I get legal updates all the time. According to an update I received today, a new Michigan case holds that "sexually aggressive and predatory words may be sufficient to put an employer on notice of its employee's propensity for violence. Based on what plaintiff's attacker said to her and what she reported to defendant's plant manager, a jury could find that defendant employer should have known of the attacker's propensity for sexual violence."
Interpreted: The company could be liable for the sexual assault perpetrated by one of its employees.
I pulled up the case and found this ironic opening paragraph:
This case arises from a sexual assault that took place on Whittar's premises. Lisa Brown was employed by a security company and assigned to Whittar as a security guard. Defendant Michael Brown (no relation to Lisa Brown) worked for Whittar as a foreman. Lisa Brown alleged that while both were on duty, Michael Brown sexually assaulted her.
The security guard was assaulted by the person she was supposed to protect? That's kind of ironic. Can the woman sue her employer for putting her in harm's way?
