Opinion ID: 2974743
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ADA and PWDCRA claims

Text: The district court agreed with the Township that the case now on appeal constituted an attempt to challenge the Township’s original, unchanged decision not to permit Young to return to work. Young concedes that “he has had prior claims against the Township,” but asserts that “the claims in his present case were not ripe for adjudication at the time.” Specifically, Young argues that his claims arising from the VPA hearing did not accrue until he was actually terminated in 2003. Young also contends that he could not have brought the present action until he received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, which he did not receive until 2002. The Township, however, argues that Young is simply seeking to launch a fresh attack on the Township’s 1993 decision that ended his active duty service. Both the 1995 Action and the 1998 No. 05-2633 Young v. Green Oak Township Page 7 Action raised claims relating to the Township’s allegedly discriminatory action and, in both cases, the Township prevailed. The district judge, applying Yinger, found that the “[d]efendant in this case has never changed its position from its decision in 1993 that [Young] was unable to return to work” because his disability rendered him unable to perform the duties of a police officer. “An employer’s refusal to undo a discriminatory decision is not a fresh act of discrimination.” Yinger, 1997 WL 735323, at  n.3. The Michigan Court of Appeals had found in favor of the defendants on the age and disability-discrimination claims in Young’s 1995 Action, and the state trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants on all of Young’s claims in the 1998 Action. Because those actions included claims for age and disability discrimination, as well as alleged violations of the MHCRA (the predecessor to the PWDCRA), the district court properly held that res judicata barred Counts I (ADA) and II (PWDCRA) of Young’s present lawsuit. b. Employment discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 The district court found that Young’s § 1983 claims for employment discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and procedural due process violations were barred by res judicata as well. These claims were based on the Board’s decision to terminate Young after it conducted a hearing under the VPA in 2002. The district court determined that “[t]he Board’s decision was not a fresh act of discrimination because it was the same decision made by Defendant in 1993 not to return Plaintiff to work.” With respect to the employment discrimination claim (Count III), Young’s 1995 Action alleged “constructive discharge,” indicating that Young recognized that he could bring an employment discrimination claim at least as early as 1995. But Young contends that he could not have raised his § 1983 claims for employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge until after the 2002 VPA hearing. He argues that “[n]either Officer Young nor anyone else could have anticipated that he would be terminated at some unknown future point in time for whatever reasons.” At the time of the prior actions in the 1990s, he was still employed by the Township, had not yet made his 2001 and 2002 requests for accommodation, had not had a VPA hearing or been terminated by the Board, and had not received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. All of these points, however, are insufficient to overcome the application of res judicata to most of his claims. Although Young was technically still employed by the Township prior to January of 2003, he had been sufficiently dissatisfied with his situation to complain of employment discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge long before. Young had requested accommodation on at least two occasions prior to 2001, once when he sought to return to work on light duty and again when he applied for a position as a follow-up investigator with the Police Department. These requests were denied, and the denials formed the basis for Young’s first charge of discrimination with the EEOC in 1993. The record does not include a right-to-sue letter from that time, but Young alleged employment discrimination and retaliation in both the 1995 Action and the 1998 Action. All of Young’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims arise from the Township’s refusal to return him to work. We thus conclude that the district court properly found that res judicata barred the relitigation of these claims. c. Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claim Young also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Township on his Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) claim. He contends that he was terminated in retaliation for bringing an EEOC discrimination charge and for contacting public officials and the media about alleged violations of Police Department reporting rules, both of which are protected activities under the WPA. See Phinney v. Perlmutter, 564 N.W.2d 532, 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) No. 05-2633 Young v. Green Oak Township Page 8 (discussing the required elements of a prima facie case under the WPA). The district court found that Young’s WPA claim arose from the same allegedly discriminatory act—the Township’s refusal to return him to work—as set forth in both the 1995 and the 1998 Actions. Under the WPA, [a]n employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee . . . because the employee . . . reports . . . , verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.362. Nothing in the WPA prevented Young from bringing a claim under the Act prior to his termination. As previously discussed, Young raised two claims of retaliation for engaging in protected activity in his 1995 Action: the filing of a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and the filing of a workers’ compensation claim. This supports the district court’s determination that Young was aware that he could bring a retaliation claim as of 1995. In his present complaint, Young alleges that the Township and members of the Police Department began retaliating against him for his whistleblowing activities as early as 1992. But he gives no reason as to why he could not have raised his WPA claim in a prior action. The statutory language clearly allowed him to do so. Res judicata thus operates to bar his WPA claim in the present lawsuit. d. Veterans Preference Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claims Young contends that his due process claim under § 1983 did not accrue until after the Board issued its opinion terminating his employment because, prior to that time, he technically remained a Township employee. Both the language of the VPA and a survey of Michigan caselaw support his contention that he could not have raised these claims in any of his earlier actions against the Township. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 35.402 (2001) (“No veteran . . . shall be removed . . . except for . . . incompetency; and such veteran shall not be removed . . . except after a full hearing before . . . the township board . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., DeLeon v. City of Ecorse, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 671 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2006) (denying summary judgment to the city because disputed issues of fact remained about whether the city’s failure to hold a VPA hearing before terminating a police officer violated his due process rights); Sherrod v. City of Detroit, 625 N.W.2d 437, 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (“The failure of a defendant to comply with the [notice and hearing] procedures contained in the VPA may support a due process claim.”); Jackson v. Detroit Police Chief, 506 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (“The VPA gave plaintiff a right to notice and a hearing before his demotion.”). Res judicata, therefore, does not apply. For the reasons discussed below, however, these claims fail on their merits.