Podcasts about mich app

Case Law Update  •             True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co, ___ Mich App; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) •             Spectrum Health Hospitals, et al. v Citizens Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 18, 2023 (Docket No. 362042)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation       •             Testimony of Biomechanical Engineers  

Case Law Update   VHS of Michigan v MAIPF, ___ Mich App ___ (2025) (Docket No. 368755)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Employee v. Independent Contractor and the No-Fault Act  

Case Law Update  •             NuCare Therapy LLC v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (January 7, 2025) (Docket No. 366779)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •             Unlawful Solicitation  

Case Law Discussion Payton v Meemic Insurance Company and Willie King, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357736) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195) Great Lakes Pain & Injury Chiropractic Ctr., et al. v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357702

Case Law Update   •                  Central Home Health Care Servs Inc v Progressive Mich Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 364653)   •                 Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195)   •                  Ronnie Fields, et al. v National General Insurance Company, et al., unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 361959)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Impact of the Latest Changes to the One-Year-Back Rule of MCL 500.3145   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Kaitlynn M. Milroy, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update   •                 Parraghi v Chodyniecki, et al., Docket No. 358829 (Mich Ct App, November 2, 2022)   •                 Wasik v Auto Club Ins Assn, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___(2022) (Docket No. 355848)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Assignments in PIP Claims   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Joseph J. Giacolone, Associate Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  •              Duato v Denise Mellon, Indian Harbor Ins Co. and Progressive Marathon Ins. Co., ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 362823) •              Farm Burau General Insurance Company v Maple Manor Neuro Center, Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 16, 2023 (Docket No. 362824) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          No-Fault Reform and Changes to Liability Coverage   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  •          Reece v James, et al.,___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No.s 362140 and 362151) •          Bronson Healthcare Group v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363486) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Improper Motions to Exclude Evidence – Phillipe Martin v Geico General Insurance Company, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 362010) Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          Ronnie Fields, et al. v National General Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 361959) •          Evans v Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 10, 2023 (Docket No. 361808) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Case Evaluation Sanctions – R.A.D. Constr., Inc. v Davis, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) Docket No.s. 361177 and 363142)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 165845) •          Almaswari v Lychuk, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 27, 2023 (Docket No. 360612) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Andary update   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •      Harris v Alson, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 18, 2023 (Docket No. 359588) •      Melvina Howard, et al. v LM General Insurance Company, et al., ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 357110) •      Morrissette and Central Home Health Care Services v Indian Harbor Insurance Company and Cantrell Mitchell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 17, 2022 (Docket No. 359503)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      Maple Manor Rehab Center of Novi, Inc. and Maple Manor Neuro Center, Inc. v Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 16, 2023 (Docket No. 358272) •      MCR 2.116(C)(4) •      MCR 2.116(C)(10) •      MCR 2.116(G)(4)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •      Mapp v Progressive, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359889) •      C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Allstate Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 30, 2023 (Docket No. 360887) •      C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive Mich Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358170)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      More on MCL 500.3145 “One-year-back” •      Encompass Healthcare v Citizens Insurance Co, published opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 17, 2022 (Docket No. 357225) •      Spine Specialists of Michigan P.C. v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 20, 2023 (Docket No. 359154)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          Advance Therapy & Rehab, Inc. v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359673) •          Samone Johnson v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 16, 2023 (Docket No. 359478) •          Farrar v SMART, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 358872) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      Litigation Management Strategies – pre and post suit Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Al-Hajjaj v Hartford Accident and Indem Co, ____ Mich App ____ (2023)  (Docket No. 359291) Whitney v Wilcoxson, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued December 15, 2022 (Docket No. 360647) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation PIP Basics - MCL 500.3114(3) Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195) Ophelia J. Epps and Michigan Head and Spine Institute v United Services Automobile Association, et al., (Docket No. 357818) Wasik v Auto Club Ins Assn, ___ Mich App ___; ____ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 355848)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Andary Update – Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v MemberSelect Insurance Company, (Docket No. 358296)

Case Law Update Alice Jenkins v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, issued January 13, 2022 (Docket No. 355452) Micheli v Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 356559) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Michigan Public Health Code and Unethical Business Practices Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  Andary, et al. v USAA Casualty Ins Co, et al. ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) Court of Appeals Rules Michigan No-Fault Reforms Are Not Retroactive Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  

