Claims against a former employer under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Contractual shortened limitations period; Rayford v American House Roseville I; Rory v Continental Ins Co; Clark v DaimlerChrysler Corp

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Rayford, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff-former employee’s ELCRA claims and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Rayford framework. The trial court ruled that the claims “were time-barred under a limitations period set forth in plaintiff’s job application.” The court previously affirmed. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the court’s opinion and remanded. On remand, the court reviewed two earlier cases (Rory and Clark) as well as Rayford. It concluded that the “Supreme Court in Rayford narrowed the applicability of Rory, overruled Clark, and altered the legal landscape for reviewing motions for summary disposition with respect to shortened limitations periods in the employment context[.]” It noted that “the trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rayford when it ruled on defendant’s” summary disposition motion.