JAMES HALL V WAYNE CO DEPT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES HALL,
UNPUBLISHED
May 17, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
WAYNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICES, LORENZO BLOUNT, E.
GLANTON, EDMOND LEE HAYES, AFSCME
COUNCIL 29, and AFSCME LOCAL 101,
No. 252162
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 03-329761-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s orders granting defendants’ motions for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff’s employment with the County was terminated on May 2, 2002. The union filed
a grievance, which proceeded to arbitration. In an award issued on February 25, 2003, the
arbitrator upheld plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff filed this action on September 8, 2003. The
trial court ruled in part that plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed, and dismissed the case.
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen
v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000).
A wrongful discharge action against an employer predicated on violation of a collective
bargaining agreement is subject to a six-month limitations period. Romero v Paragon Steel Div,
Portec, Inc (On Remand), 129 Mich App 566, 572-573; 341 NW2d 546 (1983). Similarly, a
claim against a union for violation of the duty of fair representation is subject to a six-month
limitations period. Ray v Org of Sch Admin’rs & Supervisors, Local 28, 141 Mich App 708,
710-711; 367 NW2d 438 (1985).
Assuming that plaintiff’s cause of action did not accrue until March 13, 2003, when he
claims to have first learned of the arbitration award, see Galindo v Stoody Co, 793 F2d 1502,
1509 (CA 9, 1986); Dowty v Pioneer Rural Elec Co-op, Inc, 770 F2d 52, 56-57 (CA 6, 1985), it
was not enough that plaintiff simply file his complaint by September 13, 2003. The filing of a
-1-
complaint alone is insufficient to toll the running of the statute of limitations. The statute of
limitations is tolled only when the complaint is filed and the requirements of MCL 600.5856 are
met. Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 595, 605; 664 NW2d 705 (2003).1
It appearing that plaintiff undertook service of process himself instead of through an
officer, that defendants were served with process on or after September 15, 2003, and that
defendants did not submit to the court’s jurisdiction before being served with process, the
limitations period continued to run after the complaint was filed, and then expired within a week.
The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the statute of
limitations.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
1
Gladych was abrogated by 2004 PA 87, which amended MCL 600.5856, but that amendment
only applies to cases filed on or after April 22, 2004.
-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.