Case Law Update Micheli v Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, ___ Mich App ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 356559) Kennard v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 355462) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Tousignant v Allstate, 444 Mich 301 (1993) and MCL 500.3109(a) Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Topics Case Law Update: Mobile MRI Staffing, LLC v Meemic Ins Co, issued January 20, 2022 (Docket No. 355162) Precise MRI of Michigan, LLC v State Auto Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 354653). *State Auto was represented by Secrest Wardle  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation:  Public Health Code, MCL 333.17047 Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Jamie gets all fired up about Michigan FB and how they need to play in order to beat OSU. We don't wanna be bullied anymore See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Explaining the Hazards of Failing to Reside in the Dwelling the Risk of Loss of Which Was Insured https://zalma.com/blog Insurance companies often see disputes relating to the terms “domicile” and “residence” when dealing with a homeowners policy. It is important, therefore, that everyone in the business of insurance must understand the meaning, and application, of the terms to insurance claims and how they relate to individuals and corporations that are insured or insurers. Although a person may have more than one residence, he or she may only have one domicile at any one time. [Nat'l Artists Mgmt. Co. v. Weaving, 769 F. Supp. 1224, 1227 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)]. The controlling factor in determining residency, on the other hand, is intent, as evidenced primarily by the acts, of the person whose residence is questioned. [Farmers Auto Insurance Ass'n v. Williams, 213 Ill. App. 3d 310, 314 (2001), Direct Auto Ins. Co. v. Grigsby, 2020 IL App (1st) 182642-U (Ill. App. 2020).] In the context of automobile insurance exclusions, residence is determined on a case-by-case basis using factors such as intent and relative permanence. [Potter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 996 P.2d 781, 783 (Colo. App. 2000); Grippin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 409 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2016)] In Holland v Trinity Health Care Corp, 287 Mich App 524, 527-528; 791 NW2d 724 (2010) the Court defined the verb “reside” as to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to live. In doing so, the Court expressly explained that the definition of "reside" is not synonymous with the legal definition of "domicile," which may have a more technical meaning than intended in the home insurance context under the policy language at issue. The term “reside” requires that the insured actually live at the property. The homeowners policy language unambiguously requires that the property at issue be the insured's "residence premises" for coverage to apply. It does not require that the property be the Insured's domicile. The "insured location" was defined in relevant part to mean "the residence premises," and the "residence premises" was defined to mean the dwelling where the insureds "reside and which is shown as the 'residence premises' in the Declarations." Faced with such clear and unambiguous language, a court is required to enforce the exact language of the policy that unambiguously required the insured to reside at the insured premises at the time of the loss. If the insured resided in a different location there could be no coverage. © 2021 – Barry Zalma --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

Topics Case Law Update: Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 (2014) Shelton v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 318 Mich App 648 (2017) Haydaw v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 332 Mich App 719 (2020)  Trending topics in PIP Litigation Michigan No-Fault Reform - Priority Coverage Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

The Mortgage Clause to a Property Insurance Policy https://zalma.com/blog Contract language used in almost every state protects the mortgagee even when the named insured commits arson or in some other manner intentionally damages the property that is the subject of the insurance. The language of the standard mortgage clause exempts the named mortgagee from wrongful acts or omissions of the named insured. The courts consider a mortgagee clause to be a separate policy of insurance. The insurer generally has the burden of proving the fact of fraud and, if it wants to deny the claim to the mortgagee, must prove that the mortgagee was actively involved in the fraud When a standard mortgage clause is included in an insurance commitment, courts treat the policy as involving two contracts of insurance, "one with the lienholder and the insurer and the other with the insured and the insurer." [Foremost Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 439 Mich 378, 384; 486 NW2d 600 (1992).] The insurer agrees to insure a single property against specified losses and, through the standard mortgage clause, undertakes separate contractual duties governing to whom the proceeds of the policy are payable in the event of loss. [Better Valu Homes, Inc v Preferred Mut Ins Co, 60 Mich App 315, 319; 230 NW2d 412 (1975); Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co. v. Louis (Mich. App., 2019)] This provision is a “standard mortgage clause” or “union mortgage clause,” in that it allows the mortgageholder to recover in some circumstances when the insured cannot. (Allen v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 167 Minn. 146, 208 N.W. 816, (1926)) (discussing the distinction between a union mortgage clause and an open mortgage clause). © 2021 – Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and Read last two issues of ZIFL here. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

