our decisions in Champion and Chambers, this Court considered the doctrine 

of respondeat superior generally in Zsigo v Hurley Med Ctr.

49 Although Zsigo did not 

involve a civil rights claim, the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant-employer 

vicariously liable for various intentional tort claims using the reasoning in Champion and 

the aided-by-agency exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior. The underlying 

facts involved a sexual assault perpetrated by the defendant’s employee against the 

plaintiff, who had been admitted as a patient in the defendant hospital. The plaintiff 

 

46 Chambers, 463 Mich at 316. 

47 Id. at 310. 

48 Id. at 312. 

49 Zsigo, 475 Mich 215. This Court did consider a single intervening civil rights case 

concerning quid pro quo sexual harassment, but the resolution of that case did not require 

application of the doctrine of respondeat superior because the plaintiff failed to establish 

that sexual harassment had occurred. See Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274; 681 

NW2d 342 (2004). 
18

reported the incident and subsequently sued the hospital on the basis of the employee’s 

actions. 

We rejected the plaintiff’s theory of vicarious liability and any notion that 

Michigan common law recognized the aided-by-agency exception or that this Court had 

adopted it in Champion.

50 With regard to Champion’s reference to the aided-by-agency 

exception, we explained that Champion did not adopt the aided-by-agency exception, but 

referred to it “only in passing and on the basis of the very distinct facts of that civil rights 

matter.”51 We further explained that Champion applied only in the context of quid pro 

quo sexual harassment under MCL 37.2103(i) and, in such instances, “the sexual assault 

must be ‘accomplished through the use of the supervisor’s managerial powers.’”52 We 

ultimately rejected the plaintiff’s theory of liability because it would have subjected 

employers to strict liability for unforeseen acts occurring outside the scope of an 

employee’s employment.53 Accordingly, the Zsigo Court declined to adopt the aided-byagency exception and limited its applicability to the specific facts of the civil rights claim 

in Champion. 

 

50 Zsigo, 475 Mich at 221-224. 

51 Id. at 223-224. 

52 Id. at 224 n 19, quoting Champion, 450 Mich at 704. 

53 Zsigo, 475 Mich at 227. 
19

D. CHAMPION WAS WRONGLY DECIDED 

Because Zsigo involved intentional tort claims, it did not provide an opportunity to 

address the validity of Champion in the civil rights context.54 Zsigo required us to 

consider whether Michigan common law recognized the aided-by-agency exception, 

given the intentional tort claims at issue. The present matter now places Champion’s 

continued validity squarely before us, and we conclude that Champion cannot be 

reconciled with Chambers, Zsigo, or the CRA itself. 

First, we note that Champion’s holding was contrary to the plain language of the 

CRA. As we explained in Chambers, the CRA specifically incorporates common-law 

agency principles in its definition of “employer.”55 Michigan’s common-law agency 

principles, however, do not include the aided-by-agency exception,56 and the Legislature 

did not modify the common law by including the aided-by-agency exception in the 

CRA.57 The Champion Court failed to recognize this clear intent. Rather, like the 

dissenting justices here, the Champion Court reasoned that the remedial purpose of the 

 

54 Although Justice YOUNG recognized that the exception to respondeat superior that 

Champion created was “hard to square . . . with any conventional notion of agency, 

and . . . stands as an isolated, inexplicable exception” to this Court’s agency 

jurisprudence, the Court was constrained to merely limit the application of Champion 

given that no civil rights claim was at issue in Zsigo. Id. at 232 (YOUNG, J., concurring). 

55 See Chambers, 463 Mich at 310-311. 

56 See Zsigo, 475 Mich at 223-224. 

57 The common law remains in force until it is affirmatively modified. Const 1963, art 3, 

§ 7. The Legislature is presumed to know the common law, and any abrogation of the 

common law must be explicit. Dawe v Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assoc, PC, 485 Mich 20, 

28; 780 NW2d 272 (2010). 
20

civil rights law justified holding the defendant employer vicariously liable for the acts of 

its employee, based on an apprehension that adherence to traditional agency principles 

would completely foreclose employer liability for quid pro quo sexual harassment 

claims.58 

Aside from failing to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, this reasoning is 

flawed for two additional reasons. First, it wrongly elevates the CRA’s general remedial 

purpose above its plain language. Such reasoning is contrary to the cornerstone of 

statutory interpretation, which is the rule that the plain language used is the best indicator 

of the Legislature’s intent.59 Second, the policy concern at the heart of Champion is 

fundamentally flawed because it was premised on an unfounded fear. Application of 

traditional agency principles does not foreclose employers from vicarious liability in the 

context of quid pro quo sexual harassment claims. An employer may still be liable for 

and act of quid pro quo sexual harassment that was committed within the scope of 

employment or for a foreseeable act that was committed outside the scope of 

 

58 Champion, 450 Mich at 713. While the dissenting justices are correct that the purpose 

of a statute may be a relevant consideration, post at 3 n 3, what they fail to recognize is 

that this is correct only in so far as the purpose of the statute is derived from the actual 

language of the statute. See Mich Ed Ass’n v Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 489 

Mich 194, 202-203; ___ NW2d ___ (2011) (“The clear purpose of [the statute], as 

reflected in its language, is to mandate the separation of the government from politics in 

order to maintain governmental neutrality in elections, preserve fair democratic 

processes, and prevent taxpayer funds from being used to subsidize partisan political 

activities.”) (emphasis added). 

59 See Danse Corp, 466 Mich at 181-182. 
21

employment.60 Thus, liability may certainly attach if there is sufficient cause to impute 

the employee’s or agent’s acts to the employer because the employer knew of the 

employee’s propensity to commit the type of act involved. 

 The Champion Court compounded its erroneous holding by relying on federal 

caselaw.61 Unlike the federal civil rights act, the Michigan CRA specifically incorporates 

Michigan common-law agency principles. Hence, unlike federal courts applying the 

federal civil rights act, Michigan courts applying the Michigan CRA are bound by this 

state’s common-law agency principles. Because federal courts are not so bound, their 

reasoning in this context is often inapposite given that the language of the CRA must 

guide our decisions. For this reason, the Michigan Legislature’s choice to incorporate 

agency principles into the CRA forecloses reliance on federal cases when determining 

whether a defendant will be vicariously liable under the CRA.62 

 Finally, we note that Champion is contrary to both prior and subsequent caselaw. 

Before Champion, this Court had never held that an employer could be vicariously liable 

for the unforeseeable criminal acts of its employees. Subsequent caselaw attempted to 

limit Champion’s applicability, but that caselaw merely demonstrated Champion’s 

 

60 Application of traditional respondeat superior principles also does not foreclose other 

avenues of legal recourse, including pursuit of direct criminal and civil liability against 

the perpetrator. 

61 See Champion, 450 Mich at 712 n 8, citing Karibian v Columbia Univ, 14 F3d 773 

(CA 2, 1994), Kauffman v Allied Signal, Inc, 970 F2d 178 (CA 6, 1992), Horn v Duke 

Homes, 755 F2d 599 (CA 7, 1985), Craig v Y & Y Snacks, Inc, 721 F2d 77 (CA 3, 1983), 

Katz v Dole, 709 F2d 251 (CA 4, 1983), Henson v City of Dundee, 682 F2d 897 (CA 11, 

1982), and Miller v Bank of America, 600 F2d 211 (CA 9, 1979). 

62 Chambers, 463 Mich at 315-316. 
22

dubious validity. Chambers recognized that the CRA incorporates common-law agency 

principles, and Zsigo made it clear that the aided-by-agency exception is not a part of this 

state’s common law. Thus, contrary to the mandates of Chambers and Zsigo, Champion 

requires the application of an exception to respondeat superior in the context of quid pro 

quo sexual harassment claims that is not a part of this state’s common law.63 Because 

Champion requires a result contrary to prior and subsequent caselaw and contrary to the 

language of the CRA, it is clear that Champion is not consistent with Michigan law. 

Rather, when considered in the context of our jurisprudence, Champion stands as an 

isolated aberration that relies not on the plain language of the act, but purely on policy 

considerations. 

E. STARE DECISIS 

Our inquiry does not end simply because we have concluded that Champion was 

wrongly decided. Rather, we must determine whether overruling Champion is the most 

appropriate course of action. This is a decision that we do not undertake lightly and will 

make “only . . . after careful consideration of the effect of stare decisis.”64 However, we 

 

63 Significantly, the drafters of the Third Restatement of Agency chose to exclude the 

aided-by-agency exception, thereby implicitly recognizing that the exception is not 

consistent with generally accepted common-law agency principles. While the dissenting 

justices dismiss this authority as unpersuasive, they ignore the fact that the aided-byagency exception is not a “widely accepted exception to the general rules of agency.” 

Post at 9. Only a few jurisdictions have adopted the exception wholesale into their 

common law, such that it applies to a typical tort claim. And, as we have explained, 

Michigan explicitly rejected the exception in Zsigo because it is inconsistent with 

fundamental principles of Michigan common law. 

