M.J. KELLY, J.
In this employment dispute, defendant, Representative Brian Banks of the Michigan House of Representatives, appeals by right the trial court's order denying his motion for summary disposition of the claims by Banks's former staff member, plaintiff, Tramaine Cotton. The primary issue on appeal is whether Banks has absolute immunity from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause of Michigan's Constitution for personnel decisions involving those members of his staff who might have involvement in the legislative process. See Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. For the reasons fully explained below, we conclude that
According to Cotton, Banks hired him in January 2013 to serve as a driver. Cotton alleged that, after his hire, Banks continuously expressed his desire to have a dating relationship with him, but Cotton rejected Banks's advances. After Cotton made it clear that he would not agree to a romantic relationship, Cotton maintained that Banks began to assign him tasks that were beyond the scope of his employment and asked him to work on days he was not supposed to work. Cotton alleged that he was constructively discharged in April 2013.
Banks, however, presented a very different version of events in the trial court. Banks stated that he hired Cotton in February 2013 to serve as a legislative assistant and that Cotton's duties included responding to constituent concerns, attending functions, and driving Banks and other representatives between Detroit and Lansing. Banks claimed that he began proceedings to terminate Cotton's employment after he learned that Cotton had been arrested for driving on a suspended license and had missed a court date, after which a bench warrant issued for Cotton's arrest. He stated that Cotton was terminated from his employment in May 2013 for those reasons.
In May 2013, Cotton sued Banks and defendant, State of Michigan, for wrongful termination. Cotton alleged that Banks violated Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., by discriminating against him on the basis of his sex, by demanding sexual favors as a condition of employment, by creating a hostile work environment, and by retaliating against him. Cotton also alleged that Banks's sexual harassment constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cotton alleged that the State, as Banks's employer, was vicariously liable for Banks's wrongful conduct.
In August 2013, the State moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(10). The State argued that, because employees of the House of Representatives were excluded from state civil service, the State was not Cotton's employer for purposes of the Civil Rights Act. The State also argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Cotton's intentional tort claim—that claim had to be brought in the Court of Claims.
Banks moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8) in September 2013. Banks argued that he was absolutely immune, under MCL 691.1407(5), from claims arising out of his termination of Cotton's employment. He claimed he was entitled to immunity under an unpublished decision from a circuit court because his decision to terminate Cotton involved an integral part of the legislative process, but Banks did not specifically argue that he had immunity under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. Additionally, Banks argued that the trial court must dismiss Cotton's claim of retaliation because Cotton did not plead that he reported the alleged sexual harassment to any-one before his discharge. Cotton's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress similarly had to be dismissed, Banks stated, because that claim, as alleged, involved wrongful sexual discrimination in employment, and the Civil Rights Act is the exclusive remedy for such a claim.
In response, Cotton argued that the Civil Rights Act constitutes an exception to the immunity provided under MCL 691.1407 and, in any event, the acts of sexual harassment were outside the scope of Banks's authority as a representative. He also maintained that the Civil Rights
In his reply brief, Banks cited Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11, and for the first time argued that he had absolute immunity from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause of Michigan's Constitution for any personnel decisions involving his staff. Banks argued that the undisputed evidence—namely the job description for a legislative assistant and copies of correspondence—showed that Cotton's job duties were integrally related to the legislative process. On that basis, Banks claimed he was immune from liability for his actions related to Cotton's employment.
In October 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the motions. At the hearing, the trial court expressed its belief that the Civil Rights Act created an exception to all governmental immunity, including immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause. The trial court also did not believe that Cotton was so integrally related to the legislative process that immunity would apply. As for Cotton's retaliation claim, the trial court refused to consider Banks's evidence that Cotton did not report the alleged harassment because Banks's motion was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8). See MCR 2.116(G)(5). Additionally, the trial court did not agree that the Civil Rights Act preempted Cotton's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally, the trial court agreed that the State was not Cotton's employer and that the claims against it should be dismissed.
The trial court entered an order granting the State's motion for summary disposition and dismissed the State without prejudice. It also entered a separate order allowing Cotton to amend his complaint to include the House of Representatives as a defendant. Finally, the trial court entered an order denying Banks's motion for summary disposition.