Topics Case Law Update: Estate of John Conforti, by Donna Conforti, Personal Representative v Stanley Webster Cornell and Metro Controls, Inc, Docket No. 348745, issued October 29, 2020 Hurley Medical Center v Farm Bureau and Michigan Assigned Claims, Docket No. 348364, issued November 24, 2020 Melrose v Nationwide, Docket No. 352843, issued October 22, 2020 Sterling Heights Pain Management, PLC v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020), Docket No. 350979    Trending topics in PIP Litigation MAIPF Agrees That 2019 Changes to Order of Priority Took Immediate Effect Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Topics Case Law Update: Mullen v Progressive, Docket No. 350015, issued October 22, 2020 Advisacare Healthcare Solutions v Auto Owners Insurance Company, Docket No. 349756, issued October 15, 2020 Bahnam v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, Docket No. 347638, issued October 15, 2020 Barnes, et al. v 21st Century Premier Insurance Company (CPIC), ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) Trending topics in PIP Litigation: Testimony of Biomechanical Engineers Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

CHANGE IN CHILD CUSTODY (810) 235-1970 ATTORNEY BANKERT I OFTEN HAVE A CLIENT COME IN WITH THESE FACTS. The parties were given joint legal custody of their child, but plaintiff-mother had sole physical custody. HOW DOES DAD CHANGE THIS? Presented here by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert (810) 235-1970 #CHILDCUSTODY, #CUSTODYMODIFICATION, #FLINTATTORNEY, #FLINTLAWYER, #DIVORCE, #POSTDIVORCE YOU HAVE TO TELL THE COURT WHAT THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IS. Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). IN A RECENT CASE I REVIEWED THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWS. Defendant later moved to change custody, alleging physical abuse, repeated exposure to different men, and the instability of plaintiff’s life as reasons to revisit custody. The court found that defendant’s “motion included allegations and evidence sufficient to establish—at the very least—that there were ‘contested factual issues that must be resolved’” for the trial court to make an informed decision. IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT ADDITIONALLY THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. video evidence as well as “evidence that the child had begun to engage in self-injurious behavior and that she was struggling with frustration.” In addition, the court noted that Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). “a change in disciplinary techniques to include corporal punishment may constitute a change in circumstances that has a significant effect on the child.” IN SUMMARY A Parent may not modify or amend a previous judgment or order involving custody except for “proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances.” MCL 722.27(1)(c). The Legislature established this burden to minimize disruptions to the child’s custody. See Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567, 576-577; 309 NW2d 532 (1981). Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). The Court concluded that the phrase “change of circumstances” should be understood to require the movant “to prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have had or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have materially changed.” Id. at 513. This Court stated that “not just any change” will suffice to justify revisiting custody—the “evidence must demonstrate something more than the normal life changes” to rise to the level of a change of circumstances that would warrant revisiting custody. Id. at 513-514. [see Michigan Court of Appeals Unpublished, #72064 ] FLINT ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT 235-1970 WWW.ATTORNEYBANKERT.COM

(August 2019 episode rescheduled due to technical difficulties) Topics Case Law Update: George v Allstate Ins. Co., ___ Mich App ___ (2019) (Docket No. 341876), for publication Newby v American Zurich Ins. Co., issued August 1, 2019 (Docket No. 342741) Trending topics in PIP Litigation: First-Party Benefits: An Overview of Survivor’s Loss Benefits Hosted by Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Javon R. David, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Topics COA Update: Mendelsohn Orthopedics (Devore) v Everest National Ins. Co., et al., ___ Mich App ___ (2019) (Docket No. 341013) Jawad A. Shah, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Insight Pain Management Center v Fremont Insurance Company, (Docket No. 340441) Trending topics in No-Fault Litigation: The Dust Settles: Michigan No-Fault Reform 2019 Hosted by Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Javon R. David, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Topics COA Update: Humphries v 21st Century, Docket No. 339980, issued April 16, 2019 Turner v Farmers Insurance Exchange and Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, et al, and Everson v Farmers Insurance Exchange and Enterprise Leasing Corporation, et al, ___ Mich App ___ (2019) Trending topics in No-Fault Litigation: Probate and the No-Fault Act: Compensability of Conservator/Guardian Fees Hosted by Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Javon R. David, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

A default is not a finding. No proper cause or change in circumstances required. Vodvarka vs Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003)