64 Haynie v Dep’t of State Police, 468 Mich 302, 314; 664 NW2d 129 (2003). 
23

are also mindful that we are under no obligation to let stand an erroneous decision in the 

interest of stability and continuity.65 We consider a multifactored test when determining 

whether to overrule precedent. The first question is whether the decision at issue was 

wrongly decided.66 Having already addressed this question, we must now consider 

whether Champion “defies ‘practical workability’” and “whether reliance interests would 

work an undue hardship . . . .”67 These factors weigh in favor of overruling Champion. 

 First, despite our attempt in Zsigo to limit Champion to claims involving quid pro 

quo sexual harassment affecting employment, the present matter demonstrates that it is 

not possible to limit Champion in this respect. No meaningful distinction can be drawn 

between the facts in Champion and those in the present matter. Both Johnson and the 

supervisor in Champion were able to commit the rapes through their positions of 

authority over their victims. In both cases, the employers’ agents had discretionary 

control over their victims by virtue of their positions: the supervisor in Champion was 

able to dictate the victim’s schedule and order her to certain parts of the building, and 

Johnson had the authority to constrain plaintiff’s freedom and to move her to certain parts 

of the jail. Certainly factual distinctions exist between Champion and the present case. 

Johnson was not plaintiff’s supervisor in an employment context, and he could not have 

made plaintiff come to the building where he worked, unlike the supervisor in Champion. 

Yet these dissimilarities do not detract from the fact that Johnson would not have been 

 

65 Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 464; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). 

66 Id.

67 Id. 
24

able to commit the sexual assault but for his position of authority over plaintiff, much like 

the supervisor in Champion. 

 Indeed, Champion’s distortive impact, which is manifested when a plaintiff 

attempts to circumvent traditional rules of respondeat superior or otherwise attempts to 

avoid governmental immunity by framing a claim under the CRA, is apparent in lower 

court decisions of this state and further demonstrates Champion’s unworkability.68 This 

is because there is no way to effectively limit the rule announced in Champion, despite 

our prior attempt to do so. The reasoning on which Champion justified its holding is 

applicable not only to every quid pro quo sexual harassment case in which a plaintiff 

pursues a theory of vicarious liability—regardless of whether the discriminatory conduct 

affected employment, public services, or accommodations—but also to intentional tort 

claims in which a plaintiff seeks to hold an employer vicariously liable. Under 

Champion, it will always be “foreseeable” that employees who possess some authority by 

virtue of the employment relationship will abuse the power with which they have been 

vested when they commit, as here, a criminal act against another in the workplace. 

 

68 The Court of Appeals decision in this case is one example, see Hamed, 284 Mich App 

681, as is the plaintiff’s attempt in Zsigo to hold the employer vicariously liable for its 

employee’s unforeseeable criminal act. See also Diamond v Witherspoon, 265 Mich App 

673, 690-691; 696 NW2d 770 (2005) (presuming strict vicarious liability and rejecting 

governmental immunity in the context of a quid pro quo sexual harassment case under the 

CRA when a police officer subjected detained individuals to sexual conduct), and Salinas 

v Genesys Health Sys, 263 Mich App 315; 688 NW2d 112 (2004) (rejecting the 

plaintiff’s attempt to hold the employer vicariously liable in tort for an unforeseeable 

criminal act under Champion). 
25

 Second, with regard to reliance interests, we cannot conclude that Champion “has 

become so embedded, so accepted, so fundamental, to everyone’s expectations” that 

overruling it would upset any real-world reliance interests.69 For there to be reliance, 

knowledge of a decision “must be of the sort that causes a person or entity to attempt to 

conform his conduct to a certain norm before the triggering event.”70 There is no 

indication that plaintiff or defendants relied on Champion by conforming their conduct 

before the underlying event—and, given the nature of the rule in Champion, it is unclear 

what form such reliance could have taken. It would be illogical to conclude that 

defendants condoned the sexual assault because of Champion, given that Champion

would have imposed vicarious liability for the unforeseeable criminal acts of defendants’ 

agent. Nor would it be reasonable to suggest that plaintiff altered her conduct in reliance 

on Champion. We simply fail to see any possible way defendants and plaintiff could 

assert reliance on Champion. 

 Further, when the decision at issue involves statutory law, the best indicator of 

society’s knowledge of the law, and what society reasonably relies on, is the language of 

the statute itself.71 As we have explained, nothing in the language of the CRA eviscerates 

common-law rules of respondeat superior or otherwise engrafts the aided-by-agency 

 

69 Robinson, 462 Mich at 466. 

70 Id. at 467. 

71 See id. (stating that “it is well to recall in discussing reliance, when dealing with an 

area of the law that is statutory . . . , that it is to the words of the statute itself that a 

citizen first looks for guidance in directing his actions”). 
26

exception into the statute. Accordingly, a decision to overrule Champion would not 

create any real-world dislocations. 

 Finally, further justification for overruling Champion can be found in the adverse 

practical consequences that would result from extending the case to the present matter. 

As we explained in Zsigo, “it is difficult to conceive of an instance when the [aided-byagency] exception would not apply because an employee, by virtue of his or her 

employment relationship with the employer[,] is always ‘aided in accomplishing’ the 

tort.”72 Such an all-encompassing exception would apply equally to public-service 

cases.73 Consequently, adoption of the aided-by-agency exception would effectively 

abolish the doctrine of respondeat superior in quid pro quo civil rights cases affecting 

public services and would result in the imposition of strict liability on governmental 

entities. In short, the exception would swallow the rule. Contrary to the current 

requirements for imposing vicarious liability, if the exception were adopted, a plaintiff 

would merely have to allege quid pro quo harassment and show that he or she was the 

victim of an intentional act by an employee in a particular custodial environment. 

Providers of public services would be liable for the unforeseeable criminal acts of their 

 

72 Zsigo, 475 Mich at 226. 

73 In Zsigo, this Court noted that to adopt a rule contrary to that of the traditional common 

law would mean that the rule “applies to a broad range of employees whose duties grant 

them unique access to and authority over others, such as . . . correctional officers,” 

which “could virtually ‘eviscerate[] the general scope of employment rule.’” Zsigo, 475 

Mich at 230, quoting Doe v Forrest, 2004 VT 37, ¶ 59; 176 Vt 476, 505; 853 A2d 48 

(2004) (Skoglund, J., dissenting) (quotation marks omitted; emphasis added; alteration in 

original). 
27

employees as long as claimants could couch their claims under the CRA, and the dangers 

of such a broad basis for seemingly unlimited strict liability, discussed earlier in this 

opinion, would become realities. Such a standard would apply to a wide range of publicservice providers whose employees interact regularly with recipients of public services, 

including teachers, correctional and probation officers, physicians, nurses, and 

firefighters, to name a few.74 Because public entities cannot increase prices or otherwise 

alter business practices to absorb the increased risk of liability, a governmental agency’s 

only option may be to cut funding or curtail beneficial public programs. In justifying our 

decision to overrule Champion on this basis, we do not downplay the heinous nature of 

the crime that plaintiff suffered. However, permitting liability against defendants under 

these circumstances would impose too great a burden on public-service providers and on 

society in general, which is clearly contrary to the Legislature’s intent.75 

 We therefore conclude that Champion was wrongly decided and that overruling it 

would not interfere with legitimate reliance interests. We overrule Champion because it 

is inconsistent with longstanding Michigan law that employers, including public-service 

 

74 Artful pleading would also allow a plaintiff to avoid governmental immunity under the 

governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. A school district, for 

example, could not be vicariously liable in tort for a teacher’s sexual molestation of a 

student because the GTLA would bar the claim. However, if the plaintiff styled its claim 

as a CRA action, the school district could be vicariously liable under a theory of quid pro 

quo sexual harassment affecting public services. Plaintiff’s preferred approach, under 

which public-service providers would be strictly liable for precisely the same conduct as 

that for which they would typically be immune, is inherently inconsistent with the 

Legislature’s intent. If the Legislature had intended such a result, it should have clearly 

abrogated the common-law rule for purposes of the CRA. 

75 See Brown, 478 Mich at 557-558, and the discussion at page 11 of this opinion. 
28

providers, are not vicariously liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment on the basis of 

the unforeseeable criminal acts of their employees.76

F. RESPONSE TO THE DISSENTS

 We disagree with the dissenting justices regarding whether Champion was 

correctly decided and should be overruled. Although the dissenting justices concede that 

Champion was unprecedented, they adhere to Champion’s reasoning to conclude that the 

exception to common-law agency principles is necessary to give effect to the broad 

purpose of the CRA and the Legislature’s intent in enacting it. Yet the dissenting 

justices’ conclusion that Champion was correctly decided for this reason ignores the 

fundamental flaws inherent in Champion. Notably, the dissenting opinions, like 

Champion, do not cite any language from the CRA to support this view, even though a 

statute’s language is the best indicator of the Legislature’s intent. Instead, the dissenting 

justices rely on caselaw describing the CRA as “remedial,” just as Champion did, for the 

proposition that “the exception to common-law agency principles established in 

Champion is necessary to give effect to the broad purpose of the CRA . . . .”77 

 

76 Because we have decided that defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for 

Johnson’s criminal act under the CRA, we need not address defendants’ alternative 

arguments that the Wayne County jail is not a “public service” within the meaning of the 

CRA or that the circuit court improperly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint. 

77 Post at 3 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). Likewise, the author of the other dissent cites no 

specific language and provides no analysis in support of her accusation that our decision 

is somehow “contrary to the rule of law” or “results in the dismantling of the [CRA].” 

