Louis Smith VS  Stein Mart
Discrimination Charge Based on Retaliation, Age, Sex and Disability
EEOC Charge Filed
On January 23, 2009 a Charge of Discrimination based on sex, Retaliation, Age and Disability was filed with the EEOC in Jackson, Mississippi against Stein Mart Inc Jacksonville, FL.  All information regarding the case of Louis Smith Vs Stein are not being Published on this website at this time. Please check back as this website will be updated in timely manner in the case of Louis Smith vs Stein Mart.


Louis Smith VS Stein Mart

Intro: Statement 11/16/2008

Louis J Smith, a 46 year old white male started working for Stein Mart Store #89 in Hattiesburg, MS On October 15, 2007. Jacquie Forrester Store Manager of Stein Mart Store #89 hired Louis Smith Full time in the store’s Visual Department. When Louis started his job for the first day he never watch the Employment Orientation Video or was given an Employee Handbook for Stein Mart.

The store was under going changes in their upper management staff in October of 2007 with Veronica hired for Asst Manager and Debbie Collins was hired as Operations Manager. Devera was also the new Women’s Manager for Stein Mart Store #89 in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Louis had worked with Debbie Collins back in 1993 until 1995 at JCPenny’s Cloverleaf Mall in Hattiesburg, MS. Louis was in the Visual Department at JCPenny back in 1993. The day after Louis started at Stein Mart he discovered that Debbie Collins would take on Asst Manager for Stein Mart. Debbie was shocked to find out that Louis would be working in visual at Stein Mart. An Ex Employee told Louis the management started on him from day one with Debbie Collins feeding personal information that happen to Louis while employed with JCPenny back in the mid 90s. Louis was hospitalized due to his depression while employed with JCPenny. After Louis returned to work at JCpenny he was demoted from Visual to the Home department. Louis was forced to leave JCpenny because they had reduced his hours from 40 a week to 16 a week. Debbie Collins was feeding Jacquie Forrester Store Manager of Stein Mart in Store #89 with personal information on Louis Smith. Louis performed his work in visual with high standards and quality. When Stein Mart’s District Manager made his first visit in Aug 2008 he was imprest with Louis’s work that he had the manager do a increase in pay. Also Louis’s weekly hours were increased from 30 to 35. Louis Smith however never had a yearly evolution up to the day of his discharge on 11/12/08.
Louis Smith has a disability and is diagnosed of having a personality disorder. Personality disorder, formerly referred to as a Character Disorder, is a class of mental disorders characterized by rigid and on-going patterns of feeling, thinking, and behavior. The underlying belief systems informing these patterns are referred to as fixed fantasies or “dysfunctional schemata” (Cognitive modules). The inflexibility and pervasiveness of these behavioral patterns often cause serious personal and social difficulties, as well as a general functional impairment. Louis even made both Jacquie Forrester and Debbie Collins aware of his personality disorder disability.

On November 12, 2007 I was fired unjustly by the store manager.
Unable to go over the full details because I’m in a employment lawsuit with them.

Facts in the case to continue…….

Store #89’s Manager Does NOT follow Stein Mart’s Handbook..

Full of Crack Heads and employees with Rap Sheets. Manager’s with their Blood Kin working under them. Stealing and going out the back door!!

Store #89 Manager J.F. found out I was blowing the Whistle to Corp and she fired me on 11/12/08.

(Tune in for full details)

HERE IS MORE DETAILS...

Louis Smith Says:

Statement for the Record

On October 13, 2008 I reported to work at Stein Mart around 9 a.m. and walk through the receiving department to the time clock. The only person I came in contact with that morning was Ron the receiving Manager for Stein Mart. I never saw any of the employees who work in the receiving department.

My agenda for the day was to work on visuals in the Boutique Department. I spend most of the morning working with Barbra Alexandria in Boutique. I stayed around the women side of the store up until 1 p.m. that afternoon.

Sandra Fairley (Gift Dept Manager) and I were planning a pizza party for a new employee in our department. I ordered the pizza at Ci Ci’s and then went and picked it up. When I got back to the store I put the pizza and the break room and went to the receiving to blow up a few balloons for her. I never had any interaction with any other employee during that time.

When we started the pizza party for Whitney their were other emloyees in the break room but I never notice who they were and I never had any interaction with them. The only person I talked with was Sandra and Whitney.

Sandra later on via telephone told me that when I went out of the Break Room that Britney (Who is Related to Ron the Receiving manager) was telling everyone in the break room that she had broke someone’s windown out. Sandra said their were still alot of other employees still in the break room when I went back to work on my visuals. When I went back to the Boutique Department I saw Barbra and told her to go up and help herself to some pizza.

Around 5 p.m. I stated getting my tools together and putting them back into the Visual Room. I never from the time of getting back from lunch to clocking out for the day talked with any employee from the Receiving Department. When I started walking towards the the front of the store I notice Britney standing at the custermer service desk alone with five other employees. As I walked out the glass doors Britney came behind me and grab my arm and told me that she had something to talk to me about. Britney told me that her name better never come out of my mouth again if I knew what was good for me. She said that Debbie (Employee in the Receiving) told her that I was telling everyone that she had broke out someone’s window. I told Britney I did not have a clue what she was talking about. I told Britney not to believe what comes from Debbie because she is good about making things up. Britney then walked away and I went to my car. After I got into my car something told me that I should go back in the store and tell Debbie Collins the Asst Manger. When I told Debbie she just said I’ll tell Jackie and I let her deal with it in the morning. I walk toward the back of the store and Debbie said “Louis do not go back to the back now and tell Sandra, I deal with it”.

When I got back home I called Sandra and talked with her. She said Louis do not worry about a thing Jackie already knows how Debbie in the Receiving is, she just likes making up things. Sandra and I also recalled the time that Britney walk into the break room and heard us talking about the election. Sandra asked Britney who she was voting for but I got called into the office about that. The conversation on the election was between Sandrea and I and Britney brought herself into it. Britney has just been digging to find fault with me. I cannot understand why we just all cannot get alone. I’ve been to Jackie with this and she will NOT even listen to me. Since Jackie was going to be out for a week I had no other choice but to call the employee hotline.

