Court Opinion

ID: 9963754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 05:06:24.614536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:58.469998
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

SHANITA BRADLEY, ERICA CHAPPELL,                                     UNPUBLISHED
ANGELA HAMM, and BARBARA KEMP,                                       April 25, 2024

               Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v                                                                    No. 365526
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                     LC No. 22-006362-CK

FOUNTAIN BLEU HEALTH AND
REHABILITATION CENTER INC,

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and MALDONADO, JJ.

MALDONADO, J. (concurring).

         I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately because, while I agree that there
is insufficient authority upon which this Court could appropriately act, I share plaintiffs’ public
policy concerns regarding the enforceability of these arbitration agreements. I agree with the
concurring opinion in McMillon v Kalamazoo, 983 NW2d 79, 83; 983 NW2d 79 (2023) (WELCH,
J., concurring), that “[t]he validity of contractually shortened limitations periods is an important
issue to both employers and employees.” In my opinion, empowering employers to circumvent
accountability for discriminatory practices by reducing the limitations period for proceeding with
civil rights actions as a condition of employment is directly contrary to the purposes of the Elliot-
Larson Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. However, such a holding should be issued by the
Supreme Court, not this Court. In November 2023, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments1
to consider the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal this Court’s opinion in Rayford v
American House Roseville I, LLC, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
December 16, 2021 (Docket No. 355232) (holding that a contractual limitations period imposed

1
  See Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC, 511 Mich 1010; 991 NW2d 199 (2023)
(direction oral argument on application).

                                                -1-
by an employment agreement was enforceable). I hope the Supreme Court will use this
opportunity to hold that such agreements are unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

                                                      /s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado

                                          -2-