Legal Opinion

Magee v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 2005No. Docket 126219PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

In this case involving the Civil Rights Act, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination, and retaliation were timely filed, because the lawsuit was brought within three years of the date she resigned her employment with defendant.1

We conclude that plaintiffs claims were not filed within the limitations period because none of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct occurred within the three years that preceded the fifing of the complaint. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the matter…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Neal v. WilkesMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Boyle v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Collins v. Comerica BankMichigan Supreme Court · 2003

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health ServicesMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Paige v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Kloian v. SchwartzMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. Joliet v. PitoniakMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Bruce Millar v. Construction Code AuthorityMichigan Supreme Court · 2018

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API