Michigan Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Trooper's PTSD Discrimination Suit
In a ruling issued Monday in case No. 375823, the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out a state police officer's disability discrimination lawsuit, holding that he filed too late under state law. The unanimous panel said the officer was required to give the state notice of his intent to sue within six months, not the one-year period a lower court had applied.
The officer claimed he developed post-traumatic stress disorder after being shot in the line of duty in 2013 and after other traumatic experiences during his career with the Michigan State Police. He said the department later discriminated against him because of that condition when it demoted him three ranks, from first lieutenant to trooper, following an internal investigation into a promotion scandal.
The officer filed a notice of intent to sue about nine months after his disciplinary appeal hearing, then brought claims under the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, seeking economic and noneconomic damages. The state argued the case was barred because the Court of Claims Act requires notice within six months for personal injury claims. A trial court disagreed, but the appeals court reversed.
The panel reasoned that a disability discrimination claim qualifies as a claim for personal injuries because it involves the invasion of a personal right, such as the right to be free from disability discrimination in employment. Because the officer's notice came after the six-month window, his lawsuit was untimely and dismissed. The ruling does not weigh the merits of the discrimination allegations; it turns entirely on the procedural deadline.
Why the Six-Month Notice Clock Barred the Trooper's Claim
Why 'Personal Injuries' Now Covers Disability Bias
The key move in this ruling is the appeals court's interpretation of 'personal injuries' under the Court of Claims Act. By treating a disability discrimination claim as the invasion of a personal right, the court brought claims under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act under the faster six-month notice clock used for traditional personal injury claims against the state.
The timeline decided the case. The officer gave notice roughly nine months after his disciplinary appeal hearing, which was inside the one-year window the trial court used but outside the six-month period the appeals court said applied. The decision underscores that the notice requirement is a strict procedural gate: missing it ends the case before any court examines whether the discrimination actually happened.
What the Dismissal Leaves Unresolved
Monday's ruling does not vindicate the department. The court did not evaluate whether the demotion was discriminatory, and it did not question the officer's account of being shot in 2013 or his other traumatic experiences. It also did not address the promotion scandal that triggered the internal investigation.
The practical effect for Michigan public employees is narrower but real: disability discrimination claims against the state now carry a six-month notice deadline in the Court of Claims, and employees who wait too long risk losing their day in court entirely.
What Michigan Public Employees Should Take From the Ruling
Michigan public employees pursuing disability discrimination claims against the state should treat the six-month notice requirement as the operative deadline. Key points from the ruling:
- The ruling cites the officer's disciplinary appeal hearing as the reference point: he filed his notice about nine months after that hearing, past the six-month mark.
- A claim under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act is treated as a personal injury claim for notice purposes, so the faster six-month clock applies from the outset.
- Because the suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, the underlying discrimination allegations were never decided on their merits.
Comments 0