Background
Plaintiff Scott Vandercook, a Michigan State Police trooper, filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court in August 2021 against various state defendants alleging employment discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. He claimed he was denied promotions between May 2016 and January 2020 based on his race, color, and national origin.
At the time Vandercook filed, the binding precedent from Tyrrell v. University of Michigan (2020) held that the notice requirement under MCL 600.6431(1) of the Court of Claims Act did not apply to circuit court suits against the state. However, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Tyrrell in Christie v. Wayne State University (2023), holding that the notice requirement does apply to all claims against the state unless expressly exempted.
Defendants moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted the motion, finding Vandercook failed to comply with the MCL 600.6431(1) notice requirement. Vandercook later filed a second amended complaint in August 2024 against defendants in their individual capacities, but this was deemed time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations for ELCRA claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition. The court held that MCL 600.6431(1) requires all parties with claims against the state to file notice within one year of when the claim accrues, except for claims expressly exempted in the statute itself. The ELCRA provides a waiver of sovereign immunity but does not exempt parties from the notice requirement.
The court addressed Vandercook’s argument that Christie should not apply retroactively because it established a new rule of law. Although an earlier panel in Landin v. Department of Health and Human Services held Christie announced a new rule that should not apply retroactively, this position was overruled by the conflict panel in Hudson v. Department of Corrections (2025). The Hudson panel held that Christie applies retroactively to all cases, including cases pending in circuit court while Tyrrell was the controlling law.
Because Vandercook conceded he did not comply with MCL 600.6431(1), and because the retroactivity question was controlled by Hudson, the trial court properly granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Claims Act’s notice requirement under MCL 600.6431(1) applies retroactively to all claims against the state, even to claims filed when prior precedent suggested the requirement did not apply to circuit court suits.
- Sovereign immunity waivers are strictly construed, and procedural compliance with statutory notice requirements is mandatory regardless of prior controlling law.
- A party’s subjective reliance on prior law does not excuse noncompliance with statutory notice requirements once a contrary rule is established and applied retroactively.
- The three-year statute of limitations for ELCRA claims runs from the last adverse employment action, regardless of when suit is filed or amended.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that individuals suing the state of Michigan must strictly comply with the Court of Claims Act’s notice requirement, and cannot rely on the intervening Tyrrell precedent as an excuse for noncompliance. The retroactive application of Christie significantly impacts the procedural landscape for employment discrimination claims against state agencies and state defendants.
The ruling establishes that statutory compliance requirements for sovereign immunity waivers are enforced rigorously and retroactively. Practitioners suing the state must ensure proper notice is filed within one year of claim accrual, or face summary disposition regardless of whether they filed under what they reasonably believed was controlling law at the time. This decision has practical consequences for the viability of employment discrimination and other civil rights claims against Michigan state actors.