GEOFFREY HARRISON V GREAT LAKES BEVERAGE CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEOFFREY HARRISON,
UNPUBLISHED
February 22, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 205494
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-523376 CZ
GREAT LAKES BEVERAGE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
ON REHEARING
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Jansen and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order entered by the trial court granting summary disposition
in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10). On August 31, 1999, this Court affirmed the decision
of the trial court. On October 26, 1999, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, this Court granted
rehearing to resolve an apparent contradiction in its per curiam opinion.
The trial court granted summary disposition on its finding that, even if plaintiff had a just-cause
employment contract, there was no question of fact but that defendant had just cause to terminate
plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff claimed that his conduct was intended as a joke and that he did not
believe it was offensive. Plaintiff had received a letter of reprimand in 1991 for similar conduct. Under
the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, however, consideration of any infraction or
discipline that occurred more than three years prior in fashioning discipline for the current charge was
prohibited.
In our opinion, we stated, “The fact that plaintiff admitted to making comments of a sexual
nature after having been reprimanded in 1991 for similar conduct is enough to constitute just cause for
termination.” We clarified our reasoning in a footnote:
Plaintiff claims that the collective bargaining agreement precluded consideration
of the 1991 reprimand in imposing discipline because it occurred more than three years
prior to the current incident. However, the 1991 reprimand is not being used to impose
discipline, rather, it is used to show that plaintiff had knowledge of defendant’s policy
-1
against sexual harassment and that making comments of a sexual nature or with a sexual
connotation is not acceptable behavior at work.
Our conclusion was premised on the rationale that, since plaintiff had been warned that similar
past conduct could have constituted sexual harassment, he could not now claim a lack of knowledge
that such conduct was either offensive or in violation of defendant’s policy against sexual harassment.
He was aware of defendant’s policy against sexual harassment, and he breached that policy. The letter
terminating plaintiff’s employment makes no mention of the 1991 incident, and plaintiff acknowledged
that he was terminated for the subsequent conduct and for no other reason. Accordingly, defendant had
just cause for discharging plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the 1991 incident was improperly
considered in fashioning the discharge.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Helene N. White
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.