Opinion ID: 848701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the sufficiency of plaintiff's claim under the cra

Text: We turn finally to defendant's claim that the trial court erred by admitting evidence regarding incidents of sexual harassment of which defendant was never properly notified. Defendant moved in limine to exclude incidents that plaintiff reported for the first time at her deposition. The court denied that motion, concluding that the jury could consider each incident in order to determine whether defendant had actual or constructive notice that plaintiff was subjected to a hostile environment. The Court of Appeals employed a similar logic in concluding that each incident was admissible. While the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to exclude those incidents, [67] this ruling has resulted in substantial confusion. We now clarify the legal justification for the trial court's decision in order to minimize confusion during retrial. Under the Civil Rights Act, an employer may be liable for an employee's sexual harassment when the employer has notice of the harassment and fails to take appropriate corrective action. [68] In Chambers, we held that notice of sexual harassment is adequate if, by an objective standard, the totality of the circumstances were such that a reasonable employer would have been aware of a substantial probability that sexual harassment was occurring. [69] When a plaintiff describes an incident of sexual harassment for the first time at her deposition, evidence pertaining to that incident may be admissible under two rationales. First, such evidence may be admissible in order to establish the nature and extent of the hostile environment to which plaintiff was subjected and the adequacy of defendant's response upon being notified about sexual harassment. Second, that evidence may be admissible under a constructive notice theory when a plaintiff contends that sexual harassment was so pervasive that her employer should have known of the need for corrective measures. [70] In this case, plaintiff gave actual notice to defendant through defendant's formal reporting procedures before initiating this lawsuit. Any incidents that she described for the first time at her deposition were admissible in order to establish an element of her hostile environment claim  that the unwelcome sexual conduct or communication was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee's employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment,  [71]  and to establish the inadequacy of defendant's response to that hostile environment. Therefore, the circuit court did not err by denying defendant's motion to exclude evidence of any incident that plaintiff described for the first time at her deposition.