 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rathi v. Ford Motor Co.9/27/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Hood, P.J., and White and O'Connell, JJ.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from an order denying defendant's motion for summary disposition in this employment discrimination action. We reverse. Plaintiff claims that defendant constructively discharged him when it selected him for a promotion on the basis of his national origin, hoping that the additional responsibilities would force him to resign. He sent his resignation on the morning of March 16, 2001, but offered to stay on until March 21, 2001, to provide a smoother transition. On March 15, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the constructive discharge violated the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition and holding that defendant's statute of limitations defense is precluded by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. We agree. Whether a cause of action is barred by a statute of limitations is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Magee v Daimler Chrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108, 111; 693 NW2d 166 (2005). An action under the CRA must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues. MCL 600.5805(10). The filing of a 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). When plaintiff filed his complaint, the relevant portion of MCL 600.5856 stated:
The statutes of limitations or repose are tolled:
(a) At the time the complaint is filed and a copy of the summons and complaint are served on the defendant.
(b) At the time jurisdiction over the defendant is otherwise acquired.
(c) At the time the complaint is filed and a copy of the summons and complaint in good faith are placed in the hands of an officer for immediate service . . . .
If the requirements of MCL 500.5856 are not met, the statute of limitations continues to run. Gladych, supra at 605.
Plaintiff did not serve his complaint by certified mail until March 24, 2004, after the three-year limitations period expired. Although plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2004, and immediately placed the complaint in the hands of a professional process server for personal service at defendant's corporate headquarters, a private process server is not an "officer" for purposes of the tolling statute. Coleman v Bolton, 24 Mich App 547, 551-556; 180 NW2d 319 (1970). Therefore, plaintiff failed to serve his complaint within the limitations period.
Nevertheless, plaintiff contends that equitable estoppel prevents defendant from denying that it received timely service. See Cincinnati Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co, 454 Mich 263, 270; 562 NW2d 648 (1997). Application of the doctrine ordinarily requires proof of "conduct clearly designed to induce 'the plaintiff to refrain from bringing action within the period fixed by statute.'" Lothian v Detroit, 414 Mich 160, 177; 324 NW2d 9 (1982), quoting Renackowsky v Bd of Water Comm'rs of Detroit, 122 Mich 613, 616; 81 NW 581 (1900).
Plaintiff relies on an affidavit from his process server which includes the following statements:
5) Right after filing the lawsuit that day around 4:30 PM, I took a copy of the Complaint and Summons to Defendant Ford Motor Co. at [its headquarters.]
6) I met the person sitting at the entrance of the building. He appeared to be an Information Officer for the Defendant. I told him that I have a lawsuit against F
Page 1 2 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|