Supervisory Authority and Employer Notice in Michigan Workplace Harassment Claims

Introduction

Deanna Johnson v. Ford Motor Company (6th Cir. 2025) represents a significant appellate decision interpreting key aspects of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) and federal racial‐harassment law under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff Deanna Johnson, an African-American process coach at Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant, alleged that co‐worker Nick Rowan subjected her to severe sexual and racial harassment, and that her supervisors had both actual and constructive notice of Rowan’s conduct. After a jury verdict for Ford, Johnson sought a new trial, moved to amend her complaint to add a retaliatory‐termination claim, and defended her prior sex-harassment theories against summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Clay, affirmed the district court’s rulings on each front.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for a new trial. The jury’s finding—that Ford lacked actual notice of Rowan’s conduct—was not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Johnson’s request to amend her complaint to add a retaliatory‐termination claim was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine, because she failed to raise the issue in her first appeal after summary judgment.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Ford on Johnson’s ELCRA quid pro quo sexual-harassment claim, finding no evidence that Rowan was a “supervisor” with tangible‐job-benefit or disciplinary authority over Johnson.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Johnson I (13 F.4th 493, 6th Cir. 2021): reversed a prior summary judgment denying Johnson’s racial-harassment claim and reinstated her declaration.
Chambers v. Trettco, Inc. (614 N.W.2d 910, Mich. 2000): established that quid pro quo harassment under ELCRA requires an employer agent with actual authority to grant tangible job benefits or discipline.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a): governs summary judgment review.
Abuse-of-Discretion Standard (Mys v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 886 F.3d 591): applies to new-trial motions.
Law-of-the-Case Doctrine (Adesida, 129 F.3d 846): bars re-litigation of issues that could have been raised and decided on a prior appeal.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (477 U.S. 242): explains that the non-moving party must point to more than a scintilla of evidence at summary judgment.

Legal Reasoning

1. Motion for New Trial
The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard. A new trial was warranted only if the verdict was “against the clear weight of the evidence.” Johnson argued that Ford had constructive notice of Rowan’s harassment, but the new-trial motion focused on actual notice alone. Because supervisors Mahoney and Markavich testified—credibly, in the jury’s view—that they never heard complaints, and no documentary proof contradicted them, the jury’s verdict stood.

2. Motion to Amend
Johnson sought to add a retaliatory-termination claim, but she did not raise that issue in her first appeal. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, she forfeited it. The Sixth Circuit underscored that issues not presented on initial appeal cannot be revived later.

3. Summary Judgment on Quid Pro Quo
Quid pro quo under Michigan law requires: (1) unwelcome sexual conduct, and (2) use of acceptance or rejection of that conduct as a factor in an employment decision by an agent with supervisory power. The court found no evidence that Rowan had authority to hire, fire, promote or discipline Johnson—he merely trained her. Absent “tangible job benefit” authority, the claim could not stand.

Impact

This decision clarifies that under ELCRA, only those with direct authority over employment actions qualify as “agents” for quid pro quo harassment.
It reinforces the high threshold for granting new trials based on alleged jury error—appellate courts will not reweigh credibility findings.
The opinion stresses strict adherence to the law-of-the-case doctrine, deterring piecemeal appeals on issues omitted at first opportunity.
Future plaintiffs will need clear evidence of actual notice to supervisors and proof of supervisory status before pursuing ELCRA quid pro quo claims to trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse-of-Discretion Review: An appellate court will overturn a lower court’s decision only if it was arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.
De Novo Review: The appellate court re-examines a legal issue from scratch, giving no deference to the lower court’s conclusions.
Summary Judgment: A ruling that there is no genuine dispute over material facts, so one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Law-of-the-Case Doctrine: Legal rulings made on appeal become the binding law in that case’s subsequent proceedings.
Quid Pro Quo Harassment: When job benefits or detriments are conditioned on submission to sexual conduct.
Actual vs. Constructive Notice: Actual notice means a supervisor directly heard a complaint, while constructive notice means the employer should have known under the circumstances.

Conclusion

In Johnson v. Ford, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that Michigan’s ELCRA requires clear proof of actual notice to supervisory personnel for hostile-environment claims and limits quid pro quo liability to agents vested with tangible‐job‐benefit authority. The court’s rigorous application of abuse-of-discretion, de novo, and law-of-the-case standards underscores the importance of timely preservation of issues, credible evidence of notice, and demonstrable supervisory power in workplace harassment litigation.