Post at 2 (HATHAWAY, J., dissenting). Rather, as we have explained at great length, our 

decision honors both our common-law tradition and the language of the CRA and is 

consistent with that statute’s purpose. 
29

Apparently, this “necessity” is based on the dissenting justices’ concern, as was the 

concern in Champion, that without the exception, discriminatory conduct would not be 

eradicated and the purpose of the CRA would be defeated.78 This fear vastly overstates 

the effect of our decision because, as we have explained, employers and public-service 

providers will still be vicariously liable for sexual harassment under traditional and 

longstanding principles of respondeat superior. In short, the dissenting justices’ reliance 

on Champion itself for the proposition that Champion was correctly decided lacks merit 

for reasons we have already explained.79

 The dissenting justices compound their erroneous reasoning by wrongly 

interpreting subsequent opinions of this Court as confirming that Champion was correctly 

decided and as explicitly confirming that Champion adopted an exception “very similar 

to the aided-by-agency exception.”80 Contrary to the dissenting justices’ view, Zsigo did 

not expressly confirm Champion in this regard, and Chambers did not expressly hold that 

Champion is a valid part of Michigan’s common law, both of which the dissenting 

 

78 The dissenting justices’ concern in this regard is related to their failure to recognize 

plaintiff’s claim for what it really is: an attempt to hold a governmental entity liable for 

an employee’s criminal action and unforeseeable intentional tort. 

79 Indeed, the dissenting justices concede that the “bulk of [their] analysis” relies only on 

Champion, post at 8 n 7, which we have explained at length is a decision not supported in 

Michigan’s law generally, and thereby effectively admit that no other binding Michigan 

law supports their conclusion other than Champion. Simply because Champion was a 

unanimous decision decided 15 years ago does not mean it was correctly decided or that 

its reasoning is correct today. Not only do the dissenting justices ignore the plain 

language of the CRA, they also ignore subsequent changes in the law that have exposed 

the flaws in Champion’s reasoning. See pages 21-22 and note 63 of this opinion. 

80 Post at 6. 
30

justices suggest.81 Further, although the dissenting justices acknowledge that the CRA 

incorporates common-law agency principles, they then ignore the explicit and 

unambiguous holding in Zsigo, namely that this Court has never recognized the aided-byagency exception, or a similar rule, as part of this state’s common law. Despite Zsigo’s 

unambiguous holding, the dissenting justices continue to declare that Champion should 

be applied in sexual discrimination cases because the exception can be “narrowly 

tailored.”82 The Zsigo majority rejected any notion that the exception had such 

boundaries, which demonstrates that Zsigo does not support Champion in this regard. 

Thus, it is the dissenting justices who seek to aggressively expand the law of this state, 

while our holding merely reaffirms and applies traditional common-law rules that have 

always governed in Michigan. 

Not surprisingly, using the faulty premise that Champion’s reasoning is correct, 

the dissenting justices advocate a straightforward application of Champion. This 

approach ignores an irreconcilable tension in our law. Although Champion and this case 

are similarly framed civil rights cases involving allegations of quid pro quo sexual 

 

81 In fact, contrary to the dissenting justices’ position, Zsigo did undermine the primary 

rationale of Champion. The Zsigo Court did not entirely “dispatch the exception created 

in Champion,” post at 7 n 6, because Zsigo was not a civil rights case. 

82 Post at 8. The dissenting justices’ position that Champion was correctly decided on 

this basis relies primarily on the dissenting opinion in Zsigo, which is not binding 

precedent. The dissenting justices in this case disregard this criticism, asserting that the 

dissenting opinion in Zsigo is an “example” of Champion’s workability. Post at 8 n 7. 

Yet, the rationale of the dissent in Zsigo lacks any persuasive value because, like the 

main dissent here, the Zsigo dissent repeatedly advocated adopting the aided-by-agency 

exception and the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Doe. This Court has already 

explicitly rejected both as inconsistent with Michigan law. 
31

harassment, the conflicting dispositions in the courts below demonstrate the tension 

between the multiple precedents of this Court at issue in this case. The circuit court 

below relied on Zsigo to grant summary disposition to defendants, recognizing that Zsigo 

established “a very clear bright line rule” that an employer is not liable when an 

employee unforeseeably acts outside the scope of his employment, as was the case here. 

The Court of Appeals reversed, relying instead on Champion, which had never been 

applied outside the employment context, for the proposition that a public-service provider 

may be vicariously liable when its employee uses his or her “authority over a subordinate 

as a means of subjecting that subordinate to abusive and unlawful conduct.” Thus, in this 

case, we are presented with conflicting principles: those of the traditional common-law 

rule that have guided Michigan law for more than a century as articulated in Zsigo and 

those underlying the rule of Champion, which inexplicably departed from the 

requirements that have always been held as necessary to impose respondeat superior 

liability. The existence of these conflicting precedents and principles cries out for clarity 

and compels our decision to overrule Champion. 

Further, we disagree with the main dissent’s view that principles of stare decisis 

do not support overruling Champion. The main dissent applies a stare decisis test set 

forth in Petersen v Magna Corp83 that is not the law of this state. Because a majority of 

this Court did not adopt that test, and a majority of justices have agreed to the rule 

 

83 Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 313-320; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by 

MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). 
32

articulated in Robinson v Detroit,

84 the test in Robinson governs this analysis. 

Nevertheless, overruling Champion is the right result, regardless of which test is applied. 

The most basic error in the main dissent’s stare decisis analysis is its 

misunderstanding of why Champion is unworkable. The dissent posits that the aided-byagency exception is “narrowly tailored” because it applies only when an agency 

relationship aided a supervisor in committing a wrongful act.85 According to the dissent, 

the exception does not apply when an agency relationship merely provided a supervisor 

an opportunity to accomplish a wrong. This interpretation is nothing more than a 

semantic exercise that demonstrates the capricious nature of Champion: An employment 

relationship will always provide a supervisory employee an opportunity to commit a 

wrong, but when does that opportunity become an “aid”? Similarly, in the publicservices context, a citizen’s interaction with an employee administering public services 

will always arise during the administration of those services while the employee is 

exercising his or her authority; when are public-service employees “aided” and when are 

they not “aided” while exercising their authority? There is no meaningful demarcation.86 

Continued adherence to Champion would require jurors and judges to determine 

vicarious liability according to their subjective whims. For this same reason, the 

 

84 Robinson, 462 Mich 439. 

85 Post at 8-9 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting). 

86 The main dissent counters that application of the Vermont Supreme Court’s threepronged test would amount to “a narrowly tailored approach to applying the aided-byagency exception . . . .” Post at 13. Yet this test suffers from the same deficiencies we 

have already described because it makes no valid distinction between a mere 

“opportunity” and an “aid.” 
33

dissent’s view that Champion provides “important guidance to trial courts” is simply 

wrong.87

 Finally, we find unpersuasive the main dissent’s reliance on decisions from other 

jurisdictions that have applied the aided-by-agency exception in the context of their civil 

rights laws. If liability is to be imposed under Michigan law on an employer for sexual 

harassment committed by its employee, that liability must be mandated by the Michigan 

CRA.88 The aided-by-agency exception in the context of civil rights cases is not so well 

accepted and “nearly unanimous” as the main dissent appears to claim.89 Most states 

have not recognized the aided-by-agency exception in civil rights cases and, at least with 

respect to the jurisprudence of this Court, application of the aided-by-agency exception 

remains an aberration. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Michigan law has never imposed liability on an employer for the unforeseeable 

criminal actions of its employees, except in Champion. Nor has Michigan common law 

incorporated an exception based on an aided-by-agency theory of liability. Accordingly, 

 

87 Post at 14. The main dissent also misconstrues our citation of Diamond and Salinas. 

Those cases do not demonstrate Champion’s workability. Rather, they are examples of 

“artful pleading” in which the plaintiffs sought to circumvent traditional rules of 

respondeat superior by framing their claims under the CRA. See note 74 of this opinion. 

88 Notably, the main dissent ignores the mandate of Chambers to consider the language of 

the Michigan CRA of paramount importance when interpreting the Michigan CRA as 

opposed to any guidance that federal caselaw may provide. Chambers, 463 Mich at 313-

314. 

89 Post at 15. 
34

we conclude that a provider of a public service may not be held vicariously liable for quid 

pro quo sexual harassment affecting public services on the basis of unforeseeable 

criminal acts that its employee committed outside the scope of employment. Because 

Champion is inconsistent with our holding and with Michigan’s common and statutory 

law, we overrule Champion. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstate 

the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. 

 Mary Beth Kelly 

 Robert P. Young, Jr. 

 Stephen J. Markman 

 Brian K. Zahra 
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N 

SUPREME COURT 

TARA KATHERINE HAMED, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v No. 139505 

WAYNE COUNTY and WAYNE 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SERGEANT KENNETH DARWISH, 

CORPORAL NETTIE JACKSON, 

SHERIFF WARREN C. EVANS, and 

DEPUTY REGINALD JOHNSON, 

Defendants. 

CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). 

