Perez v. Ford Motor Co.

Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
                                                                                                   Lansing, Michigan

  July 27, 2007                                                                                          Clifford W. Taylor,
                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

  131655                                                                                               Michael F. Cavanagh
                                                                                                       Elizabeth A. Weaver
                                                                                                              Marilyn Kelly
  PAMELA PEREZ,                                                                                          Maura D. Corrigan
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                         Robert P. Young, Jr.
  v                                                                 SC: 131655                         Stephen J. Markman,
                                                                                                                      Justices
                                                                    COA: 249737
                                                                    Wayne CC: 01-134649-CL
  FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DANIEL P.
  BENNETT,
           Defendants-Appellants.

  _________________________________________/

          On April 11, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to
  appeal the June 6, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
  application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
  questions presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the
  proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. We do, however, clarify that only the
  events of which Ford had notice before Daniel Bennett allegedly sexually harassed the
  plaintiff are relevant to whether Ford had notice of a hostile work environment.
  Defendant Ford’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief is DENIED as moot.

         CAVANAGH, J., concurs and states as follows:

          I concur with this Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal. However, I disagree
  with this Court’s offering instruction to the trial court because no instruction has been
  shown to be needed. This Court’s standard denial order leaves to the proper discretion of
  the trial court the determination of what evidence is relevant and admissible in light of
  the applicable claims and defenses. Other than the number of times this Court has heard
  cases involving different sexual harassment claims against the same employee of
  defendant’s, there is nothing confusing or exceptional about this case that necessitates the
  majority’s interjecting its viewpoint about admissible evidence at this stage of the
  proceedings.

         WEAVER and KELLY, JJ., join the statement of CAVANAGH, J.




                           I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
                     foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
                           July 27, 2007                       _________________________________________
           t0724                                                               Clerk