Plaintiff filed an action against defendant alleging a violation оf the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (hcra), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq. Thereafter, рlaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint in order to add а loss of consortium claim in the name of his spouse. Plaintiff’s request was denied by the trial court. We reverse.
MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. This rule wаs designed to facilitate the amendment of pleadings except where prejudice to the opposing party wоuld result.
Ben P Fyke & Sons v Gunter Co,
In denying plaintiff’s motion to amend, the trial court indicated its decision was not based upon any finding of prejudice to defendant. Instead, the court concluded that a claim for loss of consortium was not available in conjunctiоn with a claim brought under the hcra.
*223
Plaintiff argues that our Supreme Cоurt’s recent decision in
Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co,
In Eide, supra, our Supreme Court examined the Civil Rights Act in order to determine whether a claim for loss of consortium would be permitted in conjunction with a separate claim alleging a violation of the act. The Court began by noting that Michigan has long recognizеd a cause of action for loss of consortium in favor оf spouses. Eide, p 29. Thus, the Court viewed the question as not whether a cause of action is available under the Civil Rights Act, but whether therе was anything within the act precluding such a claim.
The Court examined the enforcement provision of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2801(1); MSA 3.548(801)(1), which is identical tо that of the hcra, MCL 37.1606(1); MSA 3.550(606)(1):
(1) A person alleging a violation of this aсt may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages, or both.
Acting upon its earlier notation thаt loss of consortium claims have been long recognized in Miсhigan, the Eide Court found nothing to suggest a legislative intent to precludе such an action under the act.
The hcra has the same рurposes and goals as the Civil Rights Act. It was designed to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies and customs with respeсt to employment, public accommodations, services, educational institutions and housing.
That claims under the hcra should be treated *224 similarly to those under the Civil Rights Act is apparent from § 605 of the hcra, expressly requiring that hcra claims be subject to the same procedures as a comрlaint alleging a violation of the Civil Rights Act. MCL 37.1605; MSA 3.550(605).
Further, the hcra, being remеdial in nature, is to be construed liberally.
Allen v Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority,
In light of the similar goals and purposes of both the hcra and the Civil Rights Act, and in the absencе of any indication of legislative intent to the contrary, we find no reason to reach a conclusion different from that reached by the Supreme Court in Eide, supra.
Accordingly, we hold that a claim for loss of consortium is not precluded by the hcra.
Becаuse the circuit court indicated it found no evidence of prejudice to defendant, we therefore find it abused its discretiоn when it denied plaintiff leave to amend his complaint solely upon its conclusion that a loss of consortium claim was not permitted in conjunction with a claim alleging a violation of the hcra.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.