17 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Peden v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2022In Peden, 470 Mich at 205 n 9, the Court explained that the fact that the plaintiff could perform some job is not relevant; “rather, he must be able to perform the job he held or sought at the time the alleged PWDCRA violation occurred, and any accommodation must be directed toward enabling the plaintiff to perform the duties of that job.” (Emphasis in original.) Defendant maintains, correctly, that plaintiff’s position was as a truck driver, and although it temporarily accommodated plaintiff by restructuring his job while he was on worker’s disability, it was under no duty to do so. 2020Importantly, “the mere fact that a disabled person can perform ‘some’ of the job is not relevant; rather, [s]he must be able to perform the job [s]he sought at the time the alleged PWDCRA violation occurred.” Peden, 470 Mich at 206 n 9. | 3 | 9 |
Kerns v. Dura Mechanical Components, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Kerns v Dura Mech Components, Inc, 242 Mich App 1, 16 ; 618 NW2d 56 (2000). 2022See Kerns v Dura Mech Components, Inc, 242 Mich App 1, 16 ; 618 NW2d 56 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Woolcott v. State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2020The trial court held that plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim was preempted by the MSEA, relying on Jenkins v Carney-Nadeau Pub Sch, 201 Mich App 142 ; 505 NW2d 893 (1993), and Woolcott v State Bd of Ed, 134 Mich App 555 ; 351 NW2d 601 (1984). 2020The trial court held that plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim was preempted by the MSEA, relying on Jenkins v Carney-Nadeau Pub Sch, 201 Mich App 142 ; 505 NW2d 893 (1993), and Woolcott v State Bd of Ed, 134 Mich App 555 ; 351 NW2d 601 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Lordgreen2 sentences2020See Wolcott, 134 Mich App at 563 (stating that the “[p]laintiffs are limited to those remedies provided” in the MSEA), Miller, 262 Mich App at 648 (concluding that the plaintiffs’ PWDCRA claim was precluded by the MSEA “even though plaintiffs seek monetary damages unavailable under the MSEA”). 2020See Wolcott, 134 Mich App at 563 (stating that the “[p]laintiffs are limited to those remedies provided” in the MSEA), Miller, 262 Mich App at 648 (concluding that the plaintiffs’ PWDCRA claim was precluded by the MSEA “even though plaintiffs seek monetary damages unavailable under the MSEA”). | 1 | 1 |
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2020Because the Legislature expressly waived governmental immunity in the PWDCRA, see In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich at 393 n 60, the PWDCRA does not require compliance with MCL 600.6431 for a plaintiff to proceed with his or her claim against a state defendant, and “MCL 600.6431 does not confer governmental immunity,” Fairley, 497 Mich at 297 (quotation marks omitted), plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431 when bringing her PWDCRA claim does not implicate governmental immunity.4 Therefore, the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was n | 1 | 1 |
Dlaikan v. Roodbeenred2 sentences2017Accordingly, the majority continued, “[a] civil court should avoid foray into a ‘property dispute’ regarding admission to a church’s religious or educational activities, the essence of its constitutionally protected function,” as “[t]o do so is to set foot on the proverbial slippery slope toward entanglement in matters of doctrine or ecclesiastical polity.” Id. 2 The instant panel saw no basis for distinguishing Dlaikan, deeming its application of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine dispositive of whether the circuit court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s PWDC 2017Accordingly, the majority continued, “[a] civil court should avoid foray into a ‘property dispute’ regarding admission to a church’s religious or educational activities, the essence of its constitutionally protected function,” as “[t]o do so is to set foot on the proverbial slippery slope toward entanglement in matters of doctrine or ecclesiastical polity.” Id. 2 The instant panel saw no basis for distinguishing Dlaikan, deeming its application of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine dispositive of whether the circuit court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s PWDC | 1 | 1 |
Debano-Griffin v. Lake Countygreen2 sentences2014See Debano-Griffin v Lake County, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 ; 93 S Ct 1817 ; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973). 2014See Debano-Griffin v Lake County, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 ; 93 S Ct 1817 ; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp.