 

I dissent from the majority’s decision to overrule Champion v Nation Wide 

Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702; 545 NW2d 596 (1996), a unanimous decision of this Court. 1

As the majority flatly admits, there are no significant factual differences between this 

case and Champion. Accordingly, because Champion was correctly decided and reflects 

the purpose and legislative intent of the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 

 

1

 The concurring justices joined the analysis in full. See Champion, 450 Mich at 714 

(BOYLE, J., concurring). 
2

et seq., I would apply Champion to this case and affirm the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. 

I. SUMMARY OF CHAMPION

In Champion, the plaintiff’s supervisor offered job security in exchange for sexual 

favors, and when the plaintiff refused, the supervisor used his authority to isolate the 

plaintiff in a remote portion of the building where they worked and raped her.2

 This 

Court explained that under MCL 37.2103(i), a party pursuing a quid pro quo harassment 

claim in an employment context must establish “(1) that she was subject to any of the 

types of unwelcome sexual conduct or communication described in the statute, and (2) 

that her employer or the employer’s agent used her submission to or rejection of the 

proscribed conduct as a factor in a decision affecting her employment.” Champion, 450 

Mich at 708-709. Like defendants in this case, the defendant in Champion argued that 

the plaintiff could not satisfy the second prong of a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim 

because the attacker was acting outside the scope of his authority when he raped the 

plaintiff and, as a result, was not acting as the defendant’s agent. This Court 

unanimously rejected that argument, stating that “when an employer gives its supervisors 

certain authority over other employees, it must also accept responsibility to remedy the 

harm caused by the supervisors’ unlawful exercise of that authority.” Id. at 712. We 

 

2

 Although many opinions address this issue in the context of workplace supervisorsubordinate relationships, those opinions are applicable to this case because the analysis 

is largely rooted in the recognition that a supervisor wields substantial authority over a 

subordinate, just as a sheriff’s deputy, acting under color of law, holds significant 

authority over a jail inmate. 
3

further noted that “an employer rarely authorizes an agent to break the law or otherwise 

behave improperly; yet, liability is frequently imputed to an employer for such conduct.” 

Id. at 712 n 7. 

In concluding that the plaintiff could pursue a quid pro quo sexual harassment 

claim against the defendant, Champion explained that a contrary result would “create an 

enormous loophole in the statute” that “would defeat the remedial purpose underlying 

this state’s civil rights statute and would lead to a construction that is inconsistent with 

the well-established rule that remedial statutes are to be liberally construed.” Id. at 713, 

citing Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 34; 427 NW2d 488 (1988). 

II. CHAMPION WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED 

The majority claims that Champion “was contrary to the plain language of the 

CRA,” ante at 19, and, thus, was wrongly decided. Although I generally agree with the 

majority that the CRA incorporated the common law of agency, the exception to 

common-law agency principles established in Champion was necessary to give effect to 

the broad purpose of the CRA and the Legislature’s intent in enacting it. See Henson v 

City of Dundee, 682 F2d 897, 910 n 21 (CA 11, 1982) (recognizing that “[t]he common 

law rules of respondeat superior will not always be appropriate to suit the broad remedial 

purposes” of civil rights statutes).3

 Furthermore, this Court has previously considered the 

 

3

 This Court has recognized that the purpose of a statute is a relevant consideration when 

applying the statute in a broad array of cases. See, e.g., Adair v Michigan, 486 Mich 468, 

477; 785 NW2d 119 (2010) (stating that “the primary and fundamental rule of 

constitutional or statutory construction is that the Court’s duty is to ascertain the purpose 

and intent as expressed in the constitutional or legislative provision in question”) 
4

purpose of the CRA as a method of discerning the legislative intent behind the act. See 

Victorson v Dep’t of Treasury, 439 Mich 131, 143-144; 482 NW2d 685 (1992). Indeed, 

even the majority recognizes that a statute’s purpose is a relevant consideration in 

determining the legislative intent. See ante at 20 n 58. 

The CRA recognizes that “freedom from discrimination because of sex is a civil 

right.” Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich 297, 309; 614 NW2d 910 (2000). Thus, the 

CRA is intended to “remedy[] discrimination in employment, . . . public 

accommodations, services, and educational institutions.” Eide, 431 Mich at 31; see, also, 

Miller v C A Muer Corp, 420 Mich 355, 363; 362 NW2d 650 (1984) (“The Michigan 

civil rights act is aimed at the prejudices and biases borne against persons because of 

their membership in a certain class . . . and seeks to eliminate the effects of offensive or 

demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases.”) (quotation marks and citations 

omitted).4

 Furthermore, as the majority acknowledges, the CRA is a remedial statute, 

and “remedial statutes are to be liberally construed . . . .” Eide, 431 Mich at 34. 

 

(emphasis added). Indeed, the members of the majority in this case recently found the 

purpose of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act worthy of lengthy consideration in Mich 

Ed Ass’n v Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 489 Mich 194; ___ NW2d ___ (2011). 

4

 The majority’s suggestion that the language of the CRA does not support this 

interpretation of the act’s purpose is remarkable, given than this Court’s opinions in Eide, 

Miller, and many other cases have similarly summarized the CRA’s purpose. See, e.g., 

Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 379; 501 NW2d 155 (1993) (quoting the CRA and 

concluding that “[t]he Civil Rights Act is aimed at the prejudices and biases borne against 

persons because of their membership in a certain class, and seeks to eliminate the effects 

of offensive or demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases”) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted); see, also, MCL 37.2102, MCL 37.2202, and MCL 37.2302. 
5

In light of this understanding of the CRA’s purpose and the Legislature’s intent in 

enacting the CRA, I believe that Champion properly advanced the legislative intent by 

ensuring that clearly discriminatory conduct is eradicated. The majority’s interpretation, 

however, bars plaintiff from pursuing a claim in furtherance of this goal and ignores “the 

legislative intent that employers, not the victims of sexual harassment, bear the costs of 

remedying and eradicating discrimination.” Champion, 450 Mich at 714. The majority 

erroneously discards Champion’s interpretation of the legislative intent as based “purely 

on policy considerations,” ante at 22, and ignores the fact that the policy considerations 

discussed in Champion were the motivation behind the Legislature’s enactment of the 

CRA.5

 As a result, “in seeking to shield employers from liability, the majority instead 

places the burden of preventing an abuse of authority and the corresponding harm on 

 

5

 Ironically, the majority in this case also relies on policy considerations, claiming that 

Champion creates an unfair “societal burden” and an unbearable financial burden on 

employers. Ante at 11, 26-27. It is odd that the majority opinion finds it appropriate to 

rely on these policy considerations while simultaneously rejecting Champion for its 

consideration of the policy concerns reflected in the CRA. Setting that contradiction 

aside, however, what is even more telling is the fact that Champion’s policy 

considerations were rooted in the legislative intent and purpose of the CRA. Indeed, the 

CRA’s title expressly states that the CRA is intended to “prohibit discriminatory 

practices, policies, and customs . . . .” Title of 1976 PA 453. The majority opinion in 

this case does exactly the opposite in furtherance of policy considerations that do not 

appear in the CRA. Nowhere did the Legislature indicate that the “societal burden” or 

the financial burden on employers is a valid consideration when interpreting and applying 

the act. In fact, the CRA indicates that the Legislature intended that governmental 

employers bear the cost of eliminating sexual harassment, not avoid it, as shown by the 

specific inclusion of state and political subdivisions and their agents as employers 

covered by the act. MCL 37.2103(g) and (h) and MCL 37.2201(a); see, also, Mack v 

Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 195; 649 NW2d 47 (2002) (noting that there are areas in which 

“the Legislature has allowed specific actions against the government to stand, such as the 

Civil Rights Act”). 
6

people powerless to prevent it.” Zsigo v Hurley Med Ctr, 475 Mich 215, 236; 716 NW2d 

220 (2006) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting). 

Moreover, the majority’s reliance on Chambers to support its conclusion that 

Champion was wrongly decided is misplaced. In fact, Chambers expressly 

acknowledged Champion’s holding as a valid part of Michigan’s common law related to 

quid pro quo sexual harassment under the CRA. See Chambers, 463 Mich at 311 

(“Vicarious liability exists in the case of quid pro quo harassment because the quid pro 

quo harasser, by definition, uses the power of the employer to alter the terms and 

conditions of employment. Champion, supra.”). 

Similarly, the majority erroneously interprets Zsigo as supporting its conclusion 

that Champion misinterpreted the CRA. The Zsigo majority expressly recognized that 

the Champion Court, like many other courts, applied an exception to quid pro quo sexual 

harassment claims that is very similar to the aided-by-agency exception. Zsigo, 475 Mich 

at 227 n 28 (listing state and federal opinions adopting the aided-by-agency exception in 

sexual harassment cases). While I continue to adhere to the Zsigo dissent’s conclusion 

that a narrowly tailored interpretation of the aided-by-agency exception should be applied 

outside the context of sexual harassment cases, that disagreement with Zsigo is of no 

moment in this case, given that the case before us is obviously a quid pro quo sexual 
7

harassment claim. Thus, under Chambers and even under the majority opinion in Zsigo, 

Champion’s exception applies to this case.6

Finally, contrary to the majority’s concern that Champion created an exception 

that swallows the general agency rules, Champion’s exception “does not extend unlimited 

liability to employers whose supervisors rape subordinates.” Champion, 450 Mich at 

713. A mere supervisor-subordinate relationship is not enough. Rather, an employer is 

only liable when “the supervisor accomplishes the rape through the exercise of his 

supervisory power over the victim.” Id. at 713-714 (emphasis added). As Champion 

explained, this approach is “fully consistent . . . with the legislative intent that employers, 

 

6

 Although the majority is correct that Zsigo held that the aided-by-agency exception is 

not a part of Michigan’s general common law, the majority’s efforts to counter this 

dissent’s interpretation of Chambers and Zsigo are unavailing because both of those 

opinions recognized that Champion’s exception applied in the context of quid pro quo 

sexual harassment cases, as the majority acknowledges. See ante at 18; see, also, 

Chambers, 463 Mich at 311 (citing Champion for the premise that “[v]icarious liability 

exists in the case of quid pro quo harassment because the quid pro quo harasser, by 

definition, uses the power of the employer to alter the terms and conditions of 

employment”), and Zsigo, 475 Mich at 224 n 19 (recognizing that Champion applies “in 

the context of quid pro quo sexual harassment under MCL 37.2103(i)”). Indeed, the fact 

that the majority finds it necessary to expressly overrule Champion today further 

demonstrates that Chambers and Zsigo did not dispatch the exception created in 

Champion. The majority’s refusal to accept the fact that Champion has been part of 

Michigan’s common law for the last 15 years does not make its view so. Rather, as this 

dissent thoroughly explains, Champion is a longstanding, unanimous precedent of this 

Court that is consistent with the purpose and legislative intent behind the CRA and with 

the approach taken by the United States Supreme Court and many other jurisdictions in 

similar civil rights cases. Accordingly, the majority is mistaken when it claims that I 

seek to “aggressively expand the law of this state” while it merely seeks to “reaffirm[] . . . 

common-law rules that have always governed in Michigan.” Ante at 30. Rather, as 

demonstrated by its need to overrule a deep-rooted opinion of this Court, it is the majority 

that embarks on an ill-advised major change in the law. 
8

not the victims of sexual harassment, bear the costs of remedying and eradicating 

discrimination.” Id. at 714. 

Furthermore, as the dissent in Zsigo aptly explained, it is entirely possible to adopt 

a narrowly tailored interpretation of the aided-by-agency exception in order to avoid 

swallowing the general agency rules. Zsigo, 475 Mich at 239-243 (MARILYN KELLY, J. 

dissenting).7

 After reviewing various other jurisdictions’ efforts to balance the scope of 

the aided-by-agency exception, the Zsigo dissent concluded that an opinion from the 

Vermont Supreme Court represented the most compelling approach. See Doe v Forrest, 

2004 VT 37, ¶ 21; 176 Vt 476; 853 A2d 48 (2004), citing Burlington Indus, Inc v 

Ellerth, 524 US 742; 118 S Ct 2257; 141 L Ed 2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v Boca 

Raton, 524 US 775; 118 S Ct 2275; 141 L Ed 2d 662 (1998). Doe explained that under 

Faragher, in order to properly apply the aided-by-agency exception, a court should 

consider three factors: (1) “the opportunity for contact created by the relationship,” (2) 

“the powerlessness of the employee to resist the perpetrator and prevent the unwanted 

contact,” and (3) “the opportunity to prevent and guard against the conduct.” Doe, 2004 

 

7 The majority erroneously implies that I only rely on nonbinding dissenting opinions of 

this Court to support my conclusion that Champion was correctly decided. Although I 

think that the Zsigo dissent provides an example of a narrow, workable interpretation of 

the aided-by-agency exception, the bulk of my analysis in support of my conclusion that 

Champion was correctly decided rests on the reasoning from Champion’s wellestablished and unanimous opinion, which was not overruled by either of the majority 

opinions in Chambers and Zsigo. Surprisingly, the majority disparages my analysis for 

relying on Champion’s reasoning, see ante at 29 n 79, but I am quite certain that relying 

on longstanding, unanimous precedent from this state’s highest court is a well-accepted 

method of legal analysis. Furthermore, I disagree with the majority’s claim that 

Champion is the only “binding Michigan law” supporting my conclusion. Ante at 29 

n 79. Rather, I believe that the CRA itself also supports my analysis. 
9

VT 37 at ¶ 33; 176 Vt at 491. Thus, in response to the questions posed by the majority 

regarding when an employer will be held liable for an employee’s conduct, see ante at 

32, an employer would only be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment arising out of 

an employee’s conduct if the three factors were met, or, as Champion put it, when “the 

supervisor accomplishes the rape through the exercise of his supervisory power over the 

victim.” Champion, 450 Mich at 713-714 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Champion

can be applied without imposing the boundless liability that the majority fears. 

In summary, Champion properly relied on the legislative intent and the purpose 

behind the CRA when it adopted a widely accepted exception to the general rules of 

agency. And given that the Legislature has not chosen to amend the applicable CRA 

provisions during the 15 years since Champion was decided, I think that it is fair to 

conclude that the Legislature believes that Champion accurately reflected the legislative 

intent behind the CRA, rather than representing a dangerous departure from it, as the 

majority claims. See, e.g., Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 613-614; 702 

NW2d 539 (2005) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (explaining the significance of the 

Legislature’s decision not to modify a statute after this Court has interpreted it). Because 

it is “‘the nature of the common law that every appellate decision represents the 

development of the common law,’” Zsigo, 475 Mich at 241 n 11 (MARILYN KELLY, J., 

dissenting) (citation omitted), Champion has been a valid part of Michigan’s common 

law for the last 15 years and should be applied in this case. 
10

III. STARE DECISIS 

 In light of the preceding analysis, it is clear that Champion furthers the 

Legislature’s intent when it enacted the CRA. As a result, Champion was correctly 

decided and no further stare decisis consideration is needed. However, even accepting 

the majority’s faulty conclusion that Champion was wrongly decided, I do not agree that 

its decision to overrule Champion is supported by stare decisis principles. 

The United States Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine of stare decisis 

“promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, 

fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity 

of the judicial process.” Payne v Tennessee, 501 US 808, 827; 111 S Ct 2597; 115 L Ed 

2d 720 (1991). As a result, “a stare decisis analysis should always begin with the 

presumption that upholding the precedent involved is the preferred course of action.” 

Petersen v Magna Corp, 484 Mich 300, 317; 773 NW2d 564 (2009) (opinion by 

MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). Thus, “overturning precedent requires more than a mere belief 

that a case was wrongly decided,” McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 211; 795 NW2d 

517 (2010), and the presumption in favor of upholding precedent “should be retained 

until effectively rebutted by the conclusion that a compelling justification exists to 

overturn the precedent,” Petersen, 484 Mich at 317 (opinion by MARILYN KELLY, C.J.).8

 

8 In Petersen, then Chief Justice MARILYN KELLY provided a nonexhaustive list of 

criteria for consideration when a court engages in a stare decisis analysis, but no single 

criterion is determinative, and a given criterion need only be evaluated if relevant. 

Petersen, 484 Mich at 320. The majority’s implication that my stare decisis analysis is 
11

Several of the criteria discussed in Petersen weigh particularly heavily in favor of 

upholding Champion rather than overruling it: (1) Champion provided a practical and 

workable rule, (2) Champion has not been robbed of significant application or 

justification because it remains a highly significant and relevant guidepost in the area of 

civil rights law, (3) other jurisdictions have adopted exceptions similar to the one in 

Champion, and (4) overruling Champion is likely to result in serious detriment 

prejudicial to public interests. See Petersen, 484 Mich at 320.9

Contrary to the majority’s claims, Champion has not proved to be unworkable, and 

thus this criterion weighs in favor of upholding Champion. Again, although I disagree 

with the Zsigo majority’s decision to limit Champion by applying it only to cases raising 

quid pro quo sexual harassment claims, that limitation is an example of an arguably 

workable bright-line rule regarding the scope of Champion’s exception. Therefore, the 

 

invalid because I apply Petersen is misplaced, given that Petersen’s test simply expands 

on the test from Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 464; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). Further 

Petersen is more respectful of precedent, and thus is more consistent with the principles 

of stare decisis. See Petersen, 484 Mich at 315-319 (opinion by MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). 

9

 Although Chief Justice KELLY also recognized that reliance on the rule in question may 

be a valid consideration when engaging in a stare decisis analysis, the majority’s 

extensive reliance on this factor to support its decision to overrule Champion is 

misplaced. In my view, this factor is of little importance in this case because no one 

plans on being sexually harassed or employing persons who commit sexual harassment. 

Thus, there is little reason for anyone to “conform his conduct to a certain norm” in 

reliance on Champion. Ante at 25 (quotation marks omitted). Rather, Champion 

provided a remedy for an unexpected and unwelcome event. Therefore, I find 

unpersuasive the majority’s claim that Champion may be overruled because parties have 

not relied on its holding to their detriment. 
12

majority’s claim that Champion is unworkable because it results in unlimited vicarious 

liability “despite our attempt in Zsigo to limit Champion,” ante at 23, is inexplicable.10 

Indeed, the Court of Appeals opinions the majority cites in support of this claim, 

ante at 24 n 68, are either irrelevant or demonstrate Champion’s workability rather than 

its unworkability. 

