Moon v. Michigan Reproductive & IVF Center, PC
294 Mich. App. 582
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Moon sought IVF from GRFI and MRIC for a single woman; both clinics refused.
- Moon sued GRFI and MRIC for discrimination based on marital status under the CRA.
- Circuit court granted summary disposition, relying on common-law consensual doctor-patient formation to justify refusals.
- GRFI argued the CRA excludes professionals from such relationships; Moon argued CRA prohibits discriminatory entry into care.
- The Michigan Supreme Court clarified CRA protection extends to doctors and public accommodations; rejects broad common-law immunity.
- Court remanded to address direct-evidence discrimination and proper application of CRA against professional providers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRA applicability to doctor-patient entry | Moon: CRA forbids denying care based on marital status. | GRFI: common law permits selective entry; CRA exception (except where permitted by law) applies. | CRA applies; cannot discriminate in doctor-patient entry. |
| Direct evidence of discrimination | Moon: emails show discriminatory motive for denying IVF to single women. | GRFI: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons possible; burden-shifting required. | Direct evidence exists; summary disposition improper; evaluate with credibility at trial. |
| Effect of ’except where permitted by law’ | Moon: CRA’s protection includes common-law and constitutional constraints against bias. | GRFI: common law consent allows refusal to treat. | Protections overrule broad common-law consent; nondiscriminatory reasons required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. C.A. Muer Corp., 420 Mich 355 (Mich. 1984) (defined marital status under CRA; anti-discrimination purpose)
- Lyons v. Grether, 239 S.E.2d 103 (Va. 1977) (doctor discrimination in public accommodations; remaining factual issues)
- Hazle v. Neshewat, 477 Mich 29; 729 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 2007) (direct evidence standard; shifting burden not required)
- DeBrow v. Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc., 463 Mich 534; 620 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. 2001) (direct evidence; summary disposition defeat before discovery)
- Hazle v. Neshewat (quoted parental principle), 464 Mich 456 (Mich. 2001) (discriminatory motive as direct evidence; cannot use McDonnell Douglas)