NAOMI WILLIAMS V WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NAOMI WILLIAMS, UNPUBLISHED October 31, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 214859 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 97-701471-NZ WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY and BEN R. COLEMAN, Defendants-Appellees. Before: Griffin, P.J., and Cavanagh and Gage, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff was hired by Wayne State University in 1990. She alleged that defendant Ben Coleman made sexual advances to her at that time, which she rejected. After her position was eliminated in 1994, she was required to contact Coleman to apply for other positions. She alleges that she did not receive an appropriate position due to sexual harassment and retaliation, and brought this action under the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101), et seq. The trial court granted summary disposition, finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim where defendant Coleman had no relationship to her termination, and that the statute of limitations barred relief regarding events that took place in 1990. In order to maintain a claim of sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show that defendant demanded some sexual favor in exchange for an employment benefit. Langlois v McDonald’s Corp, 149 Mich App 309; 385 NW2d 778 (1986). Plaintiff has failed to show that she was retaliated against, or subjected to sexual harassment or a hostile working environment. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 394; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). In addition, no act of harassment took place within the limitations period, and the trial court properly found that plaintiff’s claims were barred. Sumner v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 427 Mich 505; 398 NW2d 368 (1986). Affirmed. -1­ /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Hilda R. Gage -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.