Case Name: DOE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2000-03-03
Citations: 240 Mich. App. 199
Docket Number: Docket No. 200810
Parties: DOE v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Judges: Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Kelly, Gribbs, Doctoroff, Murphy, Markey, and Talbot, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 240
Pages: 199–207

Head Matter:
DOE v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Docket No. 200810.
Submitted October 29, 1999, at Lansing.
Decided March 3, 2000, at 9:40 A.M.
Leave to appeal sought.
Jane Doe and Joan Roe, on behalf of current or former state prison inmates, brought a class action in the Ingham Circuit Court against the Department of Corrections, alleging that a department policy directive that denies Hiv-positive inmates placement in community residential programs, camps, and farms violates the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (pwdcra), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq. The court, Peter D. Houk, J., granted summary disposition for the department, ruling the pwdcra inapplicable to prisons and prisoners. The Court of Appeals, Griffin, P.J., and McDonald, J. (White, J., concurring), reversed, stating that it was constrained by MCR 7.215(H) to hold that a prison is a public service within the meaning of the pwdcra for the same reasons that the mrgority in Neal v Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich App 730 (1998), decided that a prison is a public service within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. The Court of Appeals, following a poll of its judges, issued an order vacating the Court of Appeals opinion in this case and convening a special panel to resolve the conflict that would have been created between the panels in Neal (On Rehearing) and Doe but for the provisions of MCR 7.215(H). 236 Mich App 801 (1999).
After consideration by the conflict resolution panel, the Court of Appeals held:
The reasoning found in the majority opinion in Neal (On Rehearing) and the concurrence in Doe is persuasive and consistent with established rules of statutory construction. If it is the intent of the Legislature not to have the civil rights statutes apply to prisons and prisoners, it must draft and enact statutes that so provide.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Gribbs, J., dissenting, stated that the reasoning in Neal v Dep’t of Corrections, 230 Mich App 202 (1998), the dissenting opinion in Neal (On Rehearing), supra, and the majority opinion in Doe, supra, that “public service,” as used in the civil rights acts, means service to the public and that prisons, in their dealings with prison ers, do not provide a service to the public such that they should be subject to the civil rights acts is persuasive. The trial court’s grant of summary disposition for the department in this case should be affirmed.
Civil Rights — Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act — Prisons and Prisoners.
A prison is a “public service” within the meaning of that term as used in the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; accordingly, prisoners may bring an action to enforce the provisions of the act (MCL 37.1101 et seq.-, MSA 3.550[101] et seq.).
Deborah LaBelle and Jeffrey Dillman, for the plaintiffs.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Leo H. Friedman and Mark W. Matus, Assistant Attorneys General, for the defendant.
Amici Curiae:
Gayle Rosen and Stewart Hakola, for Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.
Michael Steinberg and Kary Moss, for American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan.
Sandra Girard and Maia Justice Storm, for Prison Legal Services of Michigan, Inc.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Kelly, Gribbs, Doctoroff, Murphy, Markey, and Talbot, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Pursuant to MCR 7.215(H), a special panel has been convened to resolve a conflict between this case, Doe v Dep't of Corrections, 236 Mich App 801 (1999), and Neal v Dep't of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich App 730; 592 NW2d 370 (1998).
We find the reasoning found in the majority opinion in Neal and the concurrence in Doe, supra at 815, to be persuasive and consistent with established rules of statutory construction.
It has been argued that the Legislature could not have intended that the statutory prohibition against discrimination found in the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548 (101) et seq., and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (pwdcra), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq., be applied to prisoners and prisons because of the ramifications associated with such application. That may be so, but this Court does not have the liberty to change the meaning of statutory language that is plain and clear, nor can we ignore established rules of statutory construction. If it is the intent of the Legislature not to have these statutes applied to prisoners and prisons, then it is incumbent on the Legislature to draft and enact statutes that so provide. In these cases, we find that the Legislature has not done so.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Doe v Dep't of Corrections, supra.
After submission and argument in this case, the Legislature has amended certain provisions of the cra and the pwdcra. The effect of these amendments is not before the Court and we render no opinion regarding this amended legislation.