Discrimination action under Michigan’s Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA); Governmental immunity; Notice requirement; MCL 600.6431; Progress MI v Attorney Gen (Progress I & II); Tyrrell v University of MI; Request for a conflict panel under MCR 7.215(J)(2)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendant-university’s motion for summary disposition based on plaintiff’s purported failure to comply with the Court of Claims notice requirement. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging discrimination in violation of the PWDCRA. Defendant asserted that because plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement of MCL 600.6431, her claim was procedurally barred. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, finding governmental immunity applied “because it’s undisputed that the plaintiff did not timely file a notice in the Court of Claims.” On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by holding that the notice filing requirement applied to actions prosecuted in the circuit court. “Because Tyrrell is outcome determinative, no further legal analysis is warranted. In the instant case, the trial court held that, irrespective of whether a plaintiff chooses to prosecute his or her case in the Court of Claims or the circuit court, MCL 600.6431(1) prohibits any claim unless the plaintiff timely filed the requisite notice. This determination is contrary to the binding precedent of Tyrrell. The circuit court’s decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on plaintiff’s purported failure to comply with the Court of Claims notice requirement must be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings in the circuit court.” The court found no basis to grant defendant’s request for a conflict panel, noting it followed “the precedent of the Tyrrell decision, not because it is required, but rather because” it agreed with that precedent. “Notably, so did the motion panel that considered the Tyrrell defendants’ motion for reconsideration, as did the Michigan Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, there is simply no basis to grant the instant defendant’s request for a conflicts panel.” Reversed and remanded.