Cotton soon filed his first amended complaint naming the Michigan House of Representatives as a defendant. In his amended complaint, Cotton alleged that he reported the sexual harassment to his superiors. Cotton again alleged four counts against Banks and the House of Representatives premised on violations of the Civil Rights Act, and a fifth claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Banks alone.
Banks then appealed in this Court.
Banks first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for summary disposition, which was based on the ground that he was absolutely immune from suit under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. He maintains that Michigan courts should construe Michigan's Speech or Debate Clause similarly to the federal courts' construction of the federal Speech or Debate Clause. Relying on federal authority, Banks contends that this Court should conclude that the Speech or Debate Clause applies to bar any claims premised on acts or omissions arising from the legislative process. According to Banks, because his decision to terminate Cotton implicated the legislative process, the trial court should have determined that he had absolute immunity under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Barnard Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc., 285 Mich.App. 362, 369, 775 N.W.2d 618 (2009).
Michigan's Speech or Debate Clause provides legislators with a privilege against civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the Legislature and immunity from liability for their speech in either house:
The purpose of the privilege from civil arrest and civil process, our Supreme Court explained, is "to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the State could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs." Auditor General v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 234 Mich. 540, 542, 208 N.W. 696 (1926) (construing Const. 1908, art. 5, § 8, the predecessor to the present Speech or Debate Clause). Although an unreasonably long period of immunity might result in the denial of due process in an extreme case, the privilege must generally be construed to give effect to the policy which underlies it: to prevent both actual distraction and potential distraction from public duty during the legislative session. Bishop v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 395 Mich. 672, 677, 237 N.W.2d 465 (1976).
The immunity provision in the Speech or Debate Clause is similarly intended to protect legislators from the distraction of litigation. See Prelesnik v. Esquina, 132 Mich.App. 341, 347, 347 N.W.2d 226 (1984). Read literally, the Clause only provides senators and representatives with immunity for speeches made in either house—that is, from being "questioned in any other place for any speech in either house." See Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. Because Michigan's Speech or Debate Clause is substantially similar to the Speech or Debate Clause found in the Constitution of the United States, it should be similarly construed. See Prelesnik, 132 Mich.App. at 347, 347 N.W.2d 226, citing Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975).
The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Speech or Debate Clause was the product of the English experience and was intended to ensure the independence of the legislative branch from interference by the executive branch or a possibly hostile judiciary. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 502, 95 S.Ct. 1813. But, the Court noted, it had not limited the protection provided by the Speech or Debate Clause to acts of interference by public officials:
Consequently, in the absence of a waiver of the immunity, the Speech or Debate Clause immunizes a legislator from civil suits premised on actions that he or she took within the legitimate sphere of legislative activity. Id.
Banks initially argued that the trial court should dismiss Cotton's claims because Banks had immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), and Cotton failed to plead in avoidance of that immunity. See Yono v. Dep't of Transp. (On Remand), 306 Mich.App. 671, 682, 858 N.W.2d 128 (2014) (stating that a plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity by alleging facts that, if true, would establish that his or her claim falls within an exception to governmental immunity). Cotton did, however, plead claims under the Civil Rights Act, and our Supreme Court has recognized that the act constitutes an exception to the immunity provided by MCL 691.1407. See Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186, 195, 649 N.W.2d 47 (2002). Banks later asserted before the trial court that he was also entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause, Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11. On appeal, Banks has abandoned any contention that MCL 691.1407 immunizes him from claims brought under the Civil Rights Act; instead, he now relies exclusively on the Speech or Debate Clause as the source of his immunity.
Defendant Michigan House of Representatives notes that at the hearing on Banks's motion for summary disposition, the trial court expressed its belief that there was no immunity for a claim under the Civil Rights Act because that act—by its own terms—applies to governmental employers. It is unclear from the trial court's decision whether it denied Banks's motion on that basis. For that reason, the Michigan House of Representatives urges this Court to clarify that the enactment of the Civil Rights Act did not waive the immunity provided under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11.
In Wilkins v. Gagliardi, 219 Mich.App. 260, 267-269, 556 N.W.2d 171 (1996), this Court had to determine whether the Speech or Debate Clause, Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11, provided immunity from suit for an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq., by the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. The Court concluded that the chairman was immune from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause because his actions fell within the scope of legislative activity and the Legislature did not waive the immunity by applying the Open Meetings Act to public officials. Wilkins, 219 Mich.App. at 269-271, 556 N.W.2d 171. In reaching this decision, the Court first expressed doubt that the Legislature had the authority to make an institutional waiver of the immunity provided under Michigan's Constitution. Id. at 270, 556 N.W.2d 171. Rather, "the history of the Speech or Debate
The Wilkins Court also rejected the contention that the Speech or Debate Clause was subject to statutory modification, as provided by a then—recent amendment to the Constitution:
Although the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., generally applies to the "state or a political subdivision of the state or an agency of the state," MCL 37.2103(g) (defining the term "person"); and MCL 37.2201(a) (defining "employer" to mean a person who has 1 or more employees and an agent of that person), it does not specifically mention legislators or the immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause. Therefore, even assuming that the Legislature has the authority to effect an institutional waiver of the individual immunity provided under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11, it did not, in the Civil Rights Act, explicitly and unequivocally waive the immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause. See Wilkins, 219 Mich.App. at 271, 556 N.W.2d 171. To the extent that the trial court determined that the Speech or Debate Clause did not apply to Banks in this case, it erred.
A legislator is immune from civil liability for any activities that fall "within the legislative sphere." See Prelesnik, 132 Mich.App. at 347, 347 N.W.2d 226. An activity falls within the legislative sphere when it is integral to the legislative process. Id., citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972). And an activity is integral to the legislative process when it is essential to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or involves a matter placed solely within the jurisdiction of either house.
This Court has had only limited opportunities to apply the Speech or Debate Clause to specific facts. The Court in Wilkins held that the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee had absolute immunity from suit for ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove a camcorder from a visitor during a hearing because the committee was pursuing legislative business, and the chairman was acting in his capacity as the chairman at the time. Wilkins, 219 Mich.App. at 269, 556 N.W.2d 171. This Court has also extended the immunity provided by the Clause to the preparation of an investigatory report by a legislative ombudsman because the job was "pertinent to legislative functions" and authorized by law. Prelesnik, 132 Mich.App. at 347-348, 347 N.W.2d 226. But neither this Court nor our Supreme Court has considered whether, and to what extent, Michigan's Speech or Debate Clause applies to a legislator's personnel decisions. The United States Supreme Court has, however, examined whether a judge's personnel decisions are immune from suit under the common-law absolute immunity for judicial acts.
In Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 220-221, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), the United States Supreme Court had to determine whether a judge had absolute immunity from suit under the common law for allegedly terminating an employee on the basis of her sex in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act. The Court stated that it had "been quite sparing in its recognition of claims to absolute official immunity," but that it had already recognized absolute immunity in one clear case—"the legislative immunity created by the Speech or Debate Clause." Id. at 224, 108 S.Ct. 538. The Court had similarly recognized "a comparatively sweeping form of immunity" to protect judicial independence "by insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants." Id. at 225, 108 S.Ct. 538. When applied to judicial acts involving the resolution of disputes between parties, the Court explained that "the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity has not been particularly controversial." Id. at 227, 108 S.Ct. 538. "Difficulties have arisen," the Court related, "in attempting to draw the line between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that simply happen to have been done by judges." Id.
In clarifying the proper test, the Forrester Court determined that the relevant inquiry should be on the nature of the function: "the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it," should inform the immunity analysis. Id. at 229, 108 S.Ct. 538. Because the judge acted in his administrative capacity when he terminated the employee rather than in any judicial capacity, he was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Id. Moreover, the fact that the judge's employment decisions implicated the sound administration of the judiciary did not alter the fact that the decisions were administrative: "Those acts—like many others involved in supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court—may have been quite important in providing the necessary conditions of a sound adjudicative system. The decisions at issue, however, were not themselves judicial or adjudicative." Id.
Every federal circuit court to consider the issue since the decision in Forrester has adopted the functional test described there for determining whether a legislator's
In Agromayor, which was decided before the Supreme Court's decision in Forrester, the court considered whether the immunity from civil suit under the federal Speech or Debate Clause extended to a legislator's decision not to authorize the hire of an applicant for press officer. Id. at 57. Although the United States Supreme Court had not yet considered whether an employment decision amounted to a legislative act, the Agromayor court noted that three United States Supreme Court justices had expressed the opinion that congressional employment decisions should be covered by the Clause.