green
2 sentences2020MCR 7.215(C)(1); Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 307 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -8- within the building to allow plaintiff to rest while on her walking duties.4 Because plaintiff failed to establish that a material question of fact existed as to whether she could have performed the tasks of monitoring the litigants and retrieving the mail from the mail room—two of her essential job duties—with certain reasonable accommodations, her PWDCRA claim fails. 2020MCR 7.215(C)(1); Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 307 ; 911 NW2d 219 (2017). -8- within the building to allow plaintiff to rest while on her walking duties.4 Because plaintiff failed to establish that a material question of fact existed as to whether she could have performed the tasks of monitoring the litigants and retrieving the mail from the mail room—two of her essential job duties—with certain reasonable accommodations, her PWDCRA claim fails. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jenkins v. Carney-Nadeau Public School
green
2 sentences2020The trial court held that plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim was preempted by the MSEA, relying on Jenkins v Carney-Nadeau Pub Sch, 201 Mich App 142 ; 505 NW2d 893 (1993), and Woolcott v State Bd of Ed, 134 Mich App 555 ; 351 NW2d 601 (1984). 2020The trial court held that plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim was preempted by the MSEA, relying on Jenkins v Carney-Nadeau Pub Sch, 201 Mich App 142 ; 505 NW2d 893 (1993), and Woolcott v State Bd of Ed, 134 Mich App 555 ; 351 NW2d 601 (1984). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
in Re Bradley Estate
green
1 sentence2020Because the Legislature expressly waived governmental immunity in the PWDCRA, see In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich at 393 n 60, the PWDCRA does not require compliance with MCL 600.6431 for a plaintiff to proceed with his or her claim against a state defendant, and “MCL 600.6431 does not confer governmental immunity,” Fairley, 497 Mich at 297 (quotation marks omitted), plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431 when bringing her PWDCRA claim does not implicate governmental immunity.4 Therefore, the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was n | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Dalley v. Dykema Gossett PLLC
green
2 sentences2019Michigan operates under a “notice pleading environment,” where a pleading’s primary function “is to give notice of the nature of the claim or defense sufficient to permit the opposite party to take a responsive position.” Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 305 ; 788 NW2d 679 (2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also MCR 2.111(B)(1) (requiring a complaint to include a “statement of the facts, without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the cl 2019Michigan operates under a “notice pleading environment,” where a pleading’s primary function “is to give notice of the nature of the claim or defense sufficient to permit the opposite party to take a responsive position.” Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 305 ; 788 NW2d 679 (2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also MCR 2.111(B)(1) (requiring a complaint to include a “statement of the facts, without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the cl | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences2014See Debano-Griffin v Lake County, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 ; 93 S Ct 1817 ; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973). 2014See Debano-Griffin v Lake County, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 ; 93 S Ct 1817 ; 36 L Ed 2d 668 (1973). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
West v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2014West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183-184 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). “[W]histleblower claims are analogous to other antiretaliation employment claims brought under employment discrimination statutes” and, like plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim, are also analyzed under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. 2014West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183-184 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). “[W]histleblower claims are analogous to other antiretaliation employment claims brought under employment discrimination statutes” and, like plaintiff’s PWDCRA claim, are also analyzed under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Neal v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2000A panel of this Court reversed the trial court’s decision because it was bound to follow Neal v Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich App 730 ; 592 NW2d 370 (1998) (Neal II), pursuant to MCR 7.215(H). 2000A panel of this Court reversed the trial court's decision because it was bound to follow Neal v. Dep't of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich. App. 730 , 592 N.W.2d 370 (1998) (Neal II) , pursuant to MCR 7.215(H). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2000This is the very explanation envisioned in Cleveland , that the plaintiff's SSDI statements were "`made in a forum which does not consider the effect that reasonable workplace accommodations'" would have on the plaintiff's ability to work. 526 U.S. at 807 , 119 S.Ct. 1597 . 2000This is the very explanation envisioned in Cleveland , that the plaintiff's SSDI statements were "`made in a forum which does not consider the effect that reasonable workplace accommodations'" would have on the plaintiff's ability to work. 526 U.S. at 807 , 119 S.Ct. 1597 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Neal v. CORRECTIONS DEPT.
green
2 sentences2000A panel of this Court reversed the trial court’s decision because it was bound to follow Neal v Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich App 730 ; 592 NW2d 370 (1998) (Neal II), pursuant to MCR 7.215(H). 2000A panel of this Court reversed the trial court's decision because it was bound to follow Neal v. Dep't of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich. App. 730 , 592 N.W.2d 370 (1998) (Neal II) , pursuant to MCR 7.215(H). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Koester v. City of Novi
green
2 sentences1999In Koester v Novi, 458 Mich 1 ; 580 NW2d 835 (1998), our Supreme Court examined lifting in the context of a pwdcra claim based on the plaintiffs pregnancy. 1999In Koester v Novi, 458 Mich 1 ; 580 NW2d 835 (1998), our Supreme Court examined lifting in the context of a pwdcra claim based on the plaintiffs pregnancy. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.