In Diamond v Witherspoon, 265 Mich App 673; 696 NW2d 770 (2005), and its 

companion case, the Court of Appeals rejected a city’s claims of governmental immunity 

and permitted the plaintiffs to bring quid pro quo sexual harassment claims under the 

CRA based on the same city police officer’s sexual conduct during traffic stops. The 

Court of Appeals explained that governmental immunity is not a defense to actions under 

the CRA but did not directly address the vicarious liability issues arising out of that case. 

Id. at 691. As a result, Diamond is of little import in determining Champion’s 

workability. 

The other opinion the majority cites in this regard, Salinas v Genesys Health Sys, 

263 Mich App 315; 688 NW2d 112 (2004), actually demonstrates Champion’s 

workability and exhibits the “meaningful demarcation” that the majority so desperately 

 

10 Moreover, the majority’s claim that Champion allows plaintiffs to engage in “artful 

pleading,” ante at 27 n 74, in order to “avoid governmental immunity by framing a claim 

under the CRA,” ante at 24, is misplaced and, frankly, offensive. See, also, ante at 29 

n 78. Plaintiff in this case, and presumably the plaintiffs in other sexual harassment 

cases, bring actions under the CRA because the sexual harassment infringed on their civil 

rights. By assuming that plaintiffs bring CRA claims to manipulate the judicial system, 

the majority throws salt in these plaintiffs’ raw wounds. 
13

seeks.11 See ante at 32. In that case, the Court of Appeals applied the aided-by-agency 

exception and concluded that vicarious liability did not extend to the employer because 

the attacker’s agency relationship with the defendant merely provided the attacker with 

the opportunity to commit the sexual assault. Thus, the agency relationship did not aid 

the attacker in committing the sexual assault. Salinas, 263 Mich App at 320-321. In my 

view, Salinas provided an example of how Champion did not create limitless liability, 

even in the context of quid pro quo sexual harassment claims.12 

Finally, Champion itself explained that its holding “does not extend unlimited 

liability to employers . . . .” Champion, 450 Mich at 713. Rather, an employer is only 

liable if its employee “accomplishes the rape through the exercise of his supervisory 

power over the victim.” Id. at 713-714. Such a limitation is eminently workable, as the 

Court of Appeals opinion in Salinas demonstrated. Additionally, as discussed earlier in 

this opinion, Vermont’s high court has provided a clear example of a narrowly tailored 

approach to applying the aided-by-agency exception that would limit the scope of an 

 

11 Moreover, as discussed earlier in this dissent, the three-prong test established in Doe,

2004 VT 37, and favored by the Zsigo dissent further establishes a “meaningful 

demarcation” of an employer’s liability for an employee’s improper use of delegated 

supervisory authority. 

12 Contrary to the majority’s claims, the distinction exemplified by Salinas is quite clear: 

if an employee is merely presented with an opportunity to commit sexual harassment by 

having the employer’s permission to be in a certain location, the employer is not 

vicariously liable because the employee did not use any employer-delegated authority to 

aid in the creation of the opportunity to commit the sexual harassment. But if, as in 

Champion and the case at bar, the employee actively uses the powers delegated by the 

employer to direct the victim to a location or otherwise create circumstances that aid in 

the commission of sexual harassment, vicarious liability may attach. 
14

employer’s liability. Doe, 2004 VT 37 at ¶ 33; 176 Vt at 491; see, also, Zsigo, 475 Mich 

at 239-243 (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting) (arguing in favor of adopting Doe’s threefactor test). In sum, Champion has remained workable from the time it was first 

published until its untimely demise at the hands of the majority today. Thus, this factor 

weighs in favor of upholding Champion. 

Champion also remains a highly significant and relevant guidepost in the area of 

civil rights law, which weighs in favor of upholding it. Champion remains relevant 

because it properly recognized that failing to impose liability on an employer when its 

employees use supervisory powers delegated by the employer to commit quid pro quo 

sexual harassment is a “far too narrow” construction of agency principles. Champion, 

450 Mich at 712. As Champion explains, “immunizing an employer where it did not 

authorize the offending conduct would create an enormous loophole in the statute.” Id. at 

713. Therefore, Champion correctly concluded that when an employer delegates 

authority to an employee, the employer must accept the responsibility of remedying the 

harm caused by misuse of that authority, which is consistent with the “legislative intent 

that employers, not the victims of sexual harassment, bear the costs of remedying and 

eradicating discrimination.” Id. at 714. Thus, Champion provides important guidance to 

trial courts and ensures that the legislative intent behind the CRA is implemented. 

Accordingly, Champion should be upheld.13

 

13 The majority also states that because “the drafters of the Third Restatement of Agency 

have excluded the aided-by-agency exception included in the Second Restatement of 

Agency,” ante at 16 n 42, Champion no longer reflects the preferred approach and I 
15

Further supporting the conclusion that stare decisis does not support overruling 

Champion is the fact that numerous other jurisdictions have adopted the aided-by-agency 

exception in the context of civil rights cases. See Petersen, 484 Mich at 320 (opinion by 

MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). To begin with, as Champion stated, application of the aided-byagency exception is a “nearly unanimous view” in the context of quid pro quo sexual 

harassment committed by supervisory personnel. Champion, 450 Mich at 712.14 The 

majority opinion, however, claims that Champion and this dissent err in this 

determination because it is improper to consider federal caselaw. 

 

“ignore” this “change[] in the law,” ante at 29 n 79. To begin with, as the comments to 

the Third Restatement of Agency explain, the Third Restatement now addresses “[t]he 

purposes likely intended to be met by the ‘aided in accomplishing’ basis [for imposing 

vicarious liability] . . . by a more fully elaborated treatment of apparent authority and by 

the duty of reasonable care that a principal owes to third parties with whom it interacts 

through employees and other agents” elsewhere in the Restatement. 2 Restatement 

Agency, 3d, § 7.08, comment b, p 228. Thus, there has arguably been no “change[] in the 

law,” given that the Third Restatement of Agency addresses the same concerns 

represented by the aided-by-agency exception from the Second Restatement of Agency. 

And, regardless, the Restatement has no precedential value and, thus, is not “the law.” 

Champion, on the other hand, obviously has substantial precedential value as a wellestablished, unanimous opinion of this Court. Accordingly, any support for overruling 

Champion that the majority derives from the fact that the Third Restatement of Agency 

no longer expressly includes the aided-by-agency exception is unpersuasive, especially 

when, as noted later in this opinion, other jurisdictions continue to apply that exception. 

14 Although the majority mistakenly attributes this premise to me, see ante at 33, it was 

actually the unanimous Champion Court that concluded that its holding was consistent 

with the majority of other jurisdictions. I do, however, agree with Champion’s 

conclusion, given that, as explained in footnote 15 of this opinion, the United States 

Supreme Court and many states apply Champion-like exceptions in the context of civil 

rights cases. 
16

Although the majority is correct that we are not bound by federal caselaw, it can 

be instructive, particularly when the federal and state statutes at issue are similar. See, 

e.g., People v Victor, 287 Mich 506, 548; 283 NW 666 (1939) (endorsing the use of 

federal caselaw in applying Michigan’s Due Process Clause). Notably, the United States 

Supreme Court has concluded that the federal Civil Rights Act has a “broad remedial 

purpose[],” Arizona Governing Comm for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred 

Compensation Plans v Norris, 463 US 1073, 1090; 103 S Ct 3492; 77 L Ed 2d 1236 

(1983), to “achieve equality . . . and remove barriers that have operated in the past to 

favor an identifiable group,” Griggs v Duke Power Co, 401 US 424, 429-430; 91 S Ct 

849; 28 L Ed 2d 158 (1971). Given that the legislative intent and purpose behind the 

CRA and the federal Civil Rights Act are strikingly similar, the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision to adopt an exception to further that purpose in Ellerth and Faragher is 

persuasive authority in favor of upholding Champion. 

Furthermore, regardless of whether “[o]nly a few jurisdictions have wholesale 

adopted the [aided-by-agency] exception . . . such that it applies to a typical tort claim,” 

ante at 22 n 63, many of our sister states have—as this Court did in Champion—adopted 

comparable exceptions in the realm of civil rights sexual harassment cases in order to 

accomplish goals analogous to those in the CRA.15 Thus, it is clear that Champion is not 

 

15 See, e.g., Farmers Ins Group v Santa Clara Co, 11 Cal 4th 992, 1016 n 14; 47 Cal Rptr 

2d 478; 906 P2d 440 (1995) (acknowledging that the applicable statutes “indicate that 

respondeat superior and scope of employment principles are supposed to play an integral 

role in fixing an employer’s liability for both supervisor and nonsupervisor sexual 

harassment” but applying the aided-by-agency exception because “it is reasonably clear 
17

an “inexplicable exception,” ante at 19 n 54 (quotation marks omitted), or “isolated 

 

that the purpose underlying the comprehensive statutory scheme is to ensure that all 

employers maintain their worksites free from prohibited sexual harassment, regardless of 

the lack of foreseeability of such harassment in their particular enterprises”); Doe, 2004 

VT 37 at ¶ 39; 176 Vt at 494 (adopting the aided-by-agency exception, in part because it 

creates an “incentive for vigilance” by those in best position to prevent harassing 

behavior); Lehmann v Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc, 132 NJ 587, 619; 626 A2d 445 (1993) (adopting 

the aided-by-agency-exception in sexual harassment cases to ensure “just results in the 

great variety of factual circumstances presented by sexual harassment cases and to 

accomplish the [statutory] purposes”); Ocana v American Furniture Co, 2004-NMSC018, ¶ 31; 135 NM 539, 552; 91 P3d 58 (2004) (adopting the aided-by-agency theory 

because it “further[s] the policies that underlie tort law” by redistributing the economic 

burden from injured individuals and deterring objectionable conduct in the future);

College-Town, Div of Interco, Inc v Mass Comm Against Discrimination, 400 Mass 156, 

165; 508 NE2d 587 (1987) (noting that although the court was not bound by federal 

courts’ interpretation of analogous federal statutes, vicarious liability based on a standard 

similar to the aided-by-agency exception was appropriate in order to remain consistent 

with the statute’s purpose and clear legislative intent “that an employer be liable for 

discrimination committed by those on whom it confers authority”); Frieler v Carlson 

Mktg Group, Inc, 751 NW2d 558, 567-570 (Minn, 2008) (adopting the aided-by-agency 

exception for sexual harassment cases as consistent with the purposes of the Minnesota 

Human Rights Act); Veco, Inc v Rosebrock, 970 P2d 906, 914 (Alas, 1999) (adopting the 

aided-by-agency theory because harassment by supervisors is “facilitated, made more 

serious, and is less apt to be reported because supervisors are understood to be clothed 

with the employer’s authority”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Parker v Warren 

Co Utility Dist, 2 SW3d 170, 176 (Tenn, 1999) (adopting the aided-by-agency exception 

for sexual harassment claims under Tennessee’s human rights act for the reasons stated in 

Ellerth and Faragher); American Gen Life & Accident Ins Co v Hall, 74 SW3d 688, 692 

(Ky, 2002) (acknowledging that Kentucky applies the aided-by-agency exception to 

sexual harassment claims under Kentucky’s civil rights act consistently with Ellerth and 

Faragher); Henningsen v Worldcom, Inc, 102 Wash App 828, 843; 9 P3d 948 (2000) 

(applying the aided-by-agency exception in a sexual harassment case); Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc v Itz, 21 SW3d 456, 470 (Tex App, 2000) (same); and Edwards v Ohio Institute of 

Cardiac Care, 170 Ohio App 3d 619, 627-628; 868 NE2d 721 (2007) (same). 

As these opinions make obvious, Champion by no means represents an earthshattering decision in the realm of civil rights law, and, contrary to the majority’s claim, 

in no way do I “concede[] that Champion was unprecedented . . . .” Ante at 28. Rather, 

because Champion accurately reflected the legislative intent behind the CRA, I believe 

that Champion rests on the precedent of the CRA itself. 
18

aberration,” ante at 22, nor is it “hard to square . . . with any conventional notion of 

agency,” ante at 19 n 54 (quotation marks omitted). Rather, Champion reflects a wellreasoned exception to the general rules of agency that many other jurisdictions have 

adopted in order to ensure that civil and human rights statutes are successful in achieving 

the goal of suppressing the evil of sexual harassment. 

Finally, the fact that the majority’s decision in this case is likely to result in serious 

detriment prejudicial to public interests weighs heavily in favor of upholding Champion. 

See Petersen, 484 Mich at 320 (opinion by MARILYN KELLY, C.J.). As discussed at 

length in this opinion, Champion properly recognized the significant public interest 

embodied in the CRA and adopted a narrow exception to traditional agency rules that 

accurately reflects the legislative intent to require employers to bear the costs of 

remedying and eradicating discrimination. By overruling Champion, the majority instead 

places that burden on the very people whom the CRA is intended to protect and who are 

powerless to prevent the discrimination that the CRA is intended to eliminate. The 

detriment to the public interest created by the majority opinion today is obvious and 

weighs heavily in favor of affirming Champion. 

In summary, Champion (1) provides a practical and workable rule in furtherance 

of the purpose of the CRA, (2) has not been robbed of significant application or 

justification because it remains a highly significant and relevant guidepost in the area of 

civil rights law, (3) is consistent with the caselaw of other jurisdictions that have adopted 

the aided-by-agency exception, and (4) avoids a serious detriment prejudicial to public 
19

interests. Therefore, in my view, the principles of stare decisis do not support the 

majority’s decision to overrule Champion. 

IV. THE MAJORITY REACHES THE WRONG RESULT 

UNDER ANY STANDARD 

The majority’s application of its own standard is hopelessly flawed. The majority 

immunizes defendants from liability in this case by concluding that Johnson’s acts were 

unforeseeable. Ante at 13. The majority supports this conclusion by claiming that, even 

when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Johnson’s past violent conduct 

toward members of the public and inmates merely amounted to “a propensity to disobey 

work-related protocol . . . .”16 Ante at 13. Furthermore, the majority concludes that 

Johnson’s rape of plaintiff was “highly unpredictable,” ante at 10, and, “in essence, 

unpreventable,” ante at 11. 

The majority’s characterization of Johnson’s conduct is extraordinarily one-sided, 

however. First, Johnson’s conduct was clearly not “unpreventable” because defendants 

had a policy in place that required a female officer to be present anytime a female inmate 

was in the jail. Presumably, the motivation behind this policy is at least in part to prevent 

the type of conduct that Johnson committed in this case. Defendants violated that policy 

on the night in question, which allowed Johnson to use the supervisory powers delegated 

 

16 The majority attempts to downplay Johnson’s prior violent conduct toward inmates by 

emphasizing that it was directed at a male inmate who had provoked Johnson. Although 

inconvenient to the majority’s analysis, it is notable that defendants considered Johnson’s 

actions “misconduct” and reprimanded him for it. Therefore, it appears that defendants 

did not consider Johnson’s violent conduct toward an inmate as insignificant as the 

majority would have us believe. 
20

to him by defendants to violently rape plaintiff. Thus, the rape of plaintiff was entirely 

preventable, had defendants merely followed their own policy. Furthermore, the fact that 

such a policy existed also strongly implies that defendants considered conduct like 

Johnson’s foreseeable. Therefore, regardless of whether the rape was preventable, 

defendants’ policy is one of several factors that create a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding whether Johnson’s conduct was foreseeable, even under the majority’s flawed 

new test.17

Second, as the majority concedes, Johnson’s alleged threatening calls to his 

landlord and the physical altercation with an inmate reveal Johnson’s tendency to react 

violently when provoked. One would think that working as a deputy in a jail would 

entail frequent provocation by inmates. Accordingly, tendencies such as those displayed 

by Johnson, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, present a genuine issue 

of material fact regarding whether his subsequent violent rape of an inmate was 

sufficiently foreseeable to hold defendants vicariously liable. 

The majority strains to support the weight of its misguided holding by citing the 

majority opinion in Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545; 739 NW2d 313 (2007).18 In Brown, 

 

17 The majority bristles at my characterization of its test as “new.” See ante at 11 n 32. 

However, given that the majority overrules Champion, which it admits would otherwise 

apply to this case, classifying its test as “new” is entirely accurate, in my judgment. 

18 Although I continue to adhere to my dissent in Brown, 478 Mich at 570-580 

(CAVANAGH, J., dissenting), I will apply the majority opinion from Brown because, even 

under the Brown majority’s excessively narrow standard of foreseeability, this case 

presents a genuine issue of material fact. And because I apply the rule from the majority 
21

the attacker had no criminal history and had not previously committed any violent acts 

but had repeatedly made heinous sexual comments to the plaintiff of which the 

defendant-employer was aware. Subsequently, while working with the plaintiff on the 

night shift, the attacker violently raped the plaintiff. The Brown majority concluded that 

the defendant’s knowledge of the attacker’s comments alone were not sufficient to make 

the subsequent rape foreseeable. Id. at 554-555. The Brown majority chastised the Court 

of Appeals panel in that case for relying on Hersh v Kentfield Builders, Inc, 385 Mich 

410; 189 NW2d 286 (1971), to reach the opposite conclusion because, according to the 

Brown majority, Hersh was distinguishable on its facts. In Hersh, an employee who had 

a prior manslaughter conviction violently attacked a client of the defendant-employer. 

This Court unanimously held that the defendant-employer was liable for its employee’s 

violent attack on the client because the defendant knew of the employee’s past violent 

act. Id. at 413.19 The Brown majority seized on this reasoning to conclude that the 

defendant in Brown could not be liable for its employee’s rape of the plaintiff because the 

employee had only engaged in “boorish” sexual comments toward the plaintiff but had no 

history of violent acts. Brown, 478 Mich at 557-562. 

Although the Brown majority’s analysis created a dangerous rule whereby “no

infirmity of character, shown by speech, [is] sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether, 

 

opinion in Brown, the majority’s critique of the Brown dissent, ante at 11 n 32, is entirely 

irrelevant. 