End of this statement:

I will be sending more email on problems I’ve seen go on in this store. Such as closing the store early and taking a few close employees to the night club. Leaving the back door open and not setting the Alarm. I’ve seen jackie take items from the store and place them into a bag without buying them and putting it by the back door. I also have seen item that were MOS that where taken home. I’ve seen employees in the receiving department open and eat food that came in off the UPS truck. The main reason that this store bad Inventory is because it going out the back door and lots of MOS that should not be. If you would just take a look into the over stock  room you will find lots of items that has been MOS and that would be taken home by managers. Jickie told me not to trow away that Nina Set in the Furniture room because she wanted it to take home and fix it. I’ve seen Jackie, Sandra and other employees take items that they wanted and put them up in the stock room so they could get them when they went into hard mark.

Most of the Visual displays you see in the store I’ve work on the last two week’s with no help from Jackie. She had family problems with her husband and took off a week to be with him. During the summer Jackie did not spend 25 hours a week in the store. The only time Jackie was seen on the floor working was just before a visit. Jackie does not have very good management skills to run stien mart store 89. I’ve asked for a transfer to anohter store and Jackie told me that she would not put in a transfer because of the the stuff that was going on with me. I seen Jackie bring her 6 mo old baby to the store and left it up in her office. Most of the employees in the receiving department are related to RON the receiving Manger. Jackie also has one of her close friends working in the receiving dept as well. Heather has her husband working in receiving Nov 12 and Nov 13 and he is not even on payroll.

Sandra the Gift Dept Manager has been convicted of 10 pounds of pot back in the 80s and I know for a fact that she takes thing out of the back door. I’ve even seen her smoke pot on the back loading dock.

A picture of me dressed in drag was taken from my visual tool box this pass summer and showed to other employees in the store. A employee told me that Heather was the one that made a copy of it and passed it around the store. There were two new store managers at the time and both of them have brought it to my attention. Both of these manager no longer work with Steinmart. I am a gay male and I’m open about my sexual orientation. I did not give anyone permission to go into my visual tool box and take my personal pictures and copy and show to other employees.

The other problem I have with this store is the unethical things I’ve seen going on in this store by managers. Retaliation is the main reason that I’ve not reported it Stien Mart Corp Offices. I also feel that’s the main reason that my store manager as NOT approved a transfer for me. I even talk with Nick from the New Orleans store and he asked me to come and work with them. Jackie told me that she would NOT transfer me to another store because all the stuff that’s been going on with me. My question to you is what STUFF is she talking about that keeping me from being transferd. I was given a called by Tony a Dist Manager in FL and offered a job in visual back in the Summer of 2008. My store Manager Jackie would NEVER follow up on the trainsfer. I have asked her many time and email the HR at the Corp Office Many times. I would like some answer on why I’m NOT able to trainsfer. I know of three employer here that had trainser to other store with no problem. On of the employee named Sammual who also babysits the managers kids got two raises in a year and a trainsfer to a Jackson, MS store for the Summer and she is now working here at Store 89. That’s just a few examples. I will be sending you proof of such comments made by Jackie other managers which no longer work with your company. This information will also be sent on Tuesday of next week.

I have already looked into the Retaliation law that’s enforced by the EEOC. I’ve attached that with this email below.

Retaliation
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise “retaliate” against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.
In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included in all of the laws enforced by EEOC, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment, or interference in their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else’s exercise of rights granted by the ADA.

There are three main terms that are used to describe retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes an adverse action against a covered individual because he or she engaged in a protected activity. These three terms are described below.

Adverse Action
An adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Examples of adverse actions include:

* employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion,

* other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance, and

* any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights.

Adverse actions do not include petty slights and annoyances, such as stray negative comments in an otherwise positive or neutral evaluation, “snubbing” a colleague, or negative comments that are justified by an employee’s poor work performance or history.

Even if the prior protected activity alleged wrongdoing by a different employer, retaliatory adverse actions are unlawful. For example, it is unlawful for a worker’s current employer to retaliate against him for pursuing an EEO charge against a former employer.

Of course, employees are not excused from continuing to perform their jobs or follow their company’s legitimate workplace rules just because they have filed a complaint with the EEOC or opposed discrimination.

For more information about adverse actions, see EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section 8, Chapter II, Part D.

Employee Right - Whistle blowing
Whistleblower statue prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee who objects to, refuses to participate in, or discloses any activity that is illegal and breaks the law of the state. The employer cannot discharge, demote, suspend, or harass the employee as a retaliatory action. The whistle blower provisions may allow the employee to file a charge with a government agency, sue the employer, or both.
What does the law say?

The Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted to achieve safer and more healthful workplaces throughout the nation. The Act provides for a wide range of substantive and procedural rights for employees and representatives of employees. To help ensure that employees are, in fact, free to participation in safety and health activities, Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any person from discharging or in any manner discriminating against any employee because the employee has exercised rights under the Act.

These rights include complaining to OSHA and seeking an OSHA inspection, participating in an OSHA inspection, and participating or testifying in any proceeding related to an OSHA inspection.
“Discrimination” can include the following actions:

Firing or laying off
Assigning to undesirable shifts
Blacklisting
Demoting
Denying overtime or promotion
Disciplining
Denial of benefits
Failure to hire or rehire
Intimidation
Transferring
Reassigning work
Reducing pay or hours
OSHA also administers the whistleblowing provisions of thirteen other statutes, protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, and securities laws.
BELOW IS A COPY OF THE PICTURE THAT WAS TAKING OUT OF MY VISUAL TOOL BOX.


Welcome to KKKMart

A new lawsuit alleges that Boca Raton's Stein Mart was in fact a hotbed of racism

By Amy Roe

Scrawled in green, the cursive Stein Mart logo stands out against the coral stucco of the strip mall. This is Boca Raton, the pink city, so color coordination is a chief concern.

Inside there are reptile-print slippers in turquoise, silver, and ruby. Pastel aromatherapy candles are stacked on a table, and the racks overflow with rows of pantsuits in jade, fuschia, and lime. "I would suggest this color," says a saleswoman fussily attempting to match merchandise, "but it's a little off for that."

Indeed, when it comes to color, the Boca Raton store may be more than a little off.

