Resources, Forms, & Checklists

 

Sexual Harassment Quiz: An interactive quiz designed to be completed after reading The Catholic University of   America's Sexual Harassment brochure.

 

The following web page is a source of information on the latest legislation and case law on transgender issues, including university-related issues: www.transgenderlaw.org

 

Case law on harassment that does not involve application of federal law

Johnson v. University of Michigan Regents, et al. 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 3363 (Dec. 14, 2004)

This is a sexual harassment case involving the Michigan Civil Rights Act. In this unpublished opinion,  the Court of Appeals of Michigan set forth its reasons for overturning a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $304, 927. The plaintiff, a music student at the University of Michigan, had alleged a hostile environment existed at the Music School due to the harassment by a conductor employed by the School. When the University received the initial complaint by the student, the school gave the Professor a strong verbal warning, monitored his behavior, and threated him with non-renewal. The conductor's contract was not renewed, and no further harassment occurred. The Appeals Court found the University had acted properly in responding to the harassment, and was liable for hostile environment sexual harassment only if it failed to investigate and take prompt appropriate remedial action. In relevant part the court noted as follows:

 

Regardless, the salient question is not whether the reprimand was actually placed in Calabria's file, but whether the action was reasonable to prevent future harassment of plaintiff. Calabria was warned and thought there was  a reprimand placed in his file, which would have the same effect on his behavior towards plaintiff regardless whether the reprimand was ever actually placed in his file. Calabria was concerned enough that he contacted an attorney. There was no further contact between Calabria and plaintiff. In Chambers, supra, our Supreme Court emphasized that "the relevant inquiry concerning the adequacy of the employer's remedial action is whether the action reasonably served to prevent future harassment of the plaintiff." Id. at 319 (emphasis added). There is no support for plaintiff's contention that the documents that were placed in Calabria's file and the verbal reprimands that came with them did not reasonably serve to prevent future harassment of plaintiff.

links updated 6/30/08 rab