Doe v. Dep't of Corr., 332536
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Citation | 917 N.W.2d 730,323 Mich.App. 479 |
| Docket Number | No. 335440, No. 335527,No. 332536,332536 |
| Parties | John DOES 11-18 and Jane Doe 1/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Governor, Former Director Department of Corrections, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Warden of Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, Warden of Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, and Warden of Michigan Reformatory Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants. John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants. John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
323 Mich.App. 479
917 N.W.2d 730
John DOES 11-18 and Jane Doe 1/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Governor, Former Director Department of Corrections, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Warden of Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, Warden of Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, and Warden of Michigan Reformatory Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.
John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.
John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 332536
No. 335440
No. 335527
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Submitted November 14, 2017, at Lansing.
Decided March 27, 2018, 9:05 a.m.
Deborah LaBelle, Anlyn Addis, Richard A. Soble, Michael L. Pitt, Beth M. Rivers, Peggy Goldberg Pitt, Cary S. McGehee, and Salvatore Prescott, PLLC (by Jennifer B. Salvatore ) for plaintiffs.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Laura Moody, Chief Legal Counsel, B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, and Mark Donnelly and Heather Meingast, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendants.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Murphy and K.F. Kelly, JJ.
K.F. Kelly, J.
Defendants appeal by right and by leave from three separate rulings of the trial court. First, defendants claim that the trial court erred when it declared unconstitutional an exclusion prohibiting individuals who are serving a sentence of imprisonment from bringing actions under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq . Next, defendants argue that the trial court erred when it ruled that the exclusion does not apply to trainees under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq ., because those individuals are not serving a sentence of imprisonment. Finally, defendants maintain that the trial court erred when it concluded that governmental immunity does not apply to these civil-rights actions.
As explained more fully in this opinion, we hold that the 1999 amendment to the ELCRA, specifically MCL 37.2301(b), as amended by 1999 PA 202, does not pass constitutional muster. Because we conclude that the exclusion is unconstitutional, we need not consider whether the prohibition applies to individuals assigned to youthful-trainee status under HYTA. We further hold that governmental immunity does not apply to ELCRA claims. Therefore,
finding no error warranting reversal, we affirm.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case was originally brought on behalf of seven unidentified male prisoners who sought relief under the ELCRA. They alleged that while they were under the age of 18, they were housed with adult prisoners who
took advantage of their youth to commit sexual and physical abuse and harassment. Plaintiffs further asserted that defendants knew or should have known of the risk to plaintiffs but failed to prevent the abuse and harassment, or aided and abetted it.
This case has been heavily litigated in the circuit court and in this Court. Since the case was originally filed on December 9, 2013, there have been multiple applications for leave to appeal in this Court as well as some proceedings in the Court of Claims, and applications for leave to appeal in our Supreme Court. Throughout the course of this litigation, various plaintiffs, claims, and defendants have been added and others have been dismissed. It is a procedural quagmire. Still, the issues on appeal are relatively straightforward and are purely legal. We are first tasked with determining whether the ELCRA, which excludes individuals who are serving a sentence of imprisonment from bringing suit, is constitutional. We conclude that it is not. We must then consider whether defendants can assert governmental immunity.
II. ELCRA
The Michigan Constitution provides:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. [ Const. 1963, art. 1, § 2.]
To that end, MCL 37.2302(a) of the ELCRA provides:
Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:
(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.
In its current form, the ELCRA defines the term "public service" as
a public facility, department, agency, board, or commission, owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of the state, a political subdivision, or an agency thereof or a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public, except that public service does not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment . [ MCL 37.2301(b) (emphasis added).]
The highlighted language was added in 1999 after this Court’s decision in Neal v. Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing) , 232 Mich. App. 730, 734-737, 592 N.W.2d 370 (1998), which concluded that prisons were not excluded from the definition of "public service." The enacting section of the amendment that added this language provides:
This amendatory act is curative and intended to correct any misinterpretation of legislative intent in the court of appeals decision Neal v. Department of Corrections , 232 Mich. App. 730 [592 N.W.2d 370] (1998). This legislation further expresses the original intent of the legislature that an individual serving a
sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility is not within the purview of this act. [1999 PA 202, enacting § 1.]
At the heart of this appeal is whether the ELCRA, in its postamendment form, is constitutional. "We review de novo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenzie v. Department of Corrections
...brought for violations of the statute "may be brought in the circuit court...." MCL 37.2801(2). Cf. Does 11-18 v Dep't of Corrections , 323 Mich App 479, 490, 917 N.W.2d 730 (2018) (noting our caselaw stating that ELCRA waives governmental immunity). Similarly, under the Whistleblower Prote......
-
People v. Anderson, 343272
...And, if possible, we must interpret statutes to avoid constitutional issues. Does 11-18 v. Dep't of Corrections , 323 Mich. App. 479, 505, 917 N.W.2d 730 (2018) ( O'Connell , J., concurring).6 We note that the MRAA states, "As used in this act" before providing a list of definitions. MCL 33......
-
Ball v. Evers
...... unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Solomon. v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 478 Fed.Appx. 318, 320. (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, ......
-
Margaris v. Genesee Cnty., 337771
...this conclusory statement has become a generally accepted legal principle, cited most recently in Does 11-18 v. Dep't of Corrections , 323 Mich. App. 479, 485, 490, 917 N.W.2d 730 (2018) (holding that governmental immunity does not bar a claim of discrimination in the provision of a "public......
-
Free-World Law Behind Bars.
...within the statutory exemption for the jail itself); MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. [section]37.2301 (West 2021); Does 11-18 v. Dep't of Corr., 917 N.W.2d 730, 733-36 (Mich. App. 2018) (invalidating the statutory exclusion of prisoners). Even a carve-out for incarcerated people, though, does not mea......
-
Lawyer Appointed by Insurer had a Duty of Zealous Representation: The Business Of Insurance Is Subject To The Law Of Unintended Consequences As If It Were On Steroids.
...running the government would certainly cause most of us to rethink the traditional notion of public service. [Doe v. Dep't of Corr., 323 Mich. App. 479, 917 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. App. Philosophers, Economists and Politicians The concept of unintended consequences is one of the building blocks o......