According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff met the
individual defendant when he began dating her cousin in 1977 and she was a
bridesmaid at their wedding. They were
still married at the time of his deposition.
He helped her get a job in 2005 as a trainee at the construction company
where he then worked. They began an
affair that would last – off and on – until October 2010. During this time, he never indicated – except
once in a joke – that he would fire her if she stopped having sex with
him. The affair would continue even
during seasonal layoffs and even after his employer closed their division and
laid him off. He paid some of her bills,
made repairs at her home and took trips together and then rehired her to work
when he found another job. In September
2010, she was laid off – purportedly for lack of work. Prior to this she had never complained to
human resources or anyone else that she was being sexually harassed.
He then ended the affair in October and she retaliated by
informing his employer of their affair and her desire to be rehired. She filed a Charge with the EEOC and then the
lawsuit.
To determine whether a co-worker’s sexual advances or
requests are unwelcome, we focus on the plaintiff’s “words, deeds, and
deportment.” . . . On this record, a jury could not find [his]
advances unwelcome. First of all, [the plaintiff] never complained to [him],
human resources, her union representative, or anyone else, that [his] advances
were unwelcome. . . .
[The plaintiff’s] conduct during the relationship also
demonstrates that the extramarital affair was not unwelcome. The record shows
that [she] was a willing participant, even though [he] was the one who put
things into motion. The two had known each other and were friends for close to thirty
years when the affair began. They remained friendly during times when the
affair was dormant. They took trips together. One involved an overnight camping
trip. Another involved [her]visiting [him] in Lansing, where he was working a
job for [the company]; [she] did not work for [the company] at the time. The
couple resided together in a hotel while they both worked for [the company] in Toledo.
The one time [she] threatened to disclose the affair to [his] wife was after
[he] ended it, when [she] became angry about being unemployed. [He] freely gave [her] money when she asked,
and never sought repayment. He offered to make repairs and upgrades to her
home, and she freely accepted. Further, [she] trusted [him] with her private
information, including her banking information. He once deposited into her bank
account money she later used to pay bills. She also gave him the password to
her email account so he could use it to send her resume on her behalf. Finally,
during the entire course of the affair, [she] was sexually intimate with [him] and
no one else. Given the nature of the close and consensual relationship, no jury
could find [his] advances unwelcome.
The Court
also found that she could not show that consenting to the affair was a term of
her employment: “[I]t was [him]
who ended the affair, and he did so almost a month after
[she] was laid off from [the company],
so she cannot show that refusing his advances (which she never did) caused her
layoff.
