Robert's Case

The Human Face Project shares the stories of the people who came to the Court seeking justice -- and were denied. The decisions of the Taylor Court in these cases not only left the people before the Court without a remedy, but they have let cities, employers, business owners and polluters know that they can get away with a lower standard of care for their citizens, employees and customers and those who love Michigan's natural beauty. These stories could have ended differently if an independent, fair minded justice was in Taylor's seat on the Court.

Court says companies can restrict civil rights protections granted by the legislature

Court overrules cases stating that the legislature sets the time for filing civil rights litigation

Chrysler Corporation terminated Robert Clark from his employment because of his age.

Robert Clark was protected against age discrimination by Michigan's He brought a lawsuit against the Company under the state's broad civil rights statute known as the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The ELCRA provides that a person can file an age discrimination lawsuit in court against his or her employer anytime within three years of the termination date.

Mr. Clark filed his lawsuit within these time limits. In small print, the company stated in its job application that age discrimination suits could not be brought against it unless filed within six months of termination. Mr. Clark was never given a copy of the employment application or the any policy giving employees only six months to file a lawsuit against the company.

The pre 2000 Michigan Supreme Court permitted the parties to contract to agree to shortened time for bringing lawsuits only if one party didn't force other party to “agree” and the shortened time was reasonable. The Court wanted to make sure that individuals had time to investigate their claims and to obtain legal counsel to represent them.

The trial court upheld the shorter time period for filing litigation that the company wrote into its job application. Mr. Clark appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. He argue that he was forced to enter into this “agreement.” Furthermore, the six month time frame was not reasonable.

While the case was on appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court decided in another matter that an insurance company can shorten the time in which a consumer must bring a lawsuit an insurance company even though the consumer has no opportunity to negotiate the terms of the insurance contract and the time for bringing suit is unreasonably short.

The Court of Appeals, looked at that Supreme Court ruling and applied it to Mr. Clark's case. The Court of Appeals said it made no difference that in order to secure a good job with the company Mr. Clark was forced to agree to the shortened time limit for filing age discrimination claim, which was in small print on an application. The Court of Appeals did not think it matter whether the time limit applied by the company was too short. It made no difference that the employer did not provide Mr. Clark with a copy of the application when it was signed or when he was terminated.

Although Mr. Clark followed the rules established by the Michigan legislature which allowed three years to bring a discrimination case, the Supreme Court slammed the courthouse door on Mr. Clark and others whose employers have violated Michigan's civil rights laws.

Clark v DaimlerChrysler 268 Mich App (2005) leave den 475 Mich 875 (2006)