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 sex-based disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaints about Muhammad’s alleged sexual harassment under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
WCCCD sought summary disposition, arguing in part that the employees had not filed a written claim or notice of intent in the Court of Claims within one year as required for claims against the state under MCL 600.6431(1). The Wayne Circuit Court denied the motion, and WCCCD appealed as of right on the governmental-immunity issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Although it agreed that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Christie v. Wayne State University applies retroactively, it held that Christie did not require notice here because WCCCD is not “the state” or one of its departments, institutions, arms, or agencies for purposes of the Court of Claims Act.
Relying on Doan v. Kellogg Community College, the court explained that community colleges are locally created, locally governed, locally financed political subdivisions. A community college district may qualify as a governmental agency entitled to tort immunity, but that status does not transform it into the state. Because claims against WCCCD are outside the Court of Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction, the employees were not subject to the Act’s one-year notice requirement.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan community college districts are political subdivisions, not arms or agencies of the state for purposes of the Court of Claims Act.
- The Court of Claims Act’s one-year notice requirement did not apply to the employees’ civil-rights claims against WCCCD.
- A public entity’s status as a governmental agency for tort-immunity purposes does not necessarily make it “the state” under a different statute.
Why It Matters
The published decision preserves a significant procedural distinction between state institutions and locally controlled community colleges. Employment claims against a community college district cannot be dismissed merely because the plaintiff failed to provide the notice required for claims against the state.
The ruling also cautions litigants against treating “governmental agency” and “state” as interchangeable classifications across Michigan statutes; an entity’s status depends on the language and purpose of the particular statutory scheme.