Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—E.D. Mich.: Dealership employee, allegedly sexually assaulted in 2021-22, failed to preserve those claims, (Feb 20, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The used car dealership instructed her to hide from the service advisor who was sexually harassing her.

A former finance manager for Southgate Lincoln, LLC, allegedly pursued and repeatedly assaulted in 2021-22 by a male service advisor from whom the used car dealership instructed her to hide, failed to preserve her Title VII sex discrimination and sexual harassment claims as to those specific allegations, a federal district court found. Finding her alleged assault and harassment during that period “certainly troubling,” the court nonetheless concluded that the allegations were not actionable because she did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to them, nor did the continuing violation doctrine save them despite additional allegations that a new manager, hired in 2024, made offensive and discriminatory remarks about her based on her sex and his assumption that she was pregnant (Brusher v. Southgate Lincoln, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-11264 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 18, 2026)).

Finance manager. The plaintiff, according to the court, began working as a finance manager at Southgate Lincoln under the supervision of a general manager. As a finance manager, she helped customers secure financing for new car purchases. In the role, she was allegedly consistently ranked “top five in her region” for customer satisfaction and sales performance.

New service advisor. In the fall of 2021, however, Southgate Lincoln hired a new service advisor, and shortly thereafter, she alleged, he began sexually harassing and assaulting her, throughout late 2021 and early 2022.

First alleged assault. She alleged that the first instance of his harassment and assault occurred when he wrapped his arms around her while standing behind her, “grabbed one of her arms and forced [her] hand to rub his penis over his pants.”

White line on floor. She immediately reported the incident to the general manager, and in response, Southgate Lincoln asked the service advisor not to cross a white line on the dealership floor near the finance manager’s office.

Continuing harassment. On a second occasion, he approached her from behind again, this time “grop[ing] her pelvic area, hips, and stomach,” and told her she was “sexy” and “hot.” She again immediately reported the incident.

Around this same time, he started standing “just behind the white line to stare at [[her]] in her office,” and he began following her to the bathroom.

“[S]tay away from the bathroom.” When she reported this to Southgate Lincoln, she was told to stay away from the bathroom. She thus started to use a bathroom in a different building instead, and when the general manager would see him standing behind the white line staring at the plaintiff, she would tell her to leave her office and go hide in the sales room.

Physical attack. In November 2021, he “physically attacked” her in the parking lot by “grabbing her arm, twisting it, and screaming ‘fuck Southgate Lincoln’ in her face.” She reported this to Southgate Lincoln, but no action was taken.

Around the same time, another female Southgate Lincoln employee reported him to management, alleging that he had grabbed her breast from behind. Despite these reports, he continued to work at Southgate Lincoln for “many weeks,” until he quit without resolution of any of the complaints against him.

Ongoing issues. And even after the service advisor quit, his harassment did not end. The employee alleged that he would park his truck outside the window of her dealership office “at least 3-5 times” during late 2021 and early 2022. When she reported this to Southgate Lincoln, she was instructed to go hide in the sales room and Southgate Lincoln directed other employees to “stand guard by the door in case [[he]] came into the dealership.”

She further alleged that he followed her home from work “at least 5—10 times” during this same period. Southgate Lincoln instructed her to write everything down for it to be added to her personnel file. After early 2022, however, she does not allege that there were any more incidents involving him.

New manager’s comments. Then, about two years after the incidents with the service advisor, Southgate Lincoln hired a new used-car manager in March 2024. Shortly thereafter, some of her coworkers told her that the new manager made sexist and discriminatory comments about her to other employees, including calling her a “fucking cunt” and saying that he had plans to get her fired. He also allegedly commented that she “should have kept her legs shut,” assuming she was pregnant when a coworker informed him that the finance manager was not available because she was at an ultrasound appointment.

On March 11, 2024, she learned of the new manager’s comments and reported them to the hiring manager and the owner of the dealership, but no action was taken, and the new manager continued to make offensive and discriminatory remarks about her based on her sex and his assumption that she was pregnant.

MDCR charge. She filed a charge with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) about the new manager’s comments, and on March 14, 2024, she informed Southgate Lincoln that she had filed a charge with the MDCR as to the new manager’s conduct.

Discipline and discharge. After informing the dealership about her charge, she was called into a meeting with managers who asked why she had reported them, and thereafter she “was written up.” Then, on April 10, 2024, she alleged, she was “discharged in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.”

Right-to-sue letter and lawsuit. In November 2024, the MDCR dismissed her MDCR charge, and in February 2025, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter.

Three months later, she sued the dealership, alleging Title VII sex discrimination and a sexually hostile work environment (HWE), perceived pregnancy discrimination under Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title VII retaliation, a HWE under Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), retaliation under the ELCRA, and perceived disability discrimination under Michigan’s Persons with Disability Civil Rights Act.

Present motion. Southgate Lincoln filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of the first two counts in part.

Failure to exhaust sex discrimination claim. The court first found that her Title VII sex discrimination claim based on the alleged harassment in 2021 and 2022 must be dismissed because she did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding those allegations. And although she alleged that the 2021 and 2022 harassment may be included under the continuing violation doctrine, she did not allege that Southgate Lincoln had “a standard operating procedure of discrimination against a class”—in this case, women—“that was established over time.” Nor did she allege that Southgate Lincoln maintained a “known policy or rule supporting [sex] discrimination,” according to the court.

HWE claim. Likewise, her Title VII HWE claim based on the service advisor’s alleged harassment and assault was dismissed, though for slightly different reasons. Because this was a HWE claim, she could conceivably invoke the continuing violation doctrine by showing that the 2021 and 2022 harassment by the service advisor and 2024 incidents with the new manager were “evidence of present discriminatory activity” that comprises a hostile work environment, but such an application of the continuing violation doctrine “only applies if the acts are part of the same hostile work environment claim.” Here, said the court, “even assuming that the alleged hostile work environment incidents were of a similar nature, there is no question that the alleged incidents were not continuing, thus the continuing violations doctrine does not apply.” The plaintiff simply failed to allege that “anything occurred between early 2022 and early 2024, let alone anything that might contribute to a hostile work environment.”

Accordingly, her Title VII sex discrimination and HWE claims were dismissed in part to the extent that they were based upon conduct by the service advisor in 2021 and 2022.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-11264.

Judge: DeClercq, S.

Attorneys: Angela L. Walker (Blanchard & Walker) for Nicole Brusher. Marlo J. Roebuck (Jackson Lewis) for Southgate Lincoln, LLC.

Companies: Southgate Lincoln, LLC

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination SexualHarassment Procedure Retaliation MichiganNews