Doe v. Dep't of Corr.

323 Mich.App. 479

917 N.W.2d 730

John DOES 11-18 and Jane Doe 1/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Governor, Former Director Department of Corrections, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Warden of Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, Warden of Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, and Warden of Michigan Reformatory Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.

John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.

John Does 1-10/all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Department of Corrections, Governor, Director Department of Corrections, Former Director Department of Corrections, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Former Chief Deputy Director Department of Corrections Facilities Administration, Warden of Ionia Correctional Facility, Former Warden of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Warden of Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Warden of Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Oaks Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Thumb Correctional Facility, Warden of Chippewa Correctional Facility, Warden of Marquette Correctional Facility, Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Warden of Kinross Correctional Facility, Warden of Newberry Correctional Facility, Former Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, Warden of Michigan Reformatory and Warden Saginaw Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 332536

No. 335440

No. 335527

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted November 14, 2017, at Lansing.

Decided March 27, 2018, 9:05 a.m.

Deborah LaBelle, Anlyn Addis, Richard A. Soble, Michael L. Pitt, Beth M. Rivers, Peggy Goldberg Pitt, Cary S. McGehee, and Salvatore Prescott, PLLC (by Jennifer B. Salvatore ) for plaintiffs.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Laura Moody, Chief Legal Counsel, B. Eric Restuccia, Deputy Solicitor General, and Mark Donnelly and Heather Meingast, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendants.

Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Murphy and K.F. Kelly, JJ.

K.F. Kelly, J.Defendants appeal by right and by leave from three separate rulings of the trial court. First, defendants claim that the trial court erred when it declared unconstitutional an exclusion prohibiting individuals who are serving a sentence of imprisonment from bringing actions under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq . Next, defendants argue that the trial court erred when it ruled that the exclusion does not apply to trainees under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq ., because those individuals are not serving a sentence of imprisonment. Finally, defendants maintain that the trial court erred when it concluded that governmental immunity does not apply to these civil-rights actions.

As explained more fully in this opinion, we hold that the 1999 amendment to the ELCRA, specifically MCL 37.2301(b), as amended by 1999 PA 202, does not pass constitutional muster. Because we conclude that the exclusion is unconstitutional, we need not consider whether the prohibition applies to individuals assigned to youthful-trainee status under HYTA. We further hold that governmental immunity does not apply to ELCRA claims. Therefore, finding no error warranting reversal, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case was originally brought on behalf of seven unidentified male prisoners who sought relief under the ELCRA. They alleged that while they were under the age of 18, they were housed with adult prisoners who took advantage of their youth to commit sexual and physical abuse and harassment. Plaintiffs further asserted that defendants knew or should have known of the risk to plaintiffs but failed to prevent the abuse and harassment, or aided and abetted it.

This case has been heavily litigated in the circuit court and in this Court. Since the case was originally filed on December 9, 2013, there have been multiple applications for leave to appeal in this Court as well as some proceedings in the Court of Claims, and applications for leave to appeal in our Supreme Court. Throughout the course of this litigation, various plaintiffs, claims, and defendants have been added and others have been dismissed. It is a procedural quagmire. Still, the issues on appeal are relatively straightforward and are purely legal. We are first tasked with determining whether the ELCRA, which excludes individuals who are serving a sentence of imprisonment from bringing suit, is constitutional. We conclude that it is not. We must then consider whether defendants can assert governmental immunity.

II. ELCRA

The Michigan Constitution provides:

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. [ Const. 1963, art. 1, § 2.]

To that end, MCL 37.2302(a) of the ELCRA provides:

Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:

(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

In its current form, the ELCRA defines the term "public service" as

a public facility, department, agency, board, or commission, owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of the state, a political subdivision, or an agency thereof or a tax exempt private agency established to provide service to the public, except that public service does not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment . [ MCL 37.2301(b) (emphasis added).]

The highlighted language was added in 1999 after this Court’s decision in Neal v. Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing) , 232 Mich. App. 730, 734-737, 592 N.W.2d 370 (1998), which concluded that prisons were not excluded from the definition of "public service." The enacting section of the amendment that added this language provides:

This amendatory act is curative and intended to correct any misinterpretation of legislative intent in the court of appeals decision Neal v. Department of Corrections , 232 Mich. App. 730 [592 N.W.2d 370] (1998). This legislation further expresses the original intent of the legislature that an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility is not within the purview of this act. [1999 PA 202, enacting § 1.]

At the heart of this appeal is whether the ELCRA, in its postamendment form, is constitutional. "We review de novo constitutional questions such as whether a party was denied due process and equal protection under the law." Lima Twp. v. Bateson , 302 Mich. App. 483, 503, 838 N.W.2d 898 (2013). An issue involving statutory construction is likewise reviewed de novo. Saffian v. Simmons , 477 Mich. 8, 12, 727 N.W.2d 132 (2007).

The role of this Court in interpreting statutory language is to ascertain the legislative intent that may reasonably be inferred from the words in a statute. The focus of our analysis must be the statute’s express language, which offers the most reliable evidence of the Legislature’s intent. When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is not permitted and the statute is enforced as written. A court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself. [ Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 500 Mich. 191, 199, 895 N.W.2d 490 (

...