Background
Bonita Carey-Powers and Alexis Holmes worked for the Wayne County Community College District’s police force. They sued WCCCD and its security director, Darrick Muhammad, alleging disparate treatment based on sex, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaints about Muhammad’s alleged sexual harassment.
WCCCD sought summary disposition, arguing in part that the plaintiffs had not filed a written claim or notice of intent in the Court of Claims within one year as required by MCL 600.6431(1). The Wayne Circuit Court denied the motion. In this appeal as of right, WCCCD challenged the ruling on the ground that the plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the Court of Claims Act’s notice requirement barred their claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that WCCCD is not “the state or any of its departments or officers” within the meaning of the Court of Claims Act, so the plaintiffs were not required to comply with MCL 600.6431(1). Relying on Doan v. Kellogg Community College, the court explained that community colleges are locally created, governed, financed, and operated, and actions against them are outside the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction.
The court rejected WCCCD’s argument that its status as a governmental entity for immunity purposes made it part of the state under the Court of Claims Act. A community college district is a political subdivision under Michigan’s governmental-tort-liability statutes, and the terms “governmental agency” and “state” are not interchangeable. The court also agreed that Christie v. Wayne State University applies retroactively, but concluded that Christie did not control because it concerns claims against the state, while WCCCD is a local political subdivision. The court declined to address other arguments that were outside the questions presented, raised only in the reply brief, inadequately supported, or unpreserved.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan community college districts are local political subdivisions, not arms or agencies of the state for purposes of the Court of Claims Act.
- Plaintiffs suing a community college district need not file the one-year notice required by MCL 600.6431(1) for claims against the state.
- A public entity’s governmental immunity from tort liability does not, by itself, make that entity “the state” under the Court of Claims Act.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a significant procedural distinction between state institutions and locally organized community colleges. Litigants pursuing claims against Michigan community college districts are not subject to the Court of Claims Act’s one-year filing or notice condition merely because those districts qualify as governmental agencies for immunity purposes.
The opinion also illustrates that Christie’s rule requiring Court of Claims notice for claims against the state—even when filed in circuit court—does not extend to every public or governmental entity.