DeBrabant v. Roadway Express, Inc.

I agree with the majority opinion on the facts as set forth and the results with respect to Issues I and II. I respectfully dissent, however, with respect to Issue III.

Plaintiff now contends, for the first time on appeal, that the antinepotism policy under which she was discharged per se violates the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq. See Lowry v Sinai Hospital of Detroit, 129 Mich App 726; 343 NW2d 1 (1983), and Miller v C A Muer Corp, 124 Mich App 780; 336 NW2d 215 (1983). Not only did plaintiff fail to raise this issue during the four years between…