Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.red2 sentences2017Further, the Courts in Clark, 268 Mich App at 144 , and Timko, 244 Mich App at 243 , ruled that reducing the limitations period to 180 days or six months is not substantively unconscionable.3 Further, as here, Clark and Timko both dealt with shortened periods to bring an employment discrimination claim. 2017Further, the Courts in Clark, 268 Mich App at 144 , and Timko, 244 Mich App at 243 , ruled that reducing the limitations period to 180 days or six months is not substantively unconscionable.3 Further, as here, Clark and Timko both dealt with shortened periods to bring an employment discrimination claim. | 2 | 2 |
Hicks v. Epi Printers, Incgreen2 sentences2017Clark, 268 Mich App at 140, 144 ; Timko, 244 Mich App at 237 ; see also Hicks v EPI Printers, Inc, 267 Mich App 79, 84, 91 ; 702 NW2d 883 (2005). 2017Clark, 268 Mich App at 140, 144 ; Timko, 244 Mich App at 237 ; see also Hicks v EPI Printers, Inc, 267 Mich App 79, 84, 91 ; 702 NW2d 883 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Timko v. Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc
red
2 sentences2017Further, the Courts in Clark, 268 Mich App at 144 , and Timko, 244 Mich App at 243 , ruled that reducing the limitations period to 180 days or six months is not substantively unconscionable.3 Further, as here, Clark and Timko both dealt with shortened periods to bring an employment discrimination claim. 2017Further, the Courts in Clark, 268 Mich App at 144 , and Timko, 244 Mich App at 243 , ruled that reducing the limitations period to 180 days or six months is not substantively unconscionable.3 Further, as here, Clark and Timko both dealt with shortened periods to bring an employment discrimination claim. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Rourk v. Oakwood Hospital Corp.
green
2 sentences2017In Rourk v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 458 Mich 25 ; 580 NW3d 397 (1998), our Supreme Court addressed an employment discrimination claim under the PWDCRA, then known as the Handicapper’s Civil Rights Act. 2017In Rourk v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 458 Mich 25 ; 580 NW3d 397 (1998), our Supreme Court addressed an employment discrimination claim under the PWDCRA, then known as the Handicapper’s Civil Rights Act. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
McClements v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2025Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether plaintiff “can establish that the defendant affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of [his] employment.” McClements, 473 Mich at 389 . 2025The Miller Court confirmed that under McClements, an employment-discrimination claim under ELCRA is viable “irrespective of whether” an individual is an employee of a defendant, if the individual can demonstrate that the defendant “affected or controlled a condition of his [or her] employment.” Id. at ___; slip op at 5. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
green
2 sentences1992In Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co, 415 US 36 ; 94 S Ct 1011 ; 39 L Ed 2d 147 (1974), it held that an employment discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 2000e et seq., is not foreclosed by the prior submission of a grievance to final arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement’s nondiscrimination clause. 1992In Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co, 415 US 36 ; 94 S Ct 1011 ; 39 L Ed 2d 147 (1974), it held that an employment discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 2000e et seq., is not foreclosed by the prior submission of a grievance to final arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement’s nondiscrimination clause. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.