966 N.W.2d 219
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Plaintiff sued the University of Michigan and several employees in circuit court under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) for discrimination and retaliation.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (7), arguing plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) (the Court of Claims Act notice requirement) and so her claims against state defendants must be dismissed.
- The trial court denied defendants’ motion; defendants appealed, asserting the denial implicated governmental immunity and was therefore appealable as of right.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) is a governmental-immunity issue or a forum-procedure issue, noting Supreme Court developments that left that question unsettled.
- The court held that (1) because the PWDCRA expressly waives governmental immunity and does not condition that waiver on COCA notice, failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) did not implicate governmental immunity; and (2) the COCA notice requirement applies to claims in the Court of Claims, not to claims properly brought in circuit court.
- The panel affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition and exercised discretion to decide the COCA question on leave granted despite jurisdictional defects in the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) implicates governmental immunity | Tyrrell: No — PWDCRA waives immunity and does not condition suit on COCA notice | Univ. of Mich.: Yes — failing COCA notice means immunity applies and dismissal follows | Held: No — MCL 600.6431(1) does not itself confer immunity; it only implicates immunity if the Legislature conditions waiver on COCA compliance (which PWDCRA did not) |
| Whether a plaintiff proceeding in circuit court against a state defendant must comply with MCL 600.6431(1) | Tyrrell: No — COCA notice is a Court of Claims procedural requirement and does not apply in circuit court | Univ. of Mich.: Yes — MCL 600.6431 says no claim may be maintained against the state unless notice filed (so applies regardless of forum) | Held: No — COCA notice requirement applies to actions in the Court of Claims; plaintiffs may proceed in circuit court without complying with MCL 600.6431(1) absent a statutory condition to the contrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairley v. Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290 (2015) (MCL 600.6431 may be a condition precedent that implicates immunity when statute conditions waiver on COCA compliance)
- Pike v. N Michigan Univ., 327 Mich App 683 (2019) (Court of Appeals holding that COCA notice requirement did not apply to a claim against a state employee)
- Doe v. Dep’t of Transp., 324 Mich App 226 (2018) (discussing transfer between circuit court and Court of Claims and COCA procedures)
- Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen., 324 Mich App 659 (2018) (Court of Appeals earlier held COCA noncompliance implicated immunity; later reversed by Supreme Court)
- Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich 567 (1984) (sovereign immunity background and Legislature’s power to consent to suit)
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (2013) (noting PWDCRA’s express waiver of governmental immunity)
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (2012) (characterizing MCL 600.6431 as a notice statute)