In Kosiba v. Dental Associates, PC, No. 2:24-CV-12069-TGB-EAS, 2026 WL 2211548 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment and sexual harassment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
After concluding that plaintiff had abandoned these claims, the court turned to the merits:
If considered on the merits, Plaintiff’s gender harassment, sexual harassment, and hostile-work-environment theories would nevertheless fail. Those theories require that the employer have either actual or constructive notice of the harassment or of the hostile work environment and fail to take prompt and adequate remedial action. See Kalich v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 679 F.3d 464, 474 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The final element of the prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment requires the plaintiff to establish that the employer had either actual or constructive notice of the hostile work environment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.”); Doe v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 3 F.4th 294, 301 (6th Cir. 2021) (“when [the harassment is] committed by a coworker, the employer is liable only if it knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.” Plaintiff, however, has admitted that she never reported any conduct alleged in the Complaint to Defendant. Nor does Plaintiff point to any evidence that Defendant knew or should have known of any facts suggesting that Plaintiff was harassed or faced a hostile workplace. (Citations omitted.)
The court concluded that, for this reason alone, plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment or hostile workplace.