In June 1998 Jonathan Morales took an undercover security job at the Boca Stein Mart, a position known in the delicate parlance of retail management as "loss-prevention officer." It required him to follow customers incognito to prevent "shrinkage." In other words Morales was hired to make sure people didn't steal and to catch them if they did. The job description was simple, but it wasn't long before things got complicated, he says.

"It actually first started when I came into work. As I was walking into the back office, I heard the general manager tell an assistant manager that the store was becoming "a damn melting pot' and he'd like to "do what they did in the old days and string 'em up.'

"Two or three days later, some black shoppers came into the store, and he said, "I have some of your people here, and I need you to follow them.' I didn't know what he meant by that, "your people.' I thought he meant some family members."

Morales, it should be noted, is black. He says store manager William Abel, who is white, repeatedly told him to focus his security efforts on black and Hispanic shoppers, whom he says the manager referred to as "those people." This struck him as racism, so he complained to the corporate office and was told to complain to the management of the store, he says.

When he did, "[They] told me if I didn't like it, I could leave."

Abel declined to be interviewed for this story.

Kris Shoop also worked undercover security at the store and says customers for the most part reflect the population of Boca: wealthy whites. Although black and Hispanic customers were in the minority, Shoop, who is white, says he was expected to devote his time to watching people of color.

"Regardless of what I was doing or who I was watching, Mr. Abel would have me stop what I was doing and watch Hispanic people, black people, basically darker skins. I would listen to him, you know, but it didn't make sense. I'm going to concentrate on the black people and Hispanic people while the white people steal? That's ridiculous. I don't see color. Everyone steals."

Frustrated with what he regarded as racism, Shoop quit after a few months on the job. "I didn't want to be part of that bandwagon," he says. "That bothered me." Shoop now works as an undercover security guard at another department store.

In March, Morales was fired from his job at Stein Mart. At his unemployment compensation hearing, company officials testified that he was terminated for failing to follow procedure in handling an item in the store's lost and found. The hearing officer ruled in Stein Mart's favor; Morales was denied benefits.

However, at the hearing, current and former employees painted a picture of the Boca Stein Mart that corroborates Morales' allegations by depicting racial jokes and stereotyping as business as usual for the Boca store.

"Well, generally we just joke about our customers when we go back in the break room," testified gift department manager Lorraine Spagnia. "It's just something we do in our lunchroom to relieve tension, is to make comments on our customers."

But Spagnia said it wasn't black or Hispanics who bore the brunt of the jokes: "Well, actually, we really joke about our Jewish clientele, truthfully. We have a lot of snowbirds down in the area…."

Indeed Morales says racial jokes were so commonplace they were uttered openly around -- and even by -- store managers. He says Jewish customers were routinely referred to among management and hourly employees as "Jewish bitches." The break room in particular was a hotbed of racial stereotyping, he says. "The break room was a place you didn't want to be if you were Jewish, black, or Hispanic. A lot of times, customers would mistake the door to the break room as a bathroom and just walk right in. I saw shoppers hear these comments, set their stuff down, and leave."

Now Morales has filed a civil suit in Palm Beach County District Court, alleging store management condoned a racist workplace, required racial profiling of shoppers, and unfairly fired him. He's seeking compensation for lost wages, emotional pain and suffering, and punitive damages.

The unemployment hearing testimony is central to Morales' case against Stein Mart, says his attorney, Loring N. Spolter. Spagnia testified that she had worked at the Boca store for more than two years and never received any antidiscrimination training, nor had she ever heard a manager tell her or others to stop making racial jokes.

"Well," she said, "we all know that we shouldn't do it." Former employee Jonathan Morales says racism was business as usual at the Boca Raton Stein Mart

But Spolter says the Jacksonville, Florida¯based company was negligent in failing to provide employees with antidiscrimination training. "It was not an accident; this was inevitable," he says. "In the absence of training, anyone could see this coming."

He also characterizes the case as another example of racial profiling, or "shopping while black." The phrase garnered national attention in June after a black man died in a scuffle with undercover security guards from a Lord & Taylor store in suburban Detroit. More than 9000 protesters showed up for a rally against the store.

Stein Mart would not comment on the lawsuit. However, former Stein Mart loss-prevention manager Andre Harris, who is black, says racial profiling was never part of the retailer's loss-prevention tactics. In fact he says the company requires antidiscrimination training for all its associates.

"I never got that (racial profiling) direction from anybody, and I never got that even underlying," Harris says by phone from Houston, Texas. "To the contrary I can think of a couple of times where things like that were very heavily discouraged."

As loss-prevention manager for the district that includes Boca, Harris was on a team that hired Morales last spring. The two later spoke on the phone a few times, even after the district was no longer under Harris' supervision.

"He would call me to vent," Harris says, adding that while he knew Morales had problems with store management, he wasn't aware those problems were race-related.

During his five years with the company, Harris rose through Stein Mart's ranks and now works in the loss-prevention department of another company. He concedes he doesn't know exactly what happened in Boca but says the company's corporate culture, at least, is colorblind: "I'm a young black male who was very successful at Stein Mart," Harris says. "The company did right by me."

After five months of unemployment, Morales found another job as an undercover security guard. He says there's no racial profiling or joking at his present job because his employer simply doesn't allow it.

"I've worked for five major retailers. Stein Mart is the only one I know of that doesn't have any training on discrimination."

Stein Mart Complaints - Awful company

Review all Stein Mart complaints

Stein Mart

Posted: 2008-09-22 by Samuel  
Awful company
Complaint Rating:  50 % with 2 votes
Company information:
Stein Mart
278 Williamsburg Shopping Center
Williamsburg, Virginia
United States
Phone: 757-2202749