Under the test stated in Agromayor, courts must look to the employee's duties to determine if legislative immunity applies; if the employee has meaningful input into the legislative process, the legislator has absolute immunity for his or her decisions regarding that employee under the Speech or Debate Clause. Notably, the only other federal circuit court to adopt a test similar to the Agromayor test has since disavowed it. See Fields, 459 F.3d at 11-12, rejecting the test previously adopted in Browning v. United States House of Representatives, 252 U.S.App. D.C. 241, 789 F.2d 923, 928-929 (1986).
The Speech or Debate Clause, the Fields court explained, was intended to protect the legislative process, not an individual legislator's legislative goals:
For those reasons, the court in Fields rejected the test applied in Browning and adopted a functional test. Id.
We agree that, in the employment context, the immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause should not
Cotton alleged that Banks used his position and authority as an employer to subject Cotton to inappropriate sexual conduct, which amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. According to Cotton, when he refused to enter into a romantic relationship with Banks, Banks retaliated against him and ultimately terminated his employment. None of these allegations involve a legislative act; even the ultimate decision to terminate Cotton's employment did not involve legislative concerns, and an analysis of it did not require an investigation of Banks's legislative acts. Banks's conduct was merely administrative. See Forrester, 484 U.S. at 229-230, 108 S.Ct. 538; Fields, 459 F.3d at 14. Therefore, on the face of the pleadings, the immunity provided under the Speech and Debate Clause does not apply to bar Cotton's claims. See Yono, 306 Mich.App. at 682, 858 N.W.2d 128.
Moreover, even considering Banks's version of events and his evidentiary submissions in support, the result is the same. See id. at 679-680, 858 N.W.2d 128 (recognizing that a governmental defendant may submit evidence to contradict the allegations stated in the complaint and, if the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the defendant is entitled to immunity, the trial court must dismiss the claims). Banks did not submit any evidence that Cotton's employment and dismissal would require inquiry into prohibited areas. Banks denied having engaged in any inappropriate sexual conduct with Cotton and stated that he terminated Cotton's employment because Cotton misused his status as a legislative assistant and did not have a valid driver's license. The proffered reasons do not implicate Cotton's involvement in any legislative acts and do not require inquiry into Banks's legislative acts or the motivation behind his legislative acts. See Fields, 459 F.3d at 14.
The trial court did not err when it denied Banks's motion to dismiss premised on the immunity provided under Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11.
The Michigan House of Representatives asks this Court to adopt the approach for
Although the court in Fields determined that the claims at issue there were not barred on the face of the pleadings, it nevertheless concluded that the Speech or Debate Clause might still require dismissal. Fields, 459 F.3d at 14. This, the court maintained, was because the Clause also provides legislators with an evidentiary privilege:
"[E]ven if the challenged personnel decisions are not legislative acts, inquiry into the motivation for those decisions may require inquiry into legislative acts," which would not be permitted under the Speech or Debate Clause. Id. For that reason, the court felt that the Speech or Debate Clause posed special problems in the context of employment actions involving the burden-shifting approach. Id. at 15, citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). A plurality of the Fields court went on to provide a framework for addressing the evidentiary problem posed by the Speech or Debate Clause as applied to motions for summary disposition. Fields, 459 F.3d at 15-17.
Because we have decided this issue on the limited record before us, and that record does not implicate any of these concerns, we decline to consider whether, and to what extent, an evidentiary privilege might apply, and we decline to adopt the additional safeguards discussed in Fields. Such issues would best be addressed in the first instance before the trial court after the parties have had an adequate opportunity to develop the record and their arguments. Nevertheless, nothing in this opinion should be construed to preclude Banks from asserting the immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause to prevent inquiries into his legislative acts or, after conducting further discovery, from bringing a properly supported motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), on the ground that one or more of Cotton's claims cannot be established without impermissible inquiry into legislative acts.
Banks next argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss Cotton's claim premised on retaliation for reporting Banks's sexual harassment. Specifically, Banks argues that the trial court should have dismissed Cotton's retaliation claim because Cotton failed to allege that he actually reported the harassment to a supervisor, and because Cotton failed to present evidence to establish a question of fact on this issue after Banks submitted
Banks stated in the factual recitation of his brief in support of his motion for summary disposition that Cotton "had never made any reports to any person . . . concerning harassment or discrimination he may have encountered during his employment [with the Michigan House of Representatives]." He cited an affidavit by the Michigan House of Representatives' office director in support of this factual assertion. Banks further argued that Cotton's retaliation claim had to be dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because Cotton failed to plead that he had reported the harassment or discrimination before the alleged acts of retaliation.
