Howard v. Canteen Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 120825 |
| Citation | 192 Mich.App. 427,481 N.W.2d 718 |
| Parties | , 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 979 Carol J. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CANTEEN CORPORATION and David Spender, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson by Janet M. Tooley, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Clark, Klein & Beaumont by P. Robert Brown, Jr., Dorothy M. Basmaji, Amy Bateson, Sheryl A. Moody, and Nancy J. Gordon, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.
Before MARK J. CAVANAGH, P.J., and NEFF and BEASLEY, * JJ.
In this gender-based discrimination case, defendants appeal as of right from a judgment entered on a jury verdict of approximately $300,000. They also claim that the trial court erred in denying their posttrial motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and remittitur. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiff, Carol Howard, began working at defendant Canteen's Cadillac 5 cafeteria as a shift supervisor in 1982. In September 1984, defendant David Spender was hired as manager of Cadillac 5. Plaintiff claims that Spender performed several acts and made several statements that constituted sexual harassment. Shortly before plaintiff left Canteen's employ, she had a meeting with Bernard Palko, manager of food services, and Spender regarding her complaints where Spender claimed that, rather than harassing, he was only complimenting plaintiff in the things he had said. Plaintiff believed that the two men were only trying to appease her and that she was not going to get anywhere with her complaint. Spender told plaintiff after the meeting that she would be terminated, removed, or reprimanded, and that he was going to make sure she was transferred out of Cadillac 5.
During plaintiff's last week of employment, Palko told her that she was being transferred to the Cadillac Main account, which was located in a dangerous neighborhood in Detroit and was a farther distance from her home. She protested the transfer, which was obviously undesirable for her, as being made only because Spender could not be controlled. She turned down the transfer because of the way it was handled, it would cause her financial hardship, she did not have reliable transportation to drive the farther distance, she would not be getting extra income, and her feelings regarding her safety. Palko told her that if she did not transfer, she would be considered terminated. Plaintiff did not return to work for Canteen.
In February 1986, plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and sexual discrimination as a result of defendants' failure to promote her, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination of her employment. These issues were thoroughly ventilated before the jury, and, after trial, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor on both the breach of contract and sex discrimination claims. 1 The trial court entered a judgment for $299,530, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. Defendants filed motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and remittitur, which were denied. Defendants appeal.
First, defendants claim the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the jury or to support the verdicts for sexual discrimination and breach of contract.
When deciding motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Relief is required where insufficient evidence is presented to create an issue for the jury. Conversely, relief is not required where reasonable minds could differ on issues of fact. We will not disturb the trial court's decision unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. 2
To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the plaintiff must show membership in a class protected under the Civil Rights Act 3 and that, for the same or similar conduct, the plaintiff was treated differently than a member of the opposite sex. If the defendant employer asserts legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, the plaintiff must then show that the reasons asserted were a mere pretext for discrimination. 4
With regard to plaintiff's claim of sexual discrimination regarding the failure to promote her to the Cadillac 5 manager position, for which she had requested consideration, defendants argue that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support her claim because Spender was more qualified for the position than she was. However, plaintiff presented evidence that she had supervisory experience before coming to work for Canteen in 1982, she had filled in for the manager at another location on numerous occasions, she had managed both shifts of the Cadillac 5 cafeteria for a few weeks before Spender was hired, and she had generally fulfilled all the job duties of a manager at some point in time. Additionally, she was told by Palko to try to assist and guide a previous manager because she had more experience. Viewing this and the other evidence of discrimination in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a jury question was raised regarding whether plaintiff had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful conduct and that sex discrimination played a significant role in the decision to deny plaintiff the promotion. 5
With regard to plaintiff's claim of sexual harassment, defendants argue that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish either quid pro quo sexual harassment or sexual harassment that results from a hostile or offensive work environment. 6 However, the jury heard testimony that Spender would inquire into plaintiff's personal life, asking why she was divorced and how she could get a younger man like Michael Hobson, her live-in boyfriend who also worked on her shift at Cadillac 5; that Spender asked if plaintiff paid Hobson for his sexual favors, how she could keep up with a younger man, and why she was not more sociable with a man of Spender's age; and that Spender also told plaintiff that if it were not for Hobson, he and plaintiff would be "closer" and they would have a better "working relationship."
Additionally, the jury heard testimony that Spender would open, read, and throw away plaintiff's mail, would go through her purse, and had grabbed a personal check out of her hand, and that he told plaintiff that women should not work out in public, that she was too aggressive, and that she was wasting her time because the company did not promote women to upper management positions, but rather would stick them in lower management positions just to keep various women's groups happy. The jury also heard testimony that Spender told plaintiff she was not going to go anywhere unless she cooperated and that Spender was responsible for food shortage problems that occurred two or three times a week. This evidence, if accepted by the jury, was sufficient to show, at least, sexual harassment resulting from a hostile or offensive work environment. 7
Regarding plaintiff's claim of sexual discrimination concerning retaliation, defendants argue that there was nothing of an actionable nature to retaliate against, that there was no evidence of retaliation, and that plaintiff's claim of retaliation based on her transfer to Cadillac Main was pure speculation. However, plaintiff testified that, after the meeting between Palko, Spender, and herself, Spender told her she would be terminated, removed, or reprimanded and that Spender would make sure plaintiff was moved out of his account. Soon afterward, plaintiff was told she must transfer to what was for her a much less desirable situation. Further, when plaintiff refused to transfer, Canteen hired a person "off the street" to fill the position, which tends to render quite unbelievable defendants' claim that this was a promotion or growing experience for plaintiff. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there was ample evidence for the jury to reasonably find that the elements of plaintiff's retaliation claim were proved. 8
With regard to plaintiff's claim of sexual discrimination concerning her discharge, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. Plaintiff was terminated immediately after she refused the transfer to Cadillac Main. She presented evidence that, in the context of this case, working conditions there were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in her shoes would have felt compelled to resign and that such action was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Canteen's conduct. As indicated, there was evidence that plaintiff's employment situation had been made intolerable by discrimination and sexual harassment and that her employment situation was further aggravated by a transfer to an undesirable location. 9
Defendants also argue that there was insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's claim of breach of contract. However, plaintiff testified that Palko had told plaintiff that as long as she was familiar with the company's policies, followed those policies, and did her job well, she would have a future with Canteen. Such verbal statements can give rise to a contract that an employee will be discharged only for just cause. 10 In addition, Palko testified that it was Canteen's policy not to terminate employees without a fair reason or just cause. Thus, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support her claim for breach of contract.
Viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Civil Rights ex rel. Johnson v. Silver Dollar Cafe
...remedy discriminatory wrongs").28 Precopio v. Detroit, 415 Mich. 457, 464-465, 330 N.W.2d 802 (1982). But see Howard v. Canteen Corp., 192 Mich.App. 427, 436, 481 N.W.2d 718 (1991) (Evidence to support a $200,000 award for mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional distress was "found in th......
-
Anzaldua v. Band
...665, 667 (E.D.Mich., 1981). See, for example, Matras v. Amoco Oil Co., 424 Mich. 675, 385 N.W.2d 586 (1986); Howard v. Canteen Corp., 192 Mich.App. 427, 481 N.W.2d 718 (1992).18 Id. at 346, 55 N.W.2d 859. Const. 1908, art. 2, § 13 provided: "The right of trial by jury shall remain...."19 Th......
-
Price v. High Pointe Oil Co.
...that his relationships with his wife and friends suffered” as a result of the discrimination. Id. In Howard v. Canteen Corp., 192 Mich.App. 427, 429, 435–436, 481 N.W.2d 718 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Rafferty v. Markovitz, 461 Mich. 265, 602 N.W.2d 367 (1999), this Court affirme......
-
Phinney v. Perlmutter
...to the actual conduct of the trial or to the evidence adduced. Palenkas, supra, at p. 532, 443 N.W.2d 354; Howard v. Canteen Corp., 192 Mich.App. 427, 436, 481 N.W.2d 718 (1991). Here, Perlmutter's argument concerning the behavior of the jury after the trial does not concern the conduct of ......