Wrongful termination; Whether plaintiff’s claims brought under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (CRA) were time-barred under a limitations period set forth in her job application; The CRA’s general 3-year limitations period; Garg v Macomb Cnty Cmty Mental Health; Effect of a contractual limitations period; Rory v Continental Ins Co; Clark v DaimlerChrysler Corp; Whether a new contractual agreement was formed when plaintiff was transferred to defendant’s hospital; Comparing Dzurka v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Midland (Unpub); Distinguishing Kalamazoo v McMillon; Extrinsic evidence; Shay v Aldrich

Holding that plaintiff-former employee’s claims brought under the CRA were time-barred under a limitations period set forth in her job application, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant-former employer. Plaintiff was terminated from her position with defendant. She filed her complaint 20 months later. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition for defendant, finding the 180-day limitations period in plaintiff’s job application barred her claims under the CRA. On appeal, the court found that, under Rory and Clark, defendant’s limitations period was “valid, enforceable, and [did] not violate public policy.” In addition, plaintiff’s “assertion that she was unaware she was still bound by her application agreement is belied by the fact that when she transferred to defendant’s hospital, she did so through” defendant’s parent company’s (MMH) “Transfer Request” form, in which she affirmed she was a current employee of MMH. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition because discovery was ongoing and she would have uncovered further evidence supporting her claims. First, she “was the party to the litigation that sought a decision on the statute of limitations issue when she moved for summary disposition . . . as to defendant’s statute of limitations affirmative defense. She should not now be heard to complain that the trial court erred because it made a decision on her motion.” And second, she failed to “identify what evidence in discovery she may uncover that would be relevant to her claim not being time-barred. Nor can she, as the application she signed unambiguously provided for a shorter limitations period than what is afforded by statute.”