FOLLOW US

In a courtroom clash echoing with allegations of sexual assault, racial slurs, and corporate silence, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a jury’s decision siding with Ford Motor Co. in the Ford Sexual Harassment Suit, rejecting a former employee’s plea for a new trial.

The case centered on Deanna Johnson, a Black woman who claimed she was subjected to sexual and racial harassment by a male co-worker while working as a process coach at a Ford truck plant in 2018. Despite emotional testimony and disturbing details—including alleged groping and the receipt of explicit messages—the court said the jury’s verdict was aligned with the evidence—or lack thereof—regarding what Ford knew and when.

A Legal Minefield of Conflicting Testimony

Johnson filed the lawsuit in January 2019, alleging her complaints to supervisors were ignored until she finally turned to human resources in November 2018, sparking an investigation that resulted in her harasser’s termination. Still, she was later fired in August 2019 after taking medical leave.

Yet, the court’s three-judge panel said the case came down to a credibility duel, a "he-said-she-said" scenario with no clear winner.

“What this clash of evidence boils down to is a question of credibility,” the panel wrote. “It is not the role of this court to assess which version is more believable.”

Ford's supervisors denied ever receiving complaints from Johnson before the HR report. Their stance was supported by contemporaneous statements and text messages Johnson sent—none of which, the court noted, included references to harassment.

Meanwhile, Johnson insisted she had verbally alerted her superiors multiple times. But her credibility took a hit under cross-examination when she admitted to lying on the resume she submitted to Ford.

Sexual Assault Allegations vs. Legal Thresholds

Johnson’s explosive allegations included racial slurs, sexually explicit messages, and an incident in which a male co-worker allegedly reached into her shirt and groped her. But the court noted that because the jury believed she had not adequately notified Ford, the company couldn’t be held liable for failing to act.

Her sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims, brought under Section 1981 and Michigan law, were thus dismissed as the evidence didn’t definitively show that Ford had been made aware of the alleged misconduct.

Quid Pro Quo and Retaliation Claims Fall Flat

Johnson also attempted to revive a quid pro quo harassment claim, asserting that her harasser had influence over her job since he trained her and gave performance feedback. But the court shut that down, calling her arguments “conclusory” and unsupported by direct links between the harassment and employment consequences.

Adding to her setbacks, the court also affirmed a procedural denial of her bid to amend her lawsuit in October 2019 to include retaliatory termination, saying she could have raised the claim earlier—particularly since her case had already been through the appellate wringer once before.