Opinion ID: 848701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence of harassment and the conduct of plaintiff's counsel

Text: The majority states that the jury's verdict unmistakably reflects passion rather than reason and prejudice rather than impartiality. Ante at 395. I disagree. The standard for reviewing defendant's motion for a new trial, MCR 2.611, is the abuse of discretion standard. Brown v. Arnold, 303 Mich. 616, 627, 6 N.W.2d 914 (1942). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias. Alken-Ziegler, Inc. v. Waterbury Headers Corp., 461 Mich. 219, 227, 600 N.W.2d 638 (1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). While the majority clearly disagrees with the verdict, there was ample testimony from numerous witnesses to support the jury's verdict that plaintiff, the first and only female millwright for a lengthy period at defendant's plant, was the victim of sexual harassment and that defendant did not engage in an adequate investigation or remedial action to stop this harassment. An employee in defendant's human resources department testified that the investigation into plaintiff's sexual harassment claims was inadequate. [1] Another employee in defendant's human resources department testified that without being given a name he would not even know where to begin a sexual harassment investigation. Yet another employee in the human resources department testified that she told plaintiff she would provide her with the name and number of a union representative who might be helpful, but the name and number were never provided to plaintiff because the employee never saw plaintiff again. [2] Defendant's corporate representative at trial, who was also one of plaintiff's supervisors, conveyed to the jury that defendant's investigation essentially consisted of passing out defendant's sexual harassment policy and asking the men if they harassed plaintiff or knew who did. [3] The trial representative said he approached some of the men as a group and asked if they knew who was sexually harassing plaintiff. He also said he hoped someone else would do the investigating and that he did not feel it was his responsibility to investigate. [4] The trial representative later testified that asking the men if they knew who was responsible for the incidents was inadequate. He further stated that he did not know of any other investigation that was done. An employee who worked for defendant for thirty-one years testified that he had never seen anyone treated like plaintiff. He stated, She was relentlessly pounded with derogatory statements, with no help when she was given a job, and there were several people involved on the same job. She would not get a lot of cooperation. She was just basically resented that she was a woman, making a man's wage. The employee also testified that plaintiff was subjected to physical danger by not getting the cooperation she needed, and that other millwrights received, when doing her work. Although millwrights commonly work in pairs, she was often forced to work alone. He testified that this abusive conduct occurred nearly every day, was devastating to plaintiff, and was readily apparent to plaintiff's supervisors. He also testified that supervisors made offensive comments as well. This employee drove plaintiff home from work for a period and testified she cried at least one hundred times on the way home from work. She never knew what to expect on any given day that she went into work.... He also testified that the stench of urine from a chair in an area set off for plaintiff made it evident that someone had urinated on it. Further, the employee stated that he did not observe any of defendant's employees try to stop the harassment. Plaintiff testified that when she went to work each day she never knew what to expect. She said abusive comments were essentially an everyday occurrence, and she said she was isolated and ostracized at work. Plaintiff stated that the conduct made her afraid and angry and that she had problems sleeping. She also experienced headaches, stomach problems, and problems associated with her asthma. Plaintiff said she felt hopeless and attempted suicide because she could not get any cooperation or help from defendant. [5] Regarding her suicide attempt, plaintiff said that's what I did and I regret it, but I just felt pushed to that point where I couldn't take it anymore. Plaintiff said she felt torn up inside and that the harassment was an assault to her person. Plaintiff said she began drinking to escape and help dull her feelings. Plaintiff testified that the abusive comments were still being made at the time of the trial, but she was not going to quit over the harassment; she refused to be driven out of her job. I believe even this limited testimony indicates that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict, and I disagree that the verdict was the result of plaintiff's counsel's inflaming the jury with hyperbolic rhetoric, prejudice-baiting argument, and unscientific expert testimony. Ante at 403. Plaintiff's counsel vigorously pursued this case; however, defense counsel's approach was no less vigorous. Although defense counsel's strategy ultimately proved to be ineffective, and although the majority certainly disagrees with the verdict, it does not necessarily mean that plaintiff's counsel behaved inappropriately. A thorough review of defense counsel's conduct during trial illustrates that defense counsel's strategy was inadequate and, at times, disingenuous. For example, defense counsel tried to characterize some of the men alleged to have engaged in the harassment as ornery and she referred to one as basically a good guy. She tried to characterize their comments as shop talk [6] or a slip of the tongue, and their conduct as horseplay. [7] She repeatedly questioned plaintiff about whether she reported harassing incidents to supervisors while plaintiff continually testified that the supervisors were standing right next to her during the incidents. [8] When plaintiff testified that a coworker was snidely telling other employees to watch what they were saying or it would be labeled sexual harassment, defense counsel tried to characterize the coworker as being helpful by merely instructing other people about what is appropriate. Regarding an article about men and sperm left near plaintiff's soda can, defense counsel attempted to minimize the incident because the article was in a scientific magazine. Defense counsel questioned plaintiff about plaintiff's alleged failures to keep abreast of defendant's investigations. Defense counsel also repeatedly alluded to the fact that plaintiff knew who was harassing her, even though plaintiff repeatedly said she did not know for certain and she did not want to falsely accuse someone. Defense counsel argued, She [plaintiff] thought it was more important to protect whoever it was that was responsible. [9] Regarding plaintiff, defense counsel argued, There is absolutely nothing wrong with her. Consistent with the strategy that plaintiff was responsible for the continued mistreatment, defense counsel asked witnesses if plaintiff was a tomboy and she also questioned whether plaintiff had put herself in a position of being in a profession that has historically been dominated by me[n]. During closing argument, defense counsel brought up private incidents relating to plaintiff that occurred over twenty years ago, even though plaintiff did not begin working with defendant until 1992. She argued the only problem plaintiff's coworkers had with plaintiff related to her alcoholism. They never had a problem with Ms. Gilbert as a female. Defense counsel's theme was to blame the victim. This was demonstrated in a statement she made indicating that plaintiff's medical records also reflect that she has a tendency to blame everyone else for her problems, rather than look directly at her problems. The majority criticizes the conduct of plaintiff's counsel; however, a thorough review of the trial transcripts and lengthy closing argument finds sparse objections made by defense counsel and no impropriety justifying a new trial. Regarding statements made by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument, he first stated that plaintiff thanked the jury for allowing her to exercise her right as an American citizen to have her day in court. Plaintiff's theme during closing argument was that plaintiff had great fortitude to withstand the harassment. Plaintiff had repeatedly testified that she was not a quitter, she had every right to work at the plant, and she was not going to let them run her out. Plaintiff's counsel referenced the strength of those who were affected by the Holocaust. He also referenced Prometheus and Zeus, and stated that the myth of the eagle pecking at Prometheus's liver for all eternity reminded him of plaintiff's ordeal. He compared plaintiff to Rosa Parks and Arthur Ashe, as well as a dog that was kicked and abused every day. He even referred to plaintiff as a pioneer. When reviewing the closing argument in context, it is obvious that plaintiff's counsel was arguing that plaintiff was courageous and determined. Contrary to the majority's assertion, plaintiff's counsel was no more likening plaintiff to the Holocaust victims than he was likening her to a figure in Greek mythology being pecked by a bird. Plaintiff's counsel also appropriately stated that defendant should be judged just as any individual would be judged. And he stated that the jury could not punish defendant; it could only compensate plaintiff for the harm suffered. While plaintiff's counsel did refer to torture and beating plaintiff down, the jury heard weeks of testimony and was aware that no evidence of physical abuse was introduced. Defense counsel obviously did not think the phrases were inflammatory because there was no objection raised. To suggest, as the majority does, that the jury was somehow influenced or confused by these random phrases during closing arguments is insulting to the jurors' intelligence. The majority's blanket statements about plaintiff's counsel belie the truth of the record. Plaintiff's counsel no more played on the prejudices of the jury because defendant was a German company than he played on the prejudices of the jury because he hoped the jury liked dogs, tennis players, or well-known pioneers such as Lewis and Clark. While plaintiff's counsel's comments are highlighted by the majority, the references were miniscule in the context of the entire trial. The majority hopes that by merely stating that these references were naked appeals to entice the jury to consider its passions and prejudice, ante at 394, note 1, it can magically transform the events that occurred at trial. However, a review of the whole record reveals that the majority's approach misstates the events at trial. The majority states, Overreaching, prejudice-baiting rhetoric appears to be a calculated, routine feature of counsel's trial strategy. Ante at 406. I do not know if that statement is accurate. But what I do know is that it is not an accurate statement in this case. No matter what plaintiff's counsel's routine may be, this Court should focus only on the facts before us. An impartial review of those facts indicates the behavior of plaintiff's counsel does not warrant a new trial.