Although Banks did assert that Cotton would be unable to plead such facts because he never in fact reported any harassment or discrimination, Banks did not move for summary disposition as to this claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Furthermore, at the hearing on Banks's motion for summary disposition, the trial court made it clear that it was not going to consider the evidentiary submissions or otherwise consider the office director's affidavit as an oral motion under (C)(10):
In paragraph 11 of his complaint, Cotton alleged that Banks engaged in various acts of sexual harassment against him. He then alleged in paragraph 11(k) that he "reported all of the above acts to his superiors, however, the acts continued and never ceased." Cotton incorporated these allegations into his claim for retaliation and further alleged that Banks retaliated against him in several ways for exercising his rights under the Civil Rights Act. These allegations were sufficient to state a claim of retaliation under MCL 37.2701(a). See Barrett v. Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich.App. 306, 315, 628 N.W.2d 63 (2001).
The trial court did not err when it denied Banks's motion for summary disposition of Cotton's retaliation claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
Finally, Banks argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss Cotton's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on the ground that the Civil Rights Act is the exclusive remedy for claims of sexual harassment and discrimination. This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Barnard Mfg., 285 Mich.App. at 369, 775 N.W.2d 618.
In his motion for summary disposition, Banks argued that the Civil Rights Act provided the right to be free from sexual harassment in the work environment and provided the exclusive remedy for violations of that right. Citing Monroe Beverage Co., Inc., v. Stroh Brewery Co., 454 Mich. 41, 45, 559 N.W.2d 297 (1997), Banks
Banks's reliance on Monroe Beverage Co. is misplaced. In that case, our Supreme Court analyzed a statute that established a cause of action unknown at common law. Id. at 45, 559 N.W.2d 297. Because the Legislature created new rights and remedies with this statute, the Court explained, the Court must enforce the statute's limits on who may avail themselves of the rights and may not infer remedies other than those provided by the statute. Id. The Court did not hold that the creation of a statutory right necessarily abrogates any common-law action which could conceivably arise from the same set of facts.
Michigan courts have recognized that the common-law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress vindicates a person's "right to be free from serious, intentional and unprivileged invasions of mental and emotional tranquility." Campos v. General Motors Corp., 71 Mich.App. 23, 25, 246 N.W.2d 352 (1976). By contrast, the Civil Rights Act protects a person from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. See MCL 37.2102(1). Courts will not lightly presume the abrogation or modification of the common law. See Dawe v. Dr. Reuven Bar-Levan & Assoc., PC, 485 Mich. 20, 28, 780 N.W.2d 272 (2010). Because the Civil Rights Act claim and the common-law claim vindicate different rights, we cannot infer that, with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the Legislature intended to abrogate any common-law claims where the facts giving rise to a claim might also give rise to a claim under the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, the Legislature specifically provided that the Civil Rights Act should "not be construed to diminish the right of a person to direct or immediate legal or equitable remedies in the courts of the state." MCL 37.2803. Therefore, Cotton could properly allege a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on facts which might also support a claim under the Civil Rights Act.
The trial court did not err when it concluded that the Civil Rights Act did not provide the exclusive remedy for claims involving sexual harassment and denied Banks's motion for summary disposition of Cotton's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
The Legislature did not waive the immunity provided under Michigan's Speech or Debate Clause, Const. 1963, art. 4, § 11, by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act. Because Cotton's claims do not on the face of the pleadings, or considering the record evidence, implicate Banks's legislative acts, the Speech or Debate Clause does not bar Cotton's claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Banks's motion for summary disposition premised on the immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause. The trial court also did not err when it determined that Cotton sufficiently pleaded the elements of a retaliation claim under the Civil Rights Act to survive a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Finally, the trial court correctly determined that the enactment of the Civil Rights Act did not abrogate the common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress even though the common-law claim involved acts that might also amount to unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.
There were no errors warranting relief.
Affirmed. There being an important question of public policy on appeal, we
SERVITTO, P.J., and STEPHENS, J., concurred with M.J. KELLY, J.
