Rouch World LLC v. Department of Civil Rights
162482
| Mich. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Court of Claims enjoined the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (DCR) from investigating an alleged refusal to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, holding that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act’s (ELCRA) ban on discrimination “because of ... sex” does not cover sexual orientation.
- DCR and its director sought leave to bypass the Court of Appeals and have the Michigan Supreme Court decide whether ELCRA’s prohibition “because of ... sex” encompasses sexual orientation.
- On July 2, 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court GRANTED the bypass application, limited to the single issue whether ELCRA’s prohibition “because of ... sex” applies to sexual orientation; briefing and oral-argument time were set and amici were invited.
- Justice Clement dissented from the grant, arguing the Court should deny bypass because the movers (DCR) failed to satisfy MCR 7.305(B)(4)(a) or (b) and because the matter warrants full appellate development.
- In her dissent Clement applied ejusdem generis to MCR 7.305(B)(4)(b), argued an investigation is an enforcement (not a legislative/quasi‑legislative) action and therefore doesn’t fit the rule’s catchall, and insisted delay would not cause substantial institutional harm to DCR.
- Justices Zahra and Viviano would have denied the bypass application; the Court nonetheless invited amici and limited the grant to the statutory‑interpretation question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ELCRA’s prohibition on discrimination “because of ... sex” covers sexual orientation | Rouch (appellees) — ELCRA’s “sex” does not encompass sexual orientation; DCR lacked authority to investigate | DCR (appellants) — ELCRA’s ban on sex discrimination covers sexual‑orientation discrimination; the injunction was erroneous | Supreme Court granted bypass limited to deciding this issue (merits reserved) |
| Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal bypassing the Court of Appeals under MCR 7.305(B)(4) | Rouch — deny bypass; ordinary appellate process should proceed | DCR — delay will cause substantial harm and the appeal involves invalid executive/administrative action, so bypass is warranted | Court granted bypass despite dissent that MCR requirements were not met |
Key Cases Cited
- House of Representatives v Governor, 505 Mich 1142 (discussing bypass standards and arguing for fuller appellate development)
- People v Smith, 393 Mich 432 (applying the ejusdem generis canon to limit catchall phrases in statutory interpretation)