Episode #3 of the Hostile Workplace Podcast, by the Undercover Lawyer Announcements In epsisode three I mentioned that you can follow me on Twitter. In you are not familiar with it, Twitter is a “micro-blogging” site, where people can post short, text message length updates about what they are doing each day. You can see it for yourself at www.Twitter.com . My username on Twitter, if you would like to follow me, is “Undercover_Lawr”. Quick Tip For the Quick Tip, we talked about how employees have zero expectation of privacy for anything done with their work computer, or their work network (like signing in from home – still utilizes work network) Feature Segment – Straight Male to Straight Male Sex Harassment Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. 523 U.S. 75 (1998) Facts of the Case Joseph Oncale, a male, filed a complaint against his employer, Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., alleging that he was sexually harassed by co-workers, in their workplace, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). On appeal from a decision supporting a district court's ruling against Oncale, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question Does the prohibition against sex discrimination, set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, apply to same-sex sexual harassment? Conclusion Yes. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that while Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace, it does bar all forms of discrimination "because of" sex. Such discrimination, whether motivated by sexual desire or not, is actionable so long at it places its victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the victim's gender. Written Option: http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/75/index.html   Davis v Coastal Intern. Sec., Inc, 275 F3d 1119 (2002) Facts: The extended and rancorous workplace dispute giving rise to this action began in 1996 after Coastal International Security hired Wallace Davis to work as a security guard at the Environmental Protection Agency. While serving as a supervisor early in his tenure, Davis disciplined two other Coastal security guards, Aaron Smith and Everett Allen, for various on-the-job infractions. Smith and Allen, apparently infuriated by their discipline, launched a retaliatory campaign against Davis, which they began by repeatedly slashing his tires. After Davis complained to his supervisor, Coastal required the three men to sign a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed to set aside their differences. This agreement accomplished nothing. When Davis was demoted Smith and Allen visited his work station and taunted him about the demotion. Approximately six months into their campaign against Davis, Smith and Allen expanded their repertoire. Smith approached Davis at his work station and grabbed his (Smith's) crotch, made kissing gestures, and used a phrase describing oral sex. After Smith twice repeated this performance, Davis complained to his supervisor, who convened a meeting with Davis, Smith, and Coastal's project manager for the EPA facility. Because Smith denied Davis's accusations, and because Davis failed to provide corroborating evidence, the project manager took no formal action, but admonished both Davis and Smith to “ act like grown men.” Undeterred, Smith continued his vulgar comments and gestures, and Davis again complained to his supervisor. This time the supervisor warned Smith that he would be fired if his behavior continued. This seems to have gotten Smith's attention, for his lewd conduct ceased (although Davis alleges that Smith threatened his life on several subsequent occasions). Allen, however, twice approaching Davis and made precisely the same lewd gestures and comments that Smith had. When Davis complained for a third time, Coastal conducted a full-scale investigation. Although the investigator interviewed ten employees, he concluded that the inquiry had been “hampered by the lack of a reliable witness to substantiate even one allegation of sexual harassment by ... Davis.” Notwithstanding this lack of corroborating evidence, the investigator recommended that Davis and Allen be reassigned (Coastal had terminated Smith for unrelated reasons). Shortly thereafter, Davis filed one final complaint, claiming again that Allen, despite his reassignment, had repeated the by-now-familiar lewd gestures and comments. In January 2000, over three years after these events began, Davis filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Smith's and Allen's behavior amounted to sexual harassment and that Coastal and Securiguard “permitted ... Allen ... and ... Smith to make sexually vulgar gestures and statements.” Legal Standard for Male to Male Sex Harassment: The Court suggested three ways to prove that same-sex sexual behavior rises to the level of illegal sexual harassment: The plaintiff may show that the sexual behavior is motivated by actual homosexual desire; that the harassment is framed in “such sex-specific and derogatory terms ... as to make it clear that the harasser is motivated by general hostility” toward members of the same gender in the workplace; or that there is “direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace.” Oncale, at 80-81, 118 S.Ct at 1002. ROBINSON v FORD MOTOR Co 277 Mich App 146 (2007) This case was brought under STATE LAW, Michigan Civil Rights Act (MCA). “Plaintiff alleging a sexually hostile work environment on the basis of sexual advances or solicitations under Civil Rights Act (CRA) must present some credible evidence that the harasser is motivated by sexual desire; however, the same cannot be said about the third type of action barred under the CRA, namely verbal or physical conduct "of a sexual nature." M.C.L.A. § 37.2103(i).” Employee presented sufficient evidence to allow reasonable trier of fact to conclude that co-worker's conduct and communication inherently pertained to sex for purposes of employee's same-gender sexual harassment claim under Civil Rights Act (CRA); co-worker allegedly exposed his testicles and forced employee to touch them, hit employee's buttocks, exposed employee's underwear, digitally penetrated employee's buttocks, moved his hand between employee's legs toward his testicles, squeezed employee's nipples, threw pubic hair at employee, rubbed employee's personal property against his genitals, and pressed his erect penis on employee's back while forcing his fingers into employee's mouth. FEMALE HARASSING MALE Jones v U.S. Gypsum, 126 F Supp 2d 1172 (2000) Legal Standard that Accuser Must Satisfy: (a) she is a member in a protected group; (b) she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (c) the harassment was based on sex; (d) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (e) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action.