Jones v. FCA U.S. LLC
Docket Number | SC 167365,COA 365920 |
Decision Date | 24 January 2025 |
Parties | RANDY JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCA U.S. LLC, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Macomb CC: 2022-000157-CD
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra Richard H Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas, Justices
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I concur with the majority's order denying leave to appeal but write separately because I disagree with the Court of Appeals' holding that a supervisor twice using the n-word against an employee is insufficient to establish a prima facie claim of a racially hostile work environment. However, I agree with the Court of Appeals that plaintiff's claim is precluded because the employer did not have actual or constructive notice of plaintiff's allegations. See Chambers v Trettco, Inc, 463 Mich. 297, 318-319 (2000); Sheridan v Forest Hills Pub Sch, 247 Mich.App. 611, 621 (2001).
Plaintiff filed this suit against defendant, his employer, alleging that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment and retaliation both in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. Plaintiff, who is Black, alleged that his direct supervisor, Jeff Beyst, who is white, was responsible for creating the racially hostile work environment. The core of plaintiff's claim is that Beyst regularly called plaintiff the n-word. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that Beyst said to plaintiff on two occasions, "I got you, n****r." One of these instances occurred during a heated dispute between the two. Plaintiff alleges that he filed several harassment complaints against Beyst with Human Resources (HR), but that HR took no remedial action.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant's motion for summary disposition as to his claim of a racially hostile work environment. In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals reasoned in an unpublished opinion that the supervisor's use of the n-word only twice was insufficient to show that the supervisor's actions substantially interfered with plaintiff's employment.[1] Although I believe that the panel reached the correct outcome, I disagree that the use of the n-word by a supervisor, standing alone, can never be sufficient to constitute a racially hostile work environment.
To prevail on his claim, plaintiff must demonstrate that he experienced unwelcome conduct or communication related to his protected status and that the unwelcome conduct "was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with [his] employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment[.]" Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich. 368, 382 (1993) (emphasis added). Importantly, a prima facie case requires conduct that either (1) substantially interferes with employment or (2) has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile work environment. Id. at 385, 394. While both tests consider the perspective of "a reasonable person, in the totality of circumstances," id. at 394, they are discrete alternative ways to prevail in an ELCRA claim. The Court of Appeals erred by engrafting the requirement that plaintiff show substantial interference with employment where his claim was based on a hostile work environment-the crux of plaintiff's theory is that the repeated use of a racial slur by his supervisor created a hostile work environment.
While Michigan courts have not specifically addressed the isolated use of the n-word by a supervisor in the context of examining an ELCRA claim, this Court "has encouraged using as guidance federal precedent interpreting Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, the statute on which the ELCRA was based." Rouch World, LLC v Dep't of Civil Rights, 510 Mich. 398, 411 (2022). Under Title VII, federal courts have consistently held that the use of the n-word-even just once-can create a hostile work environment. "Far more than a 'mere offensive utterance,' [the n-word] is pure anathema to African-Americans." Spriggs v Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 185 (CA 4, 2001). Numerous federal circuits have observed that" 'no single act can more quickly "alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment" than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as [the n-word] by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.'" Woods v Cantrell, 29 F4th 284, 285 (CA 5, 2022) (collecting cases), quoting Rodgers v Western-Southern Life Ins Co, 12 F.3d 668, 675 (CA 7, 1993), in turn quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986). "The N-word carries with it, not just the stab of present insult, but the stinging barbs of history, which catch and tear at the psyche the way thorns tear at the skin." Bailey v San Francisco Dist Attorney's Office, 16 Cal 5th 611, 631 (2024) ( ).
These authorities offer persuasive analysis suggesting that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in determining that "such limited usage of the offensive term" by plaintiff's supervisor was insufficient to substantiate his claims of a racially hostile work environment under ELCRA. Jones v FCA U.S. LLC, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 13, 2024 (Docket No. 365920), p 4. In keeping with these persuasive cases, I would hold that a direct supervisor using a racial epithet against an employee- even...
To continue reading
Request your trial