In a recent federal court victory, Varnum successfully defended an employer client against claims of sexual harassment, discrimination, and hostile work environment. The lawsuit was brought by a former minor-aged employee against both the employer and an individual former “floor manager” of the employer, alleged to have been the perpetrator of the harassment.
Based on the employer’s prompt and effective response to the former employee’s internal report of harassment, the court granted summary judgment for the employee on all claims. The court declined to decide the plaintiff’s additional state law claims against the individual defendant arising out of the same facts, which included assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, on jurisdictional grounds. The Court dismissed those claims without prejudice to refile against the individual defendant in state court.Â
See Chapp v. 202 Lake Street Partners, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-416, (W.D. Mich. June 12, 2025).
Key Takeaways
The court’s decision reinforces the importance of having a clear, well-communicated anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy. In this case, the employer’s policy was distributed to employees and acknowledged in writing by the plaintiff. It also included specific procedures for reporting complaints, including direct access to senior management.
When the plaintiff, then a high-school-aged employee, reported inappropriate conduct by a floor manager, the employer responded promptly, investigating the allegations, suspending the accused floor manager, and ultimately ending the employment relationship with that individual. t. The court found the employer met the legal standard for “reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior,” satisfying the Faragher-Ellerth defense under Title VII.
Because the company acted swiftly and effectively, and the plaintiff did not pursue further corrective opportunities, the company was not held liable for the alleged misconduct of the floor manager, even though the plaintiff presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment as to whether the floor manager engaged in the behavior the plaintiff alleged. The company was vindicated on all claims.
Why This Matters for Employers
This case demonstrates that employers who maintain and enforce robust anti-discrimination policies and respond promptly to complaints are well-positioned to defend against liability. As the case shows, this holds true even in a situation in which an employee may have been subjected to harassment by an alleged “supervisor,” and even in the sensitive context of alleged harassment against an underage complainant. The employer’s clear policies and decisive action were central to the favorable outcome.
Action Item: Review Your Policies
Employers should review their anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to ensure they are current, clearly communicated, and consistently enforced. If your organization lacks such policies, now is the time to implement them. Proactive steps not only foster a respectful workplace but also provide essential legal protection.
For guidance on reviewing or implementing workplace policies, please contact any member of Varnum’s Labor and Employment Team.