I was employed with stien mart for seven years with a one year break because of finding another job but in beginning of june i was asked by management to come back so because i loved my job so much i decided to do so i love customers and i had many threw my time working there knew me by name and came there asking for me by name as time went on i developed loving relationships with regular customers along with employees will to make a long story short sept 18, 2008 me and another employee were working we had a long couple weeks for she worked in my department she was full time and i part time we just finished getting a temp sale together and running fitting room it was a good day we worked together that day to knock out tasks quicker i admit we did talk to each other but never lost focus of work as day went on we learned that out lost prevention team was there we were told they were there to look a cameras in hopes to catch shop lifters for we had been having many episodes with theft we were told not to acknowledge the female LP agent so customers wouldn't know we knew her they had gotten there at around 3 that afternoon and were in office viewing tapes about sevenish the other the employee that got fired in my department along with me was called to office i was cleaning up department but i couldn't help to think why she was taking so long id say 15 min went by and she walked out office walking toward me i said kim (thats what ill call her to protect privacy) i gave her a look like what took so long and smiled she lipped to me she got fired i said what why she said because we were talking but that she couldn't talk to me that she would call me later i went on working shocked and nervous trying to understand 5 min later i was called in office the door was closed so i went in sat down beside lp lady and my boss asked me how do i think we prevented shrink in my ladies department i told her by making sure customer took six items in fitting room and helping them on floor and filling out ticket requisition forms she shook her head telling me that today me and kim were being watched and that she so us on tape talking for a hour i said yes we did talk but were were also talking about operation in store and temp sale etc she told me my story didn't match kims and i said well sorry but thats what happened i cant control what she said i am telling you what took place she looked at lp lady and said anything you wanna add she said well thats not what it looks like on tape i am like how do they know cameras don't pick up volume only visual so i was told i was being terminated no verbal or written on sheet it said as reason that i was being fired for visiting with kim ignoring customers and not watching fitting room all not true i was hurt because after 7 years of hard work and weeks before time coming in on days off and working backroom my manager told me thank you and how she owed me this is how she paid me back just cause we were working and talking i signed sheet saying i was talking but we also talked about sales that had to be set that night and floor moves she told me to hand her my badge and when i clean out my locker leave it open i was upset and confused i had never been fired by any job and never thought id ever be i am a single mother trying to raise my 7 year old autistic little girl on my own and now i am worried about how i am going to make rent and bills all i ever tried to do was my job and this is thanks i get but i will be following up with this with my lawyer because theres others in company that already left that were to scared to speak up that instead quit i will be that voice.

STEIN MART'S LONG RAP SHEET!!!

Report: Stein Mart

Category: Clothing Stores

Stein Mart Rude & Unprofessional, racist unfair customer treatment employees *REBUTTALS *EDitor's Comments

*REBUTTAL Employee ..Stein Mart, Loss Prevention and Customer Service


Mary

Sugar LAND, TX


In August I went shopping for a funeral dress, my father was in hospice care in a nursing home and not expected to live. I went to the Stein Mart Store at 290 MeyerLand Plaza, Houston Texas 77096.I looked at Dresses/suits in the womens department I did not try any clothing on.

My 17 yr old daughter came into the store she was at another store nearby. We went to the shoe department and looked at shoes and decided to leave the store.

Before leaving we stopped to look at purses. I was approached by a black male (Allan Isugizo) asking If I required assistance? I informed him no we were doing ok, his response was 'well I am going to stay here?. I asked him if there was a problem, and his response was I dont like some of the activity that has gone on here' I asked if there was a problem and he again rudly informed me that he did not like some of the activity that was going on I asked to speak with the manager, and I offered to allow Mr Isugizo to search my purse which he refused.

I had been awake most of the night talking with family members regarding my fathers condition and I was dressed in blue jeans sandles and a casual T shirt. I did appear fatigued and had no make up on.

Was this the reason for being detained?? Does our society always judge others on appearance? Obviously Stein Mart Stores does.

My daughter & I then met with the manager on duty Luben Garcia who is no longer employed. Mr Isugizo would not allow me to speak with Mr Garcia privately. I had to repeatly ask him to leave the area. This action transpired infront of other customers in the store which very embarassing and humiliating. I then informed Mr Garcia I was calling my attorney and would pursue legal action. After such time Mr Garcia offered 50% off any item in the store. 'to forget the whole episode'?? I was shocked and informed the store I will pursue legal action. I was informed by Mr.Garcia that Allan Isugizo is not a off duty police officer but a securtiy emplyee of Stein-Mart. I was told that someone from the store would contact me regarding this matter.

Guess what? no contact from Stein Mart. On 9/4/01 I contacted the store speaking with Tina Scruggs she had no knowledge of the incident and the general manager Teresa Leonard was on vaction for the week. I was told to contact Mark Faust security manager, he was not in the Houston area and I left a message. And again no return call.

On 9/12/01 I again contacted Teresa Leonard she had no knoweldge of the incident and Mr Isugiszo is still employed. I was told to contact Corporate Securty/Joe Matinolich 1/800/334/6915 ext 1476 he was rude abrupt and said he reviewed the survalliance video reagrding the day in question and sees no fault. I again called Ms Leonard the General Manager and she stated she would re-investigate the matter. AND TO NO SUPRISE I HAVE NO RESPONSE.

I question if I were black as Mr Isugizo would this incdent have occured? Or If I were dressed in business attaire which I am during the work week would I have been detained & embarressed? If anyone has any suggestions please feel free to help. I just dont want this type of unfair treatment to continue with others.



Collette v. Stein Mart,


Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (February 08, 2005)

Docket number: 03-2101


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/collette-v-stein-mart-inc-20175028
Id. vLex: VLEX-20175028

Filed: February 8, 2005

No. 03-2101

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

KIM COLLETTE

Plaintiff-Appellant

v. STEIN-MART, INC.

A Florida Corporation

Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: SUTTON and COOK, Circuit Judges; ALDRICH, District Judge.* ALDRICH, District Judge. Ms. Collette worked at a clothing store owned by Stein Mart Inc. ("SM"). She went to a Christmas party held at the home of an assistant manager after work hours on a Sunday night. On Monday, Collette reported to work. On Tuesday, however, she did not report to work, and her lawyer notified SM that general manager John Davidson had sexually harassed her at the party. SM immediately suspended Davidson and initiated an investigation, but Collette did not return to work. The following Monday, SM terminated Davidson. SM advised Collette of this and asked her to return, but she never did. She claims constructive discharge. Collette filed suit in district court, alleging that SM committed sex discrimination by permitting a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, and Michigan's Elliot-Larson Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2101 et seq. ("MELCRA").1 The court granted summary judgment to SM, finding that the harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The court also held that SM had an affirmative defense under the Supreme Court's Ellerth and Faragher decisions because (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment and promptly foreclosed any possibility of further harassment, and (2) Collette unreasonably failed to take advantage of corrective opportunities. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND On July 30, 2001, SM hired Collette as an associate in its new Portage, Michigan store. The store's staff included GM John Davidson and assistant managers Debbie Schafer and Jessie Schmidt.