19 Justice BLACK concurred in the result. See id. at 416. 
22

in light of the employee’s conduct, the employer had a duty to act,” id. at 576 

(CAVANAGH, J., dissenting), Johnson’s conduct in this case, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact even 

under the rule in Brown. Johnson did not merely engage in sexual comments toward 

plaintiff; rather, he had a specific history of violent and abusive behavior toward 

inmates.20 Therefore, because the unanimous Hersh Court and the majority in Brown 

 

20 The majority claims that the “dissimilar” nature and the “temporal distance” between 

Johnson’s past violent conduct and the rape at issue immunizes defendants from 

foreseeability as a matter of law. First, these arguments abandon the reasoning from 

Hersh because, in that case, the attacker’s conviction for manslaughter occurred 10 years 

before the attack in question, and the defendant in Hersh “was not aware of [the 

attacker’s] specific convictions . . . .” Hersh v Kentfield Builders, Inc, 19 Mich App 43, 

45 n 1; 172 NW2d 56 (1969). Thus, contrary to the majority’s analysis today, the 

caselaw does not hold that an employee’s conduct is only foreseeable to an employer if 

the employee had recently committed the precise conduct at issue. 

Second, these arguments also demonstrate that the majority’s new test for quid pro 

quo sexual harassment cases creates a moving target that is impossible for plaintiffs to 

hit. In Brown, the majority claimed that the attacker’s aggressive sexual comments were 

not sufficient to make it foreseeable that the attacker would later rape the target of those 

comments. In this case, even though Johnson had committed a violent act against an 

inmate in the past, the majority claims that this conduct occurred too long ago and was 

too dissimilar to the conduct at issue. The majority makes no effort to explain why the 

acceptable 10-year gap in Hersh is substantially different from the 13-year gap in this 

case and only summarily argues that Johnson’s prior violent act against an inmate was 

too dissimilar to his violent rape of plaintiff while she was an inmate. Ante at 14 n 36. 

Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, I fail to see a difference between a violent 

physical altercation with an inmate and a subsequent violent rape of an inmate that is 

sufficient to justify deciding this case as a matter of law. Rather, given the substantial 

similarities between the facts of this case and the facts in Hersh, I believe that this 

Court’s unanimous conclusion in Hersh that “[w]hether the employer knew or should 

have known of [the employee’s] vicious propensities should not be determined by any 

court as a matter of law, but by the jury” is equally applicable to this case, even under the 

majority’s flawed new test. Hersh, 385 Mich at 415. But under the majority position, 

this is apparently not so, given that the majority seemingly believes that an employee’s 
23

concluded that an employee’s prior violent criminal acts are generally sufficient to put a 

defendant on notice of the employee’s propensity to commit similar violent acts,21

defendants’ knowledge of Johnson’s prior violent acts is sufficient to at least raise a 

genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of his eventual rape of 

plaintiff.22 Accordingly, even under the majority’s newly adopted standard for quid pro 

 

act of committing a rape is only foreseeable if the employer knows that the employee 

actually raped someone in the recent past. The unworkability of such a requirement is 

obvious. 

21 Specifically, Hersh, 385 Mich at 413, stated that “‘[t]he employer’s knowledge of past 

acts of impropriety, violence, or disorder on the part of the employee is generally 

considered sufficient to forewarn the employer,’” quoting 34 ALR2d 390, § 9 (emphasis 

added), and the majority in Brown, 478 Mich at 560, quoted this passage from Hersh. 

22 Although the majority opinion cites Brown, 478 Mich at 555, for the proposition that 

“[e]ven the incident of aggression [toward an inmate] did not put defendants on 

reasonable notice that Johnson would sexually assault an inmate [because] violent actions 

do not inevitably lead to acts of criminal sexual conduct,” ante at 13, the cited portion of 

Brown does not actually support that conclusion. Rather, the relevant portion of Brown 

states that “[c]omments of a sexual nature do not inexorably lead to criminal sexual 

conduct any more than an exasperated, angry comment inexorably results in a violent 

criminal assault.” Brown, 478 Mich at 555 (emphasis added). Furthermore, Brown later 

stated, while discussing Hersh, that “it is the employee’s known past acts that provide a 

basis for the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s ‘impropriety, violence, or 

disorder’ and that those acts potentially place an employer on notice of the employee’s 

violent propensities.” Id. at 561. Therefore, it appears that the majority has even further 

limited the scope of previous conduct by an employee that will be sufficient to put an 

employer on notice of the employee’s violent propensities. Disregarding the fact that a 

rape is an “incident of aggression,” the majority claims that Johnson’s previous “incident 

of aggression” toward an inmate did not make his subsequent rape of plaintiff foreseeable 

because the previous “incident of aggression” was not a “sexual assault.” The majority’s 

efforts to distinguish the differences between various violent acts leaves plaintiffs 

vulnerable to harm and immunizes employers from liability unless an employee commits 

the exact same act that he or she previously committed. In my view, the majority’s 

analysis is arbitrary and undercuts the clear legislative intent of the CRA. 
24

quo sexual harassment claims under the CRA, the majority reaches the wrong result in 

this case. 

Finally, by overruling Champion, the majority has caused a major shift in 

Michigan’s quid pro quo sexual harassment jurisprudence. Thus, even if I agreed with 

the majority’s new standard, I could not support its hasty decision to reverse the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals. As the majority readily admits, Champion clearly 

applies to this case, and plaintiff’s arguments appropriately focused on the principles set 

forth in Champion rather than the majority’s newly imposed foreseeability analysis.23 As 

 

23 Curiously, the majority proclaims that “[n]o meaningful distinction can be drawn 

between the facts in Champion and those in the present matter,” ante at 23, but later finds 

fault in my conclusion that a straightforward application of Champion is appropriate in 

this case. My conclusion is not faulty; rather, it simply reflects an adherence to the 

doctrine of stare decisis. It is the majority that falters in its effort to satisfy the burden of 

explaining its imprudent decision to forgo precedent. 

Indeed, the majority’s argument that the “conflicting dispositions in the courts 

below” support its decision to overrule Champion, ante at 31, is simply one more 

example of the majority’s misplaced efforts to satisfy its burden. While it is true that the 

trial court in this case applied Zsigo and the Court of Appeals applied Champion, a 

simple answer exists for this apparent conflict. Although our trial courts work diligently 

and, in the vast majority of instances, reach the correct result, the trial courts do, on 

occasion, err. Indeed, the Court of Appeals and this Court exist in large part to address 

this reality. 

In this case, the trial court erred by applying Zsigo because Zsigo did not consider 

a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim. Rather, as the Court of Appeals correctly 

determined, the proper course of conduct in this quid pro quo sexual harassment case was 

to apply Champion, not Zsigo. Indeed, as repeatedly noted in this dissent, the Zsigo 

majority recognized that Champion applies “in the context of quid pro quo sexual 

harassment under MCL 37.2103(i).” Zsigo, 475 Mich at 224 n 19. Therefore, the 

resolution of this case should be simple: Champion should apply because this is a quid 

pro quo sexual harassment case. It is the majority that needlessly injects “conflicting 

precedents and principles.” Ante at 31. 
25

a result, the Court of Appeals did not consider the merits of plaintiff’s claims under the 

foreseeability standard that the majority now adopts. Accordingly, the majority should 

not reach the merits of this case because this unexpected shift away from Champion

prevented plaintiff from making arguments related to the standard that the majority now 

applies. Rather, given its holding, the majority should remand this case to the lower 

courts for further proceedings so that plaintiff may develop arguments related to the 

majority’s newly applicable, yet erroneous, standard for quid pro quo sexual harassment 

claims. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 I disagree with the majority’s decision to overrule Champion because that case 

was correctly decided and furthers the legislative intent and purpose of the CRA. 

Moreover, the doctrine of stare decisis weighs against overruling Champion. 

Furthermore, the majority misapplies its newly created standard in this case and usurps 

the role of the jury when it concludes that defendants are entitled to a favorable decision 

as a matter of law. Accordingly, I dissent. 

 Michael F. Cavanagh 

 Marilyn Kelly 
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N 

SUPREME COURT 

TARA KATHERINE HAMED, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v No. 139505 

WAYNE COUNTY and WAYNE 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SERGEANT KENNETH DARWISH, 

CORPORAL NETTIE JACKSON, 

SHERIFF WARREN C. EVANS, and 

DEPUTY REGINALD JOHNSON, 

Defendants. 

HATHAWAY, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the majority’s decision to overrule Champion v Nation Wide 

Security, Inc, 450 Mich 702; 545 NW2d 596 (1996). I fully agree with and join parts I, 

II, IV, and V of Justice CAVANAGH’s dissenting opinion. It is my strong belief that 

Champion, a unanimous decision of this Court,1

 was not only correctly decided, but 

served to protect the rights of victims of discrimination. Because the majority overrules 

correctly decided precedent, no stare decisis analysis is necessary. The majority’s 

 

1

 The concurring justices joined the analysis in full. See Champion, 450 Mich at 714 

(BOYLE, J., concurring). 
2

analysis and conclusions are fundamentally flawed, and today’s decision significantly 

undermines the “legislative intent that employers, not the victims of sexual harassment, 

bear the costs of remedying and eradicating discrimination.” Champion, 450 Mich at 

714. Finally, for the reasons given in Justice CAVANAGH’s thoughtful and well-reasoned 

dissenting opinion, the majority’s decision is contrary to the rule of law and results in the 

dismantling of the Michigan Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. Accordingly, I 

dissent. 

 Diane M. Hathaway