Vermett v. Hough

Decision Date29 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. G 82-55.,G 82-55.
PartiesElizabeth VERMETT, Plaintiff, v. HOUGH, Gerald L., Director of the Michigan Department of State Police; The Michigan Department of State Police; Morrison, Harold, Captain; Fries, James, Lt., Haydon, James, Lt.; Tomczyk, William, Lt.; Deon, Francisco, Lt.; Raczowski, Earl, Sgt.; Jefferson, Thomas, Sgt.; and all officers and employees of the Michigan Dept. of State Police; and Haire, David R., individually and as a Trooper in the Michigan Department of State Police, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marjorie B. Schaafsma, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jean L. King, Ann Arbor, Mich., for plaintiff.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. by Deborah Anne Devine, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants.

OPINION

ENSLEN, District Judge.

This case involves alleged sex based discrimination in employment; specifically, allegations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and constructive discharge brought by a former female State Trooper against the Michigan Department of State Police ("Department") and named officials and police officers. Plaintiff Elizabeth Vermett's Complaint, filed February 5, 1982, and amended September 13, 1983, is in seven counts and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. It states that it is brought to enforce civil and constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (M.C.L.A. § 37.2101 et seq). Counts sounding in retaliation, breach of contract, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were also included. Jurisdiction was purported to be based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), and this Court's pendent jurisdiction over state law claims. By Opinion and Judgment Order dated March 7, 1984, 606 F.Supp. 732, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint or for Summary Judgment was granted in part; denied in part. Plaintiff's claims under Title VII (including retaliation and constructive discharge) remain pending in this Court.

The issue of liability, having been severed from that of damages, was tried to the Court between October of 1984 and May of 1985. Presented as lay witnesses were Plaintiff Elizabeth Vermett; Defendant Lt. William Tomczyk, Post Commander at the Northville Post of the Michigan Department of State Police ("Northville") since 1974; Defendant Lt. James Haydon, Post Commander of the Sault Ste. Marie Post of the Michigan Department of State Police ("Sault") since 1975 (testified by deposition of May 26, 1983); Defendant Earl Raczkowski, assigned to Northville from May 1978 throughout Plaintiff's employment with the Department (testified by deposition of February 27, 1985); Defendant Sgt. Thomas Jefferson, assigned to Northville since 1979; Defendant David Haire, Trooper at Northville since 1978; Col. Ritchie Davis, Deputy Director of the Department's Bureau of Technical Services, formerly Captain and in charge of the Department's Personnel Division (from approximately mid-1978 to May 1981); Sgt. Michael Kanuth, Detective Sergeant at the Department's Ypsilanti Post, formerly Trooper at Northville from 1976 to 1982; Sgt. Gregory Aho, Sergeant at the Department's Detroit Freeway Post, Trooper at Northville from 1978 to 1982; William Fields, Trooper at Northville since 1978; Sgt. Harry Broadbent, assigned to Northville since 1978; and Sgt. Sandra Miller, assigned to the Department's Ypsilanti Post, formerly Trooper at Northville from 1978 to 1982. Expert witnesses included Donald Rossi, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Director of the Department's Behavioral Science Section and private practitioner in psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, psychological evaluations, and organizational consultations; Mark Hinshaw, M.D., private practitioner in psychiatry; Lynn W. Blunt, M.D., Clinical Director of the Ann Arbor Center for Forensic Psychology and a private practitioner in psychiatry (testified in the latter capacity); R. Kent Boesdorfer, Senior Consultant with Organizational Leadership, Inc., testifying as an expert in organizational change, including the integration of women and the behavioral issue of sexual harassment within the organization; and Hilda Patricia Curran, Director, Office of Women and Work for the Michigan Department of Labor, testifying as an expert in state government on the issue of sexual harassment. Numerous documents were admitted into evidence, including two journals (diaries) authored by Plaintiff, totalling nearly 500 pages.

In preparing this Opinion, and weighing the sharply contrasting lay and expert testimony, I have reviewed the entire record and considered the briefs submitted by the parties. Having done so, and having observed the witnesses, heard the evidence, read the exhibits presented at the time of trial, and made credibility determinations, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).1

I. GENERAL

Plaintiff Elizabeth Vermett ("Vermett") was born June 7, 1953. She spent approximately the first eighteen years of her life in Milan, Michigan, where she lived with her parents. She had no siblings. Vermett received an Associate's Degree in Criminal Justice from Washtenaw Community College in 1977. She has also earned credits at Michigan State University in criminal justice.

A. Recruit School

In 1978, Vermett attended and graduated from the 93rd Recruit School of the Michigan Department of State Police. Recruit School is, by all accounts, rigorous both physically and emotionally. Out of 75 male and 22 females admitted to the school, 53 males and 10 females graduated. Vermett's cumulative averages indicate she graduated 30th in the final 63 (above class average). Her Final Recruit Evaluation, completed approximately May 26, 1978, indicates Vermett was "strong" in academic ability, personality traits (although overly quiet at times), personal bearing and appearance, attitude and interest, and typing/printing/spelling ability. She was found "acceptable" in initiative and dependability, leadership potential, composure and control, relationship and cooperation with others, physical abilities/stamina/condition, driving ability, marksmanship ability, and water safety ability.2

B. Sault

Plaintiff took the oath of a State Police Trooper on May 26, 1978. On May 15, 1978, Plaintiff certified that she received a copy of the Michigan State Police Departmental Rules and Regulations, dated January 1, 1977. On February 21, 1978, she certified that she had been furnished with the Department of Civil Service Revised State Employer Relations Policy, dated March 1, 1977.