Collette admits that she worked comfortably with all three on a daily basis. See JA 171-77.

On Sunday, December 2, 2001, Davidson, Schmidt and Schafer held a party at Schmidt's home. After the store closed around 6:00 p.m., Collette and departmental managers Jennifer Overmyer and Amy Harbin bought beer and sat together in Collette's car drinking and talking. Then they drove to Schmidt's home, arriving at about 7:00 p.m. Seven people were in attendance: Davidson, Schmidt, Schafer, Collette, Overmyer, Harbin, and a Janel Raber. See JA 181-87.

Collette alleges that when she arrived, Davidson was already intoxicated and soon began to direct sexual comments at her and engage in unwelcome sexual behavior that humiliated her.

Between her arrival and around 8:30-9:00 p.m., Davidson (1) pulled Collette onto his lap and said "come sit on Daddy's lap"; (2) sang her a song entitled "The Roof is on Fire" and told her he would blow her through the roof with his large penis; and (3) told her he would "f-- her until she squealed like a pig," which he illustrated by imitating pig noises. See JA 213, see also JA 187-91 (Collette dep. at 38 to 42).

The partiers then played a game, during which Collette sat on the floor. Davidson sat behind her and pushed himself against her, asking if she could "feel that," referring to his penis. Davidson told Collette that he knew she was married but would like to "do her." He bragged about his prowess and said that sex with him would be "so good." The game lasted about thirty minutes. See JA 17-18; JA 193-97. The record does not disclose whether Collette and Davidson interacted between the game's conclusion at 9:00-9:30 and 10:30 p.m.

At about 10:30 Collette spoke with Schmidt and told him that Davidson was "out of line," whereupon Schmidt told her to ignore Davidson and never discuss the incident again. See JA 19698. Collette went back to the living room and sat on the sofa next to Overmyer; Davidson joined them and the three talked. Davidson put his arm around Collette and placed his hand on her thigh.

She got off the sofa, went to the kitchen, and told Schafer that someone had to talk to Davidson because he was "out of line." Schafer suggested Collette was partly at fault because she had laughed at some of Davidson's behavior. Dissatisfied, Collette left the party. See JA 199-201.

The next day, Monday, December 3, Collette worked a 5 to 9 p.m. shift, while Davidson, Schmidt and Schafer stood behind her whispering. See JA 202-204 and 208. Collette did not bring Davidson's conduct the night before to anyone else's attention. On Tuesday, December 4, however, Collette did not report for work, and her attorney advised SM counsel O'Toole that Davidson had sexually harassed her at the party. It is undisputed that O'Toole (1) immediately began investigating by calling Davidson, Schmidt and Schafer, (2) suspended Davidson pending the outcome, and (3) contacted SM District Director Monty Bibb and asked him to come to Portage to investigate. Bibb arrived on Friday, December 6 and took written statements from everyone who had been at the party.

On three occasions SM contacted Collette's counsel and unconditionally asked her to return to work: by phone on December 7, while Davidson was suspended; by letter on January 16, 2002, over a month after SM terminated Davidson; and by letter in August 2002. Both letters advised Collette that Davidson no longer worked for SM, but she refused to return to work. See JA 209-11.

In March 2002 Collette filed a charge with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter.

Collette brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that SM violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination by intentionally "creating an objectively hostile and intimidating work environment of the severity which" injured her. She further alleged that SM ratified Davidson's conduct, thereby creating "an objectively intimidating and hostile and offense [sic] work environment" in violation of MELCRA. See id. ¶ ¶ 14-22 (JA 19-21). In August 2003 the district court granted summary judgment to SM, and Collette timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Diamond Time, Ltd., 371 F.3d 883, 889 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The district court's findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error. See Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 276 F.3d 802, 805 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Where there are no disputed material facts, however, we simply determine de novo whether the district court properly applied the governing legal principles.

See Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580, 588 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

III. COLLETTE'S TITLE VII CLAIM A. Legal Standard: Summary Judgment The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist to be tried. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). As the party seeking summary judgment, SM bore the burden of showing that the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions and affidavits established the absence of genuine issues of material fact. See id. at 323. SM had to discharge that burden by showing that there was an absence of evidence to support Collette's case. See id.

Summary judgment was appropriate if Collette failed to establish the existence of an element essential to her case, and on which she would have borne the burden of proof at trial. See Whitley v. Spencer Cty. Police Det., 178 F.3d 1298, 1999 WL 196499, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 1999) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). Collette was not entitled to rest on her pleadings, but had to come forward with evidence that would allow a rational factfinder to find in her favor. See Bridgeport Music, 371 F.3d at 889 (citation omitted). Because Collette was opposing summary judgment, her factual allegations were to be believed and all justifiable inferences drawn in her favor. See DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 415 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). But the ultimate burden of demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact always remained on Collette. See id.

B. Employer Liability for Supervisor Sexual Harassment under Title VII 1. Sexual Harassment Giving Rise to Hostile Work Environment Title VII provides, in pertinent part: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's ... sex ...." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Collette alleged that SM allowed the harassment to create a hostile work environment which resulted in her constructive discharge.

To hold SM liable, Collette had to show that she was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her sex, the harassment created a hostile work environment, and SM failed to take reasonable action to prevent and correct the harassment. See Schramm v. Slater, 2004 WL 1595195, at *4, __ Fed. Appx. __ (6th Cir. July 14, 2004) (citing Williams v. GMC, 187 F.3d 553, 560-61 (6th Cir. 1999)). To establish a hostile environment she had to show that the harassment was "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment." Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986) (internal citations omitted).

2. Constructive Discharge in the Wake of Sexual Harassment Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F.2d 630 (6th Cir. 1987) is our seminal decision on constructive discharge. There we held that "[p]roof of discrimination alone is not a sufficient predicate for a finding of constructive discharge; there must be other `aggravating factors.'January 25, 2005" Id. at 637. "The plaintiff must show more than a Title VII violation to prove constructive discharge, so the fact that plaintiff may have proven a hostile work environment is not enough by itself to prove constructive discharge also." Moore v. KUKA Welding Systems & Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073, 1080 (6th Cir. 1999). This heightened constructive discharge standard requires an objective assessment of the employee's feelings, and an inquiry into the employer's intent and the foreseeability of the impact its conduct had on the employee. See Peters v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 285 F.3d 456, 478 (6th Cir. 2002).

