Opinion ID: 2211646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prima Facie Requirements for Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claims

Text: The MCRA specifically includes sexual harassment as a form of discrimination because of sex. MCL 37.2103(i); MSA 3.548(103)(i). Sexual harassment is defined as: (i) ... unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical contact 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. MCL 37.2103(i); and (ii); MSA 3.548(103)(i) and (ii) present two separate theories under which a party may make out a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment. Champion, supra at 708, 545 N.W.2d 596. In Champion, we summarized the elements that a plaintiff must establish under M.C.L. § 37.2103(i)(ii); MSA 3.548(103)(i)(ii): (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. See also Kaufman v. Allied Signal, Inc., 970 F.2d 178 (C.A.6, 1992). [ Champion, supra at 708-709, 545 N.W.2d 596.] Champion also adopted the nearly unanimous view that imposes close to strict liability for such harassment committed by supervisory personnel. Id. at 712, 545 N.W.2d 596. This rule is based on the responsibility of an employer to remedy the harm caused by a supervisor's unlawful exercise of authority delegated by the employer. Id.