Skip to main content

6th Circuit: Racial, sexual harassment was severe and pervasive

RM

By

Last updated November 6, 20242 min read
6th Circuit: Racial, sexual harassment was severe and pervasive

It’s never good when harassment occurs in the workplace, but when an employee is subjected to multiple types of harassment, the employer is going to be held liable if it doesn’t take swift action.

Here’s a breakdown of a recent lawsuit.

Unwanted advances

DeAnna Johnson was hired as a production supervisor at a Michigan Ford plant. As a part of her training, Johnson was assigned to shadow another production supervisor to learn the ropes. Johnson’s trainer was her superior, as he was in a position to evaluate her performance.

Johnson’s supervisor was known for having relationships with colleagues in the past — however, all of these had been consensual and no one had filed complaints against him.

That being said, the supervisor began making unwanted advances toward Johnson. He’d ask her for lewd photos often, and even showed her pornographic images at work. The sexual harassment took a racial turn when the supervisor told Johnson he wanted to add an African American woman to his “collection of women.”

The harassment became so pervasive that Johnson fainted at work once from the stress of it all. Johnson asked to be moved, and she was separated from the supervisor. However, when they encountered each other again after that, he groped her.

Didn’t act soon enough

Johnson reported all of this conduct to the company, and Ford investigated her claims. The supervisor was eventually fired, but Johnson went on leave and never returned. She then filed racial and sexual harassment claims against the company.

Ford tried to argue that it did its part by investigating Johnson’s claims and eventually terminating the supervisor — therefore, it shouldn’t be held liable.

But a court sided with Johnson. It said the level of harassment was severe and pervasive, due to both its sexual and racial nature. Johnson had also been incredibly distressed by it, such as when it caused her to pass out at work. The company ultimately took action, but not soon enough to prevent severe and pervasive harassment.

Filed underEmployment Law
Share

Further Reading

  • Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K

    A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]

  • Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps

    Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]

  • Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims

    Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]

  • Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny

    Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]