The objective inquiry focuses on whether "working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign." Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529, 533-34 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); see also Pa. State Police v. Suders, __ U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 2347 (2004) (plaintiff must show that "the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.").

The "employer" inquiry focuses on whether the employer intended the work environment to cause the employee to resign. See Yates, 819 F.2d at 637; accord MacGregor v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 373 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2004) ("constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns after the employer has created an intolerable working environment in a deliberate attempt to compel such a resignation") (emphasis added) (citation omitted). In ascertaining the employer's intent, the court may consider whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the harassment and the employer's handling of it would cause the employee to resign. See Moore, 171 F.3d at 1080. Under this test, "the feelings of a reasonable employee would not be enough to show discharge without at least some foreseeability on the part of the employer." Starks v. New Par, 181 F.3d 103, 1999 WL 357757, at *5 (6th Cir. May 11, 1999) (quoting Yates, 819 F.2d at 637).

3. Employer's Liability for Supervisor's Sexual Harassment of Employee The Supreme Court distinguishes between supervisor harassment unaccompanied by an adverse official act and supervisor harassment accompanied by "a tangible employment action." An employer is strictly liable for supervisor harassment that "culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment." Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998); accord Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 808 (1998). But when the employer takes no tangible adverse action, it may raise a defense comprised of two elements: "(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." Suders, __ U.S. at __, 124 S.Ct. at 234 (quoting Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765). This is known as the Ellerth/Faragher defense.

Discussion 2 C.

We need not consider the district court's holding that Collette failed to make a prima facie case of hostile work environment sex discrimination and constructive discharge, because even if she had, SM had a meritorious Ellerth-Faragher defense. "[W]hen no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may defeat vicarious liability for supervisor harassment by establishing, as an affirmative defense, both that `the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior,' and that `the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.'" Suders, 124 S.Ct. at 2253-54 (citations omitted).

Collette alleges constructive discharge, but the Supreme Court recently held that "an employer does not have recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense when a supervisor's official act precipitates the constructive discharge; absent such a `tangible employment action,' however, the defense is available to the employer whose supervisors are charged with harassment." Suders, 124 S.Ct. at 2351; see also id. at 2355 n.9 ("Tellingly, we stated that Ellerth `ha[d] not alleged she suffered a tangible employment action,' despite the fact that her complaint alleged constructive discharge.") (quoting Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 766). Thus constructive discharge cannot serve as an adverse employment action for this purpose, since SM took no action that could be construed as such against Collette. Therefore SM may assert the Ellerth-Faragher defense.

1. SM Could Not Have Known About the Harassment Until at Least Dec. 3 It is undisputed that the only harassment took place on the night of Sunday, December 2.

Collette did not report it to SM's counsel or upper management until Tuesday, December 4, but she complained to assistant managers Schmidt and Schafer on the night of the 2nd. They could have informed SM's counsel or upper management of Collette's complaint when they went to work on Monday the 3rd. If they did not do so, SM would have first learned of Collette's complaint when her counsel contacted SM's on Tuesday the 4th. Cf. Courtney v. Landair Transport, 227 F.3d 559, 565 (6th Cir. 2000) ("It was not until December 4, 1996, when defendant received the lawyer's letter asking defendant to stop the harassment, that defendant had notice of the harassment.").

Moreover, Collette testified that she worked comfortably with Davidson and everyone else without incident in the months before the party, so SM had no reason even to suspect that Davidson or anyone else might harass her. Cf. Stone-Graves v. Coop. Elevator Co., 2003 WL 1867921, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2003) (plaintiff had praised alleged harasser's "exceptional management" and "affirmatively indicated that she had no complaints with any other employees or customers," so a jury could not find that the employer had notice of the alleged harassing behavior).

Thus SM could not have known about Collette's allegation until at least Monday, December 3. Compare Stevens v. USPS, 21 Fed. Appx. 261, 264, 2001 WL 1298955, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2001) (employer had no reason to know of alleged harassment before employee reported it) with Minnich v. Cooper Farms, 39 Fed. Appx. 289, 2002 WL 1396910 (6th Cir. June 26, 2002) (genuine issued existed as to whether employer knew or should have known about harassment, as plaintiffs had complained numerous times over course of months).

2. SM Took Sufficient Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment Generally The next element of the Ellerth/Faragher defense requires SM to show that it "exercised reasonable care to prevent" this type of harassment.3 SM satisfies this element.

Preliminarily, there was no evidence that SM generally tolerated sexual harassment or did not take it seriously. Contrast Dysert v. Whirlpool Corp., 167 F. Supp. 2d 967, 973 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (coworker confirmed plaintiff's allegation that department where alleged harassment occurred had "a sign reading `sexual harassment will not be tolerated, but will be graded'"). On the contrary, it is uncontested that SM had policies explicitly prohibiting workplace sexual harassment and that it distributed materials informing the employees of these policies. SM's "Standard Operating Procedures" memorandum on Sexual Harassment stated, in part: Policy Stein Mart is committed to providing a work environment for all associates that is free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment. Harassment of an associate because of the associate's ... sex ... is a form of discrimination and will not be tolerated. Any associate who engages in such conduct will be made to bear the full responsibility of [sic] such unlawful conduct and will be subject to appropriate discipline up to and including termination of employment.

Prohibited Conduct While it is impossible to provide an exhaustive list of the types of behavior that could constitute harassment or sexual harassment, the following list contains examples of behavior that will not be tolerated: · Unwanted sexual advances, flirtation, or propositions; · Verbal abuse of a sexual nature, including offensive noises and gestures; · Explicit or degrading comments or jokes about another individual or his or her appearance, race, age, etc.

· The display of sexually suggestive pictures or objects; · Any offensive or abusive physical contact;....

Reporting Harassment Any associate who believes that he or she has been the victim of harassment or sexual harassment, or who has witnessed such behavior, or who has any knowledge of such behavior should promptly report it to his or her immediate supervisor. If the associate's immediate supervisor is involved in the conduct, or if for any other reason the associate is not comfortable reporting it to the immediate supervisor, the associate should report the behavior to the Store Manager, Regional Vice President, Director of Associate Relations, or the Vice President of Human Resources.

