Action to vacate an arbitration award; Limitations period; MCR 3.602(J)(1) & (3); MCL 600.5807 (statute of limitations for general contract actions); Applicability of City of Ann Arbor v. American Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees (AFSCME) Local 369; The revised Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA) (MCL 691.1681 et seq.); MCL 691.1683(1) & (2); Knoke v. East Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist.; Presumption that the Legislature acts with knowledge of the state appellate courts’ statutory interpretations; Gordon Sel-way, Inc. v. Spence Bros., Inc.; People v. Henderson; A “frivolous” claim; MCL 600.2591(1) & (3); MCR 2.114(F); Kitchen v. Kitchen; Jerico Constr., Inc. v. Quadrants, Inc.; Legal position “devoid of arguable legal merit”; MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii); Taylor v. Lenawee Cnty. Bd. of Rd. Comm’rs

The court held that the trial court properly granted the defendant summary disposition because the plaintiff’s action to vacate an arbitration award was time-barred by MCR 3.602(J)(1). However, the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous. Thus, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a determination of the proper amount of defendant’s costs and fees. Plaintiff was a tenured professor on defendant’s faculty until he was terminated in 2009. Plaintiff filed a grievance with his union and appealed his discharge to final and binding arbitration. In 2010, “the arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that defendant acted reasonably and had just cause to terminate plaintiff.” Plaintiff then sued in federal court. The federal district court granted defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII claim, finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. It also ordered that defendant was entitled to sanctions for the costs and fees incurred in filing its supplemental brief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, found that “plaintiff’s appeal was frivolous and ordered him to pay $5,000 in sanctions to defendant.” Plaintiff sued defendant in state court in 2012, alleging the same discrimination and retaliation claims. Defendant was granted summary disposition. Plaintiff filed this action in 2013. While he relied on City of Ann Arbor in arguing that the time limits in MCR 3.602(J) did not apply to his claims, the court concluded that “City of Ann Arbor has no application to the revised MUAA, and plaintiff’s reliance on that case is misplaced.” Further, the grievance procedure at issue “specifically stated that ‘[t]he decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.’ After submitting to binding arbitration, an individual cannot pursue a breach of contract claim against an employer unless that person is first successful in showing a breach of the duty of fair representation.” Plaintiff made no such claim. In finding that he filed a frivolous claim, the court concluded that he “had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying his legal position were in fact true pursuant to MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(ii)” and that his “legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit under MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii).”