Opinion ID: 848578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiff can bring a claim against defendant for negligent retention

Text: M.C.L. § 37.2803 states that the CRA shall not be construed to diminish the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of this state. When a statute provides a remedy for enforcement of a common-law right, it is cumulative and not exclusive. Pompey v. Gen. Motors Corp., 385 Mich. 537, 552-553, 189 N.W.2d 243 (1971). The passage of the CRA did not abolish plaintiff's right to bring a negligent retention claim against defendant. As stated by plaintiff's counsel during oral argument, Bennett's conduct, while indeed sexual harassment, was also classic assault and battery, [a] common law tort. Plaintiff's complaint also alleged that Bennett posed a known danger to women and sexually assaulted plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim that Bennett grabbed her and tried to put his tongue in her mouth, as well as Maldonado's claims that Bennett assaulted her and exposed himself to her and Elezovic's claims that Bennett assaulted her, certainly qualify as assaultive behavior. See, e.g., Radtke, supra at 395, 501 N.W.2d 155 (sexual assault can be sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment). Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that defendant was aware of Bennett's propensity to sexually harass and assault women and that defendant negligently retained Bennett in light of this information. See Hersh v. Kentfield Builders, Inc., 385 Mich. 410, 412, 415, 189 N.W.2d 286 (1971). Accordingly, I believe that plaintiff can present a claim for common-law negligent retention to a jury, and the jury should decide whether defendant acted reasonably.