Associates can use the following toll-free telephone number to contact any member of management at Stein Mart's corporate headquarters, including Kevin O'Toole, Director of Associate Relations, and Hunt Hawkins, Vice President of Human Resources: Associates may also mail information to corporate headquarters at: JA 132, 133. The policy promised thorough and appropriate remedial action. See JA 134. On the day Collette was hired, she signed a form acknowledging that she had received, read and understood the policy. She also testified that assistant manager Schmidt went over the policy with her during her orientation. See JA 135 (signature page) and JA 178-80 (Collette dep. at 21:17 to 23:12).

The Supreme Court has stated, "While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense." Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.

We have elaborated that giving employees written notice of such policies and how they are enforced constitutes an adequate general preventive measure. See Leugers v. Pinkerton Security & Investigative Servs., 205 F.3d 1340, 2000 WL 191685, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2000); accord Roelen v. Akron Beacon Journal, 199 F. Supp. 2d 685, 693-94 (N.D. Ohio 2002).

Our decision in Leugers was unpublished and therefore not binding precedent. It bears noting, then, that other Circuits also treat the existence of an anti-harassment policy (with complaint procedures) as strong evidence that the employer took sufficient general measures to prevent harassment. See An v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 2004 WL 188192, at *5, 94 Fed. Appx. 667, 674 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 2004) ("the sexual harassment policy and its dissemination generally evidence appropriate efforts to prevent sexual harassment"); Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 295 (2d Cir. 1999) ("not necessarily dispositive" but "an important consideration"), cert. denied sub nom. Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Norris, 529 U.S. 1107 (2000); Gawley v. Indiana Univ., 276 F.3d 301, 312 (7th Cir. 2001) ("In the face of this evidence that the university had a procedure in place to handle harassment, Gawley has no evidence that the university failed to exercise reasonable care in preventing ... the harassing behavior").

The employer cannot merely have an anti-harassment policy; it must also disseminate or publicize it. See Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 246 F.3d 1305, 1314-15 (4th Cir. 2001). It is undisputed that by the time of the party, Davidson had received and understood SM's antiharassment policy. See JA 97-99, 105. SM still had to show, of course, that it took adequate corrective measures after learning of Collette's particular complaint, i.e. that it enforced its policy.

3. SM Acted Promptly and Decisively to Stop the Specific Sexual Harassment As noted above, SM initiated an investigation, including interviews of everyone else who attended the party, as soon as Collette relayed her complaint to SM's counsel. "The most significant immediate measure an employer can take in response to a sexual harassment complaint is to launch a prompt investigation to determine whether the complaint is justified." Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001). By doing so, "the employer puts all employees on notice that it takes such allegations seriously and will not tolerate harassment in the workplace." Id.

SM also immediately suspended Davidson pending investigation, then terminated him six days later. There were only two days when Collette could have been forced to work in the same store with Davidson: Monday, December 3, when her counsel had not yet reported the harassment to SM, and Tuesday, December 4, when SM learned of the allegation and suspended Davidson.

SM's corrective measures epitomized how a responsible employer should act when confronted with an allegation of employment discrimination. By comparison, in one case the plaintiff complained that management did not immediately assign work schedules that kept her apart from her harasser, requiring her to work with him for three days. "Under the circumstances," we held, "a three-day delay does not constitute an unreasonable failure to take prompt corrective action." Stevens v. USPS, 21 Fed. Appx. 261, 264, 2001 WL 1298955, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2001); see also Harris v. Lincoln Electric, 54 F. Supp. 2d 719, 724 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (employer did not exhibit indifference by letting week and a half go by between victim's request to be moved and decision to move her away from harasser), aff'd o.b., 181 F.3d 101, 1999 WL 357770 (6th Cir. May 14, 1999).4 4. Collette Unreasonably Failed to Avail Herself of Corrective Measures The last element of the Ellerth/Faragher defense requires the employer to show that the plaintiff failed to take advantage of opportunities to prevent or correct the harassment. SM satisfies this element. Collette knew she could call a toll-free number to elevate her complaint directly to headquarters, but she never did so. See JA 211-12. Most significantly, knowing that SM had terminated Davidson, Collette failed to avail herself of the ultimate corrective opportunity: returning to work with the harasser permanently out of the picture.

As we stated in a similar case, "after her complaint to ... management resulted in the firing of one supervisor and the disciplining of another, Plaintiff knew that the company would take any other complaint seriously. ... [N]o reasonable person in Plaintiff's situation would have felt forced to quit when she did." Montero v. Agco Corp., 192 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 1999). Cf. Stacy v. Shoney's, 955 F. Supp. 751, 756 (E.D. Ky. 1997) ("Because Stacy never returned to work ..., she cannot show that Shoney's action was ineffective."), aff'd, 142 F.3d 436, 1998 WL 165139 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 1998); contrast Stewart v. Cartessa Corp., 771 F. Supp. 876, 881 (S.D. Ohio 1990) ("Based upon a history of nonresponsiveness to her complaints about [harasser]'s conduct, plaintiff declined to return to work after her meeting with the president,....") (emphasis added).

IV. COLLETTE'S MELCRA CLAIM A. Legal Standard When interpreting state law, we look first and foremost to decisions of the state's own courts.

See Bernstein v. Lopez, 321 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) (Pregerson, J. dissenting). If state court precedent is definitive, we must follow it. See Foster v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 714 F.2d 654, 657 n.3 (6th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Under MELCRA, "an employer may not discriminate on the basis of sex, and this also prohibits sexual harassment." James v. TCF Nat'l Bank, 2003 WL 22161828, at *1 (Mich. App. Sept. 18, 2003) (citing Chambers v. Trettco, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. 2000)). "Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature if: (1) submission to the conduct of communication is made a term or condition, either explicitly or implicitly, to obtain employment; (2) submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication is used as a factor in determining the individual's employment; or (3) the conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment by creating a hostile environment." James, 2003 WL 22161828 at *1 (citing Mich. C.L. 37.2103(i) and Chambers, 614 N.W.2d 910).

