PHILIP GRAY V DETROIT HEALTH CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILIP GRAY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 16, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
DETROIT HEALTH CORPORATION, d/b/a
FITNESS USA, FITNESS USA CORPORATION,
and FITNESS MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION,
No. 229614
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-916145-NZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: K.F. Kelly, P.J. and Doctoroff and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition, and denying plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint. We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR(C)(7), (8) and (10). In
response to the motion, plaintiff sought to amend his original complaint to raise a claim under
the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. The trial court found that the amendment would be
futile because the statute of limitations ran. We agree.
An action alleging employment discrimination under the civil rights act must be brought
within three years after the cause of action accrued. Meek v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 193
Mich App 340, 343; 483 NW2d 407 (1991). In Sumner v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 427
Mich 505; 398 NW2d 368 (1986), the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the statute of
limitations for continuing violations. The exception exists when an employee challenges a series
of discriminatory acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern where only one of the acts
occurred within the limitations period. Id. at 528. Continuing harassment does not establish a
continuing violation if none of the relevant conduct occurred within the limitations period. Id. at
539.
Here, the last tangible discriminatory act was the promotion of another employee over
plaintiff on May 20, 1996. This act was outside the limitations period, and cannot support a
continuing violation. The only other continuing act noted by plaintiff was the existence of
swastikas on a storeroom wall. The most important factor to be considered in determining
-1-
whether a continuing violation exists is the degree of permanence of the discriminatory act, and
whether it should trigger the employee’s awareness of and duty to assert his rights. Id., 538.
Plaintiff was aware of the swastikas for years and he was aware of their discriminatory nature,
but he did not bring a timely complaint. There is no basis for finding a continuing violation in
this case. The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint where the
amendment would be futile. Weymers v Khera, 454 Mich 639, 658; 563 NW2d 647 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
