Opinion

Doe v. Department of Corrections

  • 240 Mich. App. 199
  • 611 N.W.2d 1
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 22, 2000
Status
Published
On the bench
Hoekstra, Kelly, Gribbs, Doctoroff, Murphy, Markey, Talbot
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 60.0%

noting that prisons are not established to provide services to the public

How later courts described this case

  • noting that prisons are not established to provide services to the public
  • “If it is the intent of the Legislature not to have these statutes applied to prisoners and prisons, then it is incumbent on the Legislature to draft and enact statutes that so provide.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Pursuant to MCR 7.215(H), a special panel has been convened to resolve a conflict between this case, Doe v Dep’t of Corrections, 236 Mich App 801 (1999), and Neal v Dep’t of Corrections (On Rehearing), 232 Mich App 730 ; 592 NW2d 370 (1998).

*201 We find the reasoning found in the majority opinion in Neal and the concurrence in Doe, supra at 815 , to be persuasive and consistent with established rules of statutory construction.

It has been argued that the Legislature could not have intended that the statutory prohibition against discrimination found in the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548 (101) et seq., and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (pwdcra), MCL 37.1101 et seq.; MSA 3.550(101) et seq., be applied to prisoners and prisons because of the ramifications associated with such application. 1 That may be so, but this Court does not have the liberty to change the meaning of statutory language that is plain and clear, nor can we ignore established rules of statutory construction. If it is the intent of the Legislature not to have these statutes applied to prisoners and prisons, then it is incumbent on the Legislature to draft and enact statutes that so provide. In these cases, we find that the Legislature has not done so.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with Doe v Dep’t of Corrections, supra.

After submission and argument in this