Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


SUSAN BARNES SPINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MACSTEEL MICHIGAN and QUANEX CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2005

No. 263140 Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 03-005933-CZ

Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and O'Connell and Kelly, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendants in this action alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and unlawful retaliation under the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101. We affirm. Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in finding that her quid pro quo sexual harassment claim involving the conduct of her former supervisors, Jerry Williams and Tony Lopez, was time-barred and that the continuing violations doctrine was inapplicable. This Court reviews de novo whether a party's claim is time-barred. Bryant v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, 471 Mich 411, 436; 684 NW2d 864 (2004). Plaintiff filed her complaint on September 16, 2003. In support of her quid pro quo claim, she relied on conduct that allegedly began in 1996. The trial court concluded that evidence predating September 6, 2000, would be barred and that the continuing violations doctrine was inapplicable to her claim because even though Williams and Lopez may have visited plaintiff's work station after September 2000, "there's no indication from the Plaintiff that at any time there was any continued sexual harassment by them" and that the actions of Williams and Lopez in visiting plaintiff "were completely different incidents, are of a different nature . . ."1

1

Indeed, there is no dispute that neither Williams nor Lopez were plaintiff's supervisor during
(continued...)

-1-


An action under the CRA must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrued. MCL 500.5805(10). The continuing violations doctrine permitted recovery for incidents that occurred outside the applicable limitations period, if an individual asserts a series of allegedly discriminatory acts or statements that are so sufficiently related that they constitute a pattern of harassment or discrimination and at least one of the acts alleged occurred within the limitations period. Sumner v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 427 Mich 505, 538-539; 398 NW2d 368 (1986), overruled Garg v Macomb Co Comm Mental Health Services, 472 Mich 263; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). Nine days after the hearing on the cross-motions for summary disposition, but before plaintiff filed her appeal, our Supreme Court overruled its prior recognition of the continuing violations doctrine. Garg, supra at 283-284. Noting the absence of any language or "provision in Michigan law that even implicitly endorses the `continuing violations' doctrine," the Court ruled that the " `continuing violations' doctrine is contrary to Michigan law." Id. at 283. The Court specifically overruled Sumner and held that "a person must file a claim under the Civil Rights Act within three years of the date his or her cause of action accrues, as required by

Download SUSAN BARNES SPINK V MACSTEEL MICHIGAN.pdf

Michigan Law