Opinion ID: 1309087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: In summary, we hold:

Text:  An objective reasonableness standard must be utilized to determine whether a hostile work environment exists under the Michigan Civil Rights Act.  A hostile work environment claim is actionable only when, in the totality of the circumstances, the work environment is so tainted by harassment that a reasonable person would have understood that the defendant's conduct or communication had either the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the plaintiff's employment, or subjecting the plaintiff to an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.  A gender-conscious standard is violative of the legislative intent of the act, undermines uniform standards of conduct, and is ultimately unnecessary.  A single incident may be sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment if severe harassment is perpetrated by an employer in a closely knit working environment.  The Court of Appeals improperly reached the issue whether the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA bars an alternative claim of assault and battery when the claim fails to allege an injury that the defendant intended to inflict upon the plaintiff. Thus, we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, albeit on different grounds, and we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order granting summary disposition regarding the assault and battery claim.