To establish a sexual harassment claim based on a hostile work environment under MELCRA, Collette had to show that she belonged to a protected group, that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct or communication on the basis of her sex which was intended to or did substantially interfere with her employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. See James, 2003 WL 22161828 at *1 (citing Chambers, 614 N.W. 2d 910).

The court considers whether, under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would perceive the conduct at issue as substantially interfering with his employment or as having the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, intimidating, or offensive employment environment. See James, 2003 WL 22161828 at *2 (citing Burns v. City of Detroit, 660 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. 2002), modified in part o.g. and app. denied in part, 658 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 2003)). See, e.g., Shepard v. Uniboring, 72 Fed. Appx. 333, 335-36, 2003 WL 21782604, at *1-2 (6th Cir. July 31, 2003) (supervisor's offensive and annoying comments and behavior, without physical touching or threatening, did not create hostile work environment under MELCRA), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 1435 (2004).

Unlike federal case law interpreting Title VII, a hostile work environment claim under MELCRA requires the employee to show that the harassment was "sufficiently severe and persistent to affect seriously [her] psychological well being." Langlois v. McDonald's Restaurants of Mich., 385 N.W.2d 778, 782 (Mich. App. 1986).

Once an employee satisfies the elements of a hostile work environment sex discrimination claim, he can hold the employer liable under MELCRA for his supervisor's harassing behavior only if he shows that "the employer failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action after having been put on notice of the sexual harassment." Schemansky v. California Pizza Kitchen, 122 F. Supp. 2d 761, 772 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (citing Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993)).

Moreover, under Michigan case law, a single incident is generally insufficient to constitute a hostile work environment unless it was "severe and perpetrated by an employer in a closely-knit working environment." James, 2003 WL 22161828 at *2 (citing Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (1993) (employer physically restrained employee for more than one minute while he tried to kiss her)). See, e.g., Langlois, 385 N.W.2d 778 (hostile work environment not created by one incident where supervisor requested "some fun" and touched employee on breast and buttocks).

B. Discussion For the reasons discussed in the Title VII analysis, Collette's MELCRA claim fails because she did not raise a genuine issue as to whether the unwelcome conduct or communication substantially interfered with her employment or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Similarly, Collette did not raise a genuine issue as to whether she was constructively discharged. See, e.g., Hartleip v. McNeilab, Inc., 83 F.3d 767, 775-76 (6th Cir. 1996) (applying Michigan law); Selph v. Gottlieb's Financial Servs., 35 F. Supp. 2d 564, 568 (W.D. Mich. 1999) (under Michigan law, female employee's testimony that male coworker ceased alleged harassment one day after she reported it precluded finding that she was constructively discharged).

Lastly, even if Collette showed a genuine issue as to each element of her MELCRA claim, as a matter of law SM took prompt, decisive action to ensure that Davidson could never harass her again. Under Michigan law, the critical test of whether the employer's corrective action was adequate is whether it stopped the harassment. See Houghtaling v. Bay Med. Ctr., 1997 WL 33353513, at *1 (Mich. App. Mar. 14, 1997) ("Defendant's actions were effective in that the doctor was thwarted from future misconduct, as evidenced by the fact that he did not harass plaintiff again after the initial incident."), app. denied, 577 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. 1998).

V. CONCLUSION "It is a fair question to ask who should bear the responsibility for a single incident of supervisor sexual harassment, an innocent employee like [Collette] or an employer like [Stein Mart] who effectively stops the harassment after it learns about it. One could argue [that Stein Mart] should bear the risk of supervisor sexual harassment, as opposed to the innocent [Collette].

However, the Court has rejected this theory of vicarious liability. The underlying theme under Title VII is employers should nip harassment in the bud. That is exactly what happened here." McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, 375 F.3d 762, 772 (8th Cir. 2004). Therefore we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Stein Mart.

COOK, Circuit Judge, concurring. I agree with the majority that Stein Mart established entitlement to the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense to Title VII liability and, similarly, that its prompt remedial response foreclosed Collette's sexual harassment claims under Michigan law.

Accordingly, I concur in the decision to affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Stein Mart.

* The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Judge, Northern District of Ohio sitting by designation. 1 The court also granted SM summary judgment on Collette's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Collette does not appeal that part of the decision. Davidson is not involved in the appeal, as Collette stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her claims against him. At oral argument Collette's counsel explained that she has sued Davidson in state court.

2 Harassment is actionable under Title VII "only if it is so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270 (2001) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The district court did not address whether the harassment was sufficiently "severe or pervasive." We need not address that issue either, because other factors suffice to sustain the grant of summary judgment to SM.

3 We had held that "mere negligence as to the content of the response cannot be enough to make the employer liable. When an employer responds with good faith remedial action, it can be liable for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII only if that remedy exhibits such indifference as to indicate an attitude of permissiveness that amounts to discrimination." Weigold v. ABC Appliance Co., 2004 WL 1543165, at *7-8 (6th Cir. July 7, 2004) (quoting Blankenship v. Parke Care Ctrs., 123 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998)). Ellerth and Faragher, however, speak of the employer's duty to exercise "reasonable care" in fashioning a remedy for unlawful discrimination. Thus an employer may be held liable when its remedial response is merely negligent, however well-intentioned. See Madeja v. MPB Corp., 821 A.2d 1034, 1042-43 (N.H. 2003) (Ellerth and Farragher effectively overruled Blankenship); cf. Petty v. DHL Airways, 176 F. Supp. 2d 773, 778 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (employer's reliance on Blankenship was misplaced); Farra v. GMC, 163 F. Supp. 2d 894, 906 n.8 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (discussing compatibility of Blankenship with Ellerth).

4 See also, holding that employer did enough to avoid liability, Fenton v. HiSan, Inc., 174 F.3d 827, 830-31 (6th Cir. 1999) (immediately relayed complaint to HR, met with alleged harasser five days later, and moved his workstation, and further action was rendered unnecessary by accuser's resignation); Wathen v. GE, 115 F.3d 400, 406 407 (6th Cir. 1997) (terminated one harasser, disciplined another, and publicly apologized to victim); Flenor v. Hewitt Soap Co., 81 F.3d 48 (6th Cir.) (reprimanded harasser, and harassment stopped thereafter), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 863 (1996).

Web Hosting Companies