Plaintiff was assigned to the Sault as a probationary trooper. The Sault Post, located in the Upper Peninsula, was relatively small, with approximately nine troopers, four sergeants, one detective, and a post commander. Vermett was the first female trooper ever assigned to the Sault. She reported to the Post in late May 1978, and remained until her February 1979 discharge for unsatisfactory service during the probationary period.

The facts surrounding Vermett's employment at the Sault are disputed in many respects, including the extent of her training, whether she was properly assigned a senior (or training) officer, alleged discriminatory attitudes and conduct of the other troopers and command personnel toward her as a trooper and as a female, Vermett's work performance as a trooper, her alleged bad attitude, her alleged use of profanity, and her alleged failure to follow orders. Because of my conclusion on the timeliness issue, found later in this Opinion, it is unnecessary for me to resolve these disputes or to make a determination as to whether Vermett was subject to sex discrimination and/or sexual harassment at the Sault. Suffice to say that, for whatever reasons, Vermett's employment at the Sault was ultimately unsuccessful and psychologically damaging.

Following her discharge, Vermett on March 5, 1979 filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The particulars specified in support of her claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex included failure to assign one senior officer to assist and support Vermett in her early months on the Post, being treated and evaluated differently than male troopers at the Sault, and her discharge on February 6, 1979. After discussion between attorneys for Vermett and the Department, a Settlement Agreement was drafted. It stated that it was not an admission by the Department of a Title VII violation or a judgment by the EEOC on the merits of Vermett's charge, and provided, in exchange for an agreement by Vermett not to institute a lawsuit under Title VII based upon the EEOC charge, that she be reinstated as a confirmed (non-probationary) trooper at the Northville Post (with full seniority and benefits) effective May 14, 1979, that Vermett receive a monetary back pay award of $4,233.60, that any and all documents and entries relating to the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the EEOC charge (including performance evaluations, negative memos and all entries of the February 6, 1979 discharge) be eliminated from Vermett's employment records and personnel files, and that Vermett would not be penalized in any way in her future employment with the Department because of proceedings arising under the EEOC charge. The Settlement Agreement was signed by the Department on May 11, 1979, by Vermett on May 29, 1979, and by the EEOC on May 30, 1979.

C. Northville

Vermett was reinstated to Northville on May 14, 1979. The Northville Post, located west of Detroit, was substantially larger than the Sault. When Vermett was assigned there, she was one of over 80 troopers. She was the fifth female. The Post...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Com'n Against Discrimination
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1987
    ...Pac. Ry., 750 F.2d 703, 710 (8th Cir.1984) (acknowledging respondeat superior requirement articulated in Henson ); Vermett v. Hough, 627 F.Supp. 587, 606-607 (W.D.Mich.1986) (same). In a singular departure from this general rule the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in ......
  • Radtke v. Everett
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1993
    ...a violation of title VII. King, supra at 537; Del Valle Fontanez v. Aponte, 660 F.Supp. 145, 149 (D.P.R.1987); Vermett v. Hough, 627 F.Supp. 587, 605-606 (W.D.Mich.1986).41 This standard, however, does not establish strict liability for sexual assault by a co-worker or supervisor, because a......
  • Minevich v. Spectrum Health-Meier Heart Ctr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • March 6, 2014
    ...See Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980 (6th Cir.2000); Bowman v. Shawnee State Univ., 220 F.3d 456 (6th Cir.2000); Vermett v. Hough, 627 F.Supp. 587 (W.D.Mich.1986); Langlois v. McDonald's Rests. of Mich., 149 Mich.App. 309, 385 N.W.2d 778 (1986). Defendants also argue that because the sex......
  • Honce v. Vigil, 92-2074
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 2, 1993
    ..."the requirement for repeated exposure will vary inversely with the severity of the offensiveness of the incidents." Vermett v. Hough, 627 F.Supp. 587 (W.D.Mich.1986) (collecting cases). See also Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 n. 8 (11th The majority's review of the evidence su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination in Employment
    • July 27, 2016
    ...distress, medical and psychological information may be relevant to defenses related to the plaintiff’s character. In Vermett v. Hough, 627 F. Supp. 587 (W.D. Mich. for example, the court found for the employer in part because the plaintiff’s journal and the defendant’s psychiatric expert te......
  • Theories of liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases The substantive law
    • May 6, 2022
    ...proportionate to its “pervasiveness.” The less severe the conduct, the more pervasive it must be, and vice versa. See Vermett v. Hough , 627 F.Supp. 587, 606 (W.D. Mich. 1986) (“The requirement for repeated exposure will vary inversely with the severity of the o൵ensiveness of the incidents.......
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...distress, medical and psychological information may be relevant to defenses related to the plaintiff’s character. In Vermett v. Hough , 627 F. Supp. 587 (W.D. Mich. 1986), for example, the court found for the employer in part because the plaintiff’s journal and the defendant’s psychiatric e......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Solutions, L.L.C. v. TASC, Inc. , No. CIVASA05CA548-XR, 2006 WL 488396, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2006), §14:3.A Vermett v. Hough , 627 F. Supp. 587 (W.D. Mich. 1986), §20:8.C.2 Vernars v. Young , 539 F.2d 966 (3d Cir. 1976), §28:8.A Vetco Sales, Inc. v. Vinar , No. Civ. A. 3:02-CV-1767, 200......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT