Court Opinion

ID: 9684245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:51:50.380645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.272609
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). Defendant Cross and Peters Company’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) did not “specifically identify the issues as to which” it asserted there was no genuine issue of material fact,1 and, indeed, the motion was not based on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact under subrule (C)(10). Plaintiff Elena Quinto thus was not obliged under MCR 2.116(G)(4) to file an affidavit setting forth specific facts showing there was a genuine issue for trial. Quinto could properly rest on the allegations in her amended complaint without further elaboration or affidavit because a (C)(10) motion had not been filed, and defendant’s unsworn brief did not constitute an amended or supplemental motion.
Today’s decision, ruling for Cross and Peters under (C)(10), encourages sloppy practice by defendants, *373and by the circuit court in ruling on (C)(10) motions, and denied Quinto an opportunity to be heard.
i
Quinto, an elderly woman of Italian descent who speaks only broken English, worked for eighteen years for Cross and Peters, the last four as a potato chip inspector.2 She alleges that during those four years, she was demeaned and humiliated by her supervisor John Kujawski. Quinto alleges that Kujawski made a variety of offensive remarks, mostly about her age, national origin, sex, and ability to speak English.3
The culmination of Quinto’s problems at Cross and Peters occurred on August 5, 1988, when, Quinto alleges, she and a co-worker argued, and the coworker uttered an obscenity and exposed her buttocks to Quinto. Upset, Quinto reported the incident to senior management. Soon after, Kujawski came over to Quinto’s work station to ask what was going on. Quinto alleges that as Kujawski spoke, he pushed her, causing her to fall and injure herself. This assertion is disputed by other co-workers who said that Quinto was not pushed, but feigned a faint when touched. These witnesses stated that Kujawski actually caught Quinto as she fell.
*374The day of this incident was Quinto’s last day at work. Quinto filed worker’s compensation and social security benefits claims. These were followed by a short, voluntary stay, from December 12, 1988 until January 16, 1989, in the Psychiatric Center of Michigan where she was diagnosed as suffering from “atypical depression with hypochondriasis and somatization disorder.” Quinto claims that this stay was necessitated by her traumatic experiences at work.
In August, 1990, Quinto filed this action against Cross and Peters and Kujawski, seeking damages for her physical injuries resulting from the alleged battery, as well as for psychological injuries caused by Cross and Peters’ discriminatory treatment respecting age, sex, and national origin. Kujawski subsequently died, and Quinto dismissed the action against him.
Cross and Peters moved for summary disposition of both the assault and battery and discrimination claims. The motion was granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted leave to appeal limited to whether summary disposition was proper with regard to Quinto’s Civil Rights Act discrimination claim.
n
This Court has recognized civil rights causes of action for two types of discrimination. A “disparate treatment” claim alleges that the victim was denied some privilege of employment given to others because of a particular trait (skin color, gender, or ethnic background). Betty v Brooks & Perkins, 446 Mich 270, 281; 521 NW2d 518 (1994). The second claim, the one alleged by Quinto, may be maintained when the employer creates a “hostile work environ*375ment.” Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368; 501 NW2d 155 (1993).
Quinto alleged in her complaint and subsequent affidavit a hostile work environment on the basis of two occurrences. First, that Kujawski, motivated by discriminatory animus, pushed her down, causing her to suffer emotional and physical injuries. Second, Quinto claims that he “demeaned and humiliated” her during her employment at Cross and Peters with repeated comments regarding her age, sex, and national origin.
A
Cross and Peters took what can be charitably described as an unorthodox path to the ultimate summary disposition on the merits under subrule (C)(10). Cross and Peters alleged that Quinto could not recover on the civil rights claim because of the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. Cross and Peters made no mention of the merits or the factual sufficiency of Quinto’s complaint.
After Quinto responded to Cross and Peters’ motion with a brief in opposition, Cross and Peters filed, on October 8, 1991, three weeks before oral argument in the circuit court, a reply brief to Quinto’s response. This second brief went into greater depth than Cross and Peters’ first brief, and adverted to the factual allegations of discrimination made in Quinto’s complaint. While this brief did not explicitly so state, Cross and Peters asserted, during oral argument in this Court, that this unsworn reply brief served as a new motion for summary disposition, Cross and Peters having withdrawn its original motion. A few *376days before oral argument, on October 29, 1991, Quinto filed a second response, which focused on the exclusive remedy and intentional tort issues.
Oral argument on the summary disposition motion was then held two days later on November 1, 1991. The hearing dealt almost exclusively with the issue originally raised by Cross and Peters, whether, because of the exclusive remedy provision of the worker’s compensation act, the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Quinto’s claims. The factual context (pushing/fainting) was adverted to but not discussed, except superficially; there was no discussion of Quinto’s claim of offensive remarks concerning sex, age, and national origin.
Nevertheless, although Cross and Peters’ motion for summary disposition did not address the sufficiency of Quinto’s factual allegations, and the hearing focused on the exclusive remedy and intentional tort issues, the circuit court concluded in a written opinion that summary disposition under subrule (C)(10) was proper on the merits of the age, sex, and national origin claims.
The circuit court’s opinion finding Quinto’s allegations insufficient for want of factual support ignored that MCR 2.116(G)(4) requires Cross and Peters to file, before summary disposition may be granted, a motion “specifically identifying] the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Additionally, MCR 2.116(G)(3) requires Cross and Peters’ motion to be supported by “[affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence in support of the grounds asserted . . . .” Cross and Peters failed to satisfy either of these requirements.
*377B
Putting aside the procedural irregularities in this case, summary disposition was improvidently granted because if one accepts all the facts alleged by Quinto as true, as MCR 2.116(C)(10) mandates, a genuine issue remains.
The depositions focused almost exclusively on Quinto’s allegation that her supervisor pushed her. There was no focus on Quinto’s allegation that she was verbally harassed.
The circuit court erred in relying on the deposition testimony concerning the pushing/fainting incident. Quinto’s account of factual events must be accepted as true. It is not the function of the circuit judge to weigh credibility.4
The United States Supreme Court stated in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477 US 57, 65; 106 S Ct 2399; 91 L Ed 2d 49 (1986), that “Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.”5 Thus it appears that while, as the circuit court noted, one or two incidences of name-calling may not be actionable, insults that amount to ridicule and that cause intimidation are. Because in this case, without the benefit of trial testimony, it is impossible to determine whether Quinto’s allegations fall into the *378first or second category, summary disposition was inappropriate.
This Court, in Radtke v Everett, supra at 394, stated that “whether a hostile work environment exist[s] shall be determined by whether a reasonable person, in the totality of circumstances, would have perceived the conduct at issue as substantially interfering with [Quinto’s] employment or having the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment environment.” (Emphasis added.)6 Because of the procedural deficiencies, it is difficult to grasp some of the circumstances involved, much less the totality of them.
Quinto was not required to show before trial to any degree of certainty that her claim would ultimately be successful. Rather, “the test is ‘whether the kind of record which might be developed, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, would leave open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.’ ” Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 162; 516 NW2d 475 (1994) (emphasis added). Although worded without complete specificity, her complaint and affidavits clearly meet this threshold.
Summary disposition may not be granted “where the credibility of a witness or deponent is crucial.” Crossley v Allstate Ins Co, 139 Mich App 464, 468; 362 *379NW2d 760 (1984), citing Arber v Stahlin, 382 Mich 300; 170 NW2d 45 (1969), and Brown v Pointer, 390 Mich 346; 212 NW2d 201 (1973).
in
While a workplace environment characterized by sexual harassment by a supervisor of an employee is clearly intolerable, federal courts have also recognized that harassing behavior is similarly unacceptable when based on ethnicity,7 age,8 and gender.9 Because this is consistent with the goals of the Civil Rights Act, this Court should adopt the approach of these federal cases.
IV
I turn to a consideration of the majority opinion.
In affirming the summary disposition of Quinto’s hostile work environment claim on the basis that she failed to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact, the majority ignores Cross and Peters’ failure to properly put in issue whether there is a genuine issue of material fact.10
A
Cross and Peters’ motion for summary disposition and brief in support argued that Quinto’s “sole and exclusive remedy in this matter is recourse to the *380Department of Labor by way of a worker’s compensation claim.” In neither the motion nor the brief did Cross and Peters challenge the pleading or factual sufficiency of Quinto’s hostile work environment claim.
Indeed, the brief in support acknowledged that “the fact of the allegations [of a hostile working environment and of supervisor Kujawski’s pushing Quinto from the rear causing her to fall] and the denial are irrelevant in light of this Motion.” (Emphasis added.)
B
The majority asserts:
Although the main thrust of defendant’s initial motion was the exclusive remedy issue, defendant also briefly addressed the hostile work environment claim[11] [Emphasis added.]
There are three inaccuracies in the foregoing statement:
• There was not a “main” and a secondary or lesser thrust; the only thrust of defendants’ motion was the exclusive remedy issue;
• There was not an “initial” motion and a subsequent motion; there was only one motion;
• The motion did not briefly or otherwise address the hostile work environment claim;12 it addressed only the exclusive remedy issue.
*381C
The majority states that Cross and Peters’ reply brief, filed October 8, 1991 — three weeks before oral argument, over eight months after Quinto’s response and brief had been filed — “asserted that plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts to support allegations of discriminatory treatment. It referenced exhibits, attached deposition testimony and other evidence that [Cross and Peters contends] ‘refutes Plaintiff’s claims of alleged discrimination by Defendant Kujawski resulting in the creation of a hostile working environment. Plaintiff has come forth with no evidence to establish a genuine issue of factual dispute; therefore, Defendant’s motion for Summary Disposition should be granted.’ ”13
The foregoing assertions in Cross and Peters’ reply brief are what its counsel, during oral argument in this Court, characterized as a new motion for summaiy disposition, and then represented to this Court that the “original” motion for summary disposition had been withdrawn.
*382No affidavit of either Cross and Peters’ counsel, Kujawski, or any officer of Cross and Peters was attached to this reply brief, claimed to have constituted a new motion for summary disposition.
The “attached deposition testimony” focused on the pushing/fainting incident and did not otherwise concern Quinto’s age, sex, and national origin, hostile work environment claim. This is understandable because the depositions were taken by Quinto’s lawyer, not Cross and Peters’ lawyer.
The questions posed by Quinto’s lawyer appear to have been designed to provide him with background information about Quinto’s last day of work and the potato chip factory and its management system, layout, and employees. The questions focused predominantly on either the pushing/fainting incident or the general work conditions and personnel dynamics in the plant.
Senoia Waters, the co-worker on the potato chip inspection line with Quinto who argued with her, touching off the pushing/fainting incident, testified in response to questions about the events leading up to and after the incident. She was asked a few general questions about how supervisor Kujawski treated employees, and whether he was easy to get along with, but nothing about discriminatory name-calling.
Warner Scott, another co-worker was asked questions similar to those asked Waters concerning what happened on Quinto’s last day of work. Like Waters, Scott was asked whether Kujawski was “tough” or “antagonistic” with Quinto.
Rene Meservey, a machine repairman who had also observed the incident, was the only witness asked directly if there was any prejudice at work. He stated *383that only a couple of persons at the company would “cut [someone] down because of their race.” He was not asked who those persons were, nor did he volunteer this information.
Plant manager George Orris testified that he did not observe the incident. He was not asked any questions about Kujawski’s general demeanor or specific conduct toward Quinto, other than how Kujawski responded when Quinto “fainted.” He said, however, that Kujawski had had “problems” with Quinto in the past.
Robert Marracino testified briefly, and was not asked any questions about Quinto’s and Kujawski’s relationship.
D
The majority acknowledges the “procedural peculiarities” of Cross and Peters’ so-called new motion for summary disposition,14 but nevertheless concludes that Quinto was “on notice of the need to respond to the (C)(10) motion” with regard to her hostile work environment claim, and even asserts that the “new” motion, which was never filed, was not “prematurely filed.”15
*384Manifestly, nothing in the deposition testimony concerning the pushing/fainting incident or in Cross and Peters’ unsworn reply brief, inaccurately characterized as a “new motion” for summary disposition, put Quinto on notice that she was obliged to come forward with evidence in support of her allegation of a hostile work environment based on remarks concerning her age, national origin, sex, and ability to speak English.
Surely, the moving party, Cross and Peters, cannot demand that the other party, Quinto, come forward with evidence absent the moving party first offering some (any) evidence negating Quinto’s claims concerning remarks about her age, national origin, sex, and ability to speak English. There is nothing in the depositions regarding Quinto’s claims in that regard.
E
At oral argument in the circuit court on November 1, 1991, Cross and Peters’ counsel argued first that this case is controlled by the exclusive remedy provision.16 He said there was no question of fact, depositions had been taken, and “all of the eye witnesses said exactly the same thing” — the supervisor “did not push her.” Cross and Peters’ lawyer argued that there is “no question of fact remaining” because “[everybody said exactly the same thing . . . .” He concluded with the observation that there was no actionable intentional tort because to recover for *385intentional tort there has to be a “specific intent that the injury alleged occurred; that just isn’t here.”
He then turned for the first time to speak of the “second matter that’s addressed in both of the briefs,” the civil-rights-type action, and argued that “all through the discovery there were no indications at all that this woman was discriminated against.” The lawyer argued in support only that all the employees were women, that seventy percent were over the age of forty, and that the owners of the defendant are Italian.17
*386The depositions had, as previously observed, focused almost entirely on the pushing/fainting incident on the last day of Quinto’s employment.
Quinto was not deposed. This is not a case in which the plaintiff, Quinto, made concessions on deposition that arguably permit framing an issue of law on the basis of Quinto’s admissions.
F
The circuit court, as well as Quinto, was not on notice that this case was about to be decided on the basis of the merits of the age, sex, and national origin allegations. The court did not have a clue that the real issue in the case — the issue regarding which this Court granted leave to appeal — was whether summary disposition should be granted with respect to Quinto’s claim that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment by remarks concerning sex, age, and national origin.
The court said that Cross and Peters’ lawyer was arguing that there was “no assault and battery, based upon the proofs or the discovery.” (Emphasis added.) Quinto’s lawyer responded that Cross and Peters’ lawyer “did not deem it important to take the deposition testimony of [Quinto] who will, in fact, testify that she was pushed.” The court responded “Oh, I’m sure she will. You said it in your complaint and I am sure she will testify to that. What he is saying is that nobody else will. Is that correct?” Quinto’s lawyer *387responded that that created a disputed question of fact.18
The court then responded, irrelevantly, “Okay, and when you redeem your [worker’s compensation] case . . . are you getting it for the damages done to her when she was pushed?” Then from the court, “What you really have to prove is that there was an intentional tort, right?” And then the court said that any damages for intentional tort that are obtained in compensation cannot be duplicated in this court. Quinto’s lawyer agreed, and the judge said they were all agreed and inquired when the worker’s compensation case would be concluded.
After all these irrelevancies were concluded, the court talked about scheduling and, again, redemption of the worker’s compensation claim. The court said that it did not think Quinto could keep Cross and Peters in the case even if she might be able to keep Kujawski. The court said that it planned on issuing a written opinion. Quinto’s lawyer inquired whether the court was interested in additional briefing on the issue of keeping Cross and Peters in, to which the judge responded affirmatively.
Cross and Peters’ lawyer asked the court whether it wanted the full transcripts of the depositions to which the judge said, “I don’t think so.” “Only the part that deals with this,” adding what she meant by this: “If you’ve got anything to indicate that there was an intentional tort, you produce it, okay?” (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that the judge was thinking about dismissing the case because there was no evidence of intentional tort. At no point did she discuss harass-*388merit or Quinto’s civil rights claim. She did not think that Quinto was going to be able to show intentional tort, and that she should not be allowed to recover double damages by redeeming the worker’s compensation claim and maintaining a circuit court action for the same loss.
I conclude that neither the circuit court nor Quinto were “on notice of the need to respond to the (C)(10) motion with regard to”19 the age, sex, national origin, hostile work environment claim.
I recognize that the judge wrote an opinion dismissing the hostile work environment claim. That portion of the opinion is not based on anything set forth in Cross and Peters’ briefs or argued orally at the hearing. The court simply decided to dismiss the case, and did so, and probably was unaware of the grossly inadequate procedural posture of the case.
G
The majority references statements in Quinto’s briefs, and contends that they indicate that she was on notice of the need to put forth evidence concerning her hostile work environment claim.
Quinto filed a short brief after oral argument that focused entirely on the pushing/fainting incident and the testimony of the witnesses in that regard. The brief did not otherwise advert to or argue the hostile work environment claim. Read in the context of that brief, Quinto’s affidavit attached to the brief was not submitted in support of the hostile work environment claim, but rather the assault and battery claim.20
*389v
The Court of Appeals should be reversed, and the case remanded for trial.
Weaver, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 MCR 2.116(G)(4) provides:
A motion under subrule (C)(10) must specifically identify the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. When a motion under subrule (C)(10) is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse parly may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading, but must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him or her. [Emphasis added.]

 Cross and Peters makes Better Made Potato Chips.

 Quinto alleged in an affidavit that accompanied her motion for reconsideration that Kryawski called her a “dumb Dago,” an “old lady,” and “granny.” She stated that he also told her that she was “coo-coo,” “stupid,” and “incompetent” apparently because she was unable to understand some English at times.
Quinto also asserts that Kujawski threw boxes at her, would not allow her to go to the restroom, and kept others from helping her when her machine malfunctioned.

 See Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1, 26; 398 NW2d 882 (1986); Boutros v Canton Regional Transit Authority, 997 F2d 198 (CA 6, 1993).

 Although title VH is not controlling in this case, federal precedent is considered persuasive in cases brought under the Civil Rights Act. See Radtke v Everett, supra, pp 381-382; Clark v Uniroyal Corp, 119 Mich App 820, 824; 327 NW2d 372 (1982).

 In Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc, 510 US 17, 23; 114 S Ct 367; 126 L Ed 2d 295 (1993), the Court stated:
[WJhether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.

 See Boutros v Canton Regional Transit Authority, n 4 supra, reversing a directed verdict against an employee where the employee alleged a hostile work environment based on national origin discrimination as a result of his co-workers’ repeated derogatory name-calling.

 See Elias v Sitomer, 1992 US Dist LEXIS 18627 at *14 (SD NY).

 See Gross v Burggraf Construction Co, 53 F3d 1531, 1539 (CA 10, 1995), recognizing that a hostile work environment cause of action will he when an employee is subjected to extreme, gender-based name-calling.

 MCR 2.116(C)(10).

 Ante, p 363.

 The motion for summary disposition, except for the opening and closing paragraphs, in its entirety reads as follows:
1. That on or about August 2, 1990, the Plaintiff herein, Elaina [sic] Quinto, did bring this action before the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging in Count I a battery having been perpetrated against *381by Defendant John GreosH [sic], which was the proximate cause of damages described in the Complaint (See paragraphs 15 and 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint).
2. In Count n, the Plaintiff herein did allege injuries as set forth in paragraph 12 of her Complaint as having been caused by a hostile work environment created by the Defendants.
3. That in fact on or about November 2, 1988, the Plaintiff herein, Elaina Quinto, did cause to be filed with the Michigan Department of Labor a worker’s compensation claim alleging the same incident and claiming the same injury.
4. That, to the best of the knowledge of your undersigned, said worker’s compensation claim is still pending.
5. That in fact the Plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy in this matter is recourse to the Department of Labor by way of a worker’s compensation claim.

 Ante, pp 363-366.

 The majority states:
Whatever the procedural peculiarities of the prior pleading and responses, it is clear that at the time of hearing on November 1, 1991, the parties knew that the civil rights claim was in issue. [Ante, p 366.]

 The majority asserts:
There is no serious claim that plaintiff was not on notice of the need to respond to the (C)(10) motion with regard to count n or that the motion was prematurely filed or prematurely granted. Despite plaintiff’s burden to respond with “specific facts showing *384that there is a genuine issue for trial,” MCR 2.116(G)(4), plaintiff responded with conclusory allegations. [Ante, p 370.]

 He argued that the plaintiff “[a]t the same time” of filing her circuit court action had filed worker’s compensation claims “alleging exactly the same incident” and “exactly the same injuries.”

 The gender, age, and ethnic makeup of the persons involved are relevant in a disparate treatment claim, but largely irrelevant in a case where, as here, hostile work environment is alleged.
Cross and Peters’ counsel argued:
From a factual standpoint the allegation is made that the plaintiff was discriminated against as a result of her sex, her national origin, her age.
Again, deposition testimony was taken and from the deposition testimony it’s quite clear that we cannot have sexual discrimination because all of the employees that were supervised by this supervisor were women.
So, there were no men that could have been treated differently from this women [sic].
Secondly, approximately seventy percent of the employees were over the age of forty years old.
So, she was clearly not discriminated against as a result of her age.
And third, that she was discriminated against because of her national origin. I would only indicate, first of all, to the Court that Cross and Peters stands for Cross Moceri and Peter Cipriano, who are the two Italian gentlemen that founded this country (sic); their children are still in charge of this country (sic). This is an Italian family business.
There is no — all through the discovery there were no indications at all that this woman was discriminated against. As a matter of fact, just the opposite was testified to by all of the witnesses.
The other employees testified that this particular supervisor— while not a supervisor for four years as is alleged in the complaint but a supervisor for only one year — was fair, treated everybody exactly the same, was not a hostile person, did not aggravate any*386body; and that, In fact, in this particular incident was attempting to calm Mrs. Quinto down.
The reason given by all of the employees for her hysteria was that it had been a hot day and that’s just the way it is.
So, the discovery shows that there was no discrimination.

 See pp 378-379, the text immediately preceding part III.

 Ante, p 370.

 Her affidavit, in relevant part, reads:
3. I had been employed by Defendant, Cross & Peters, for approximately eighteen (18) years.
4. My last date of employment was August 5, 1988.
*3895. That on that date, my supervisor, John Kiyawski, was the assistant plant manager.
6. That on that date, a co-worker began to argue with me.
7. That my supervisor, John KryawsM, approached me from the rear and in a demeaning manner asked me what had happened.
8. My supervisor, John Knjawski, intentionally pushed me, causing me to fall.
9. Prior to this incident my supervisor, John Kru'awski, had continually harassed me by demeaning and humiliating me in front of fellow employees.
10. His conduct included comments regarding my age, my sex, my national origin and my ability to speak English.
11. That all of these incidents took place while I was at work.
12. That I reported these incidents to my superiors at work.
13. As a result of Mr. Kpjawsld’s conduct and actions, as my supervisor, I have suffered emotional and psychological injury which resulted in my being hospitalized at the Psychiatric Center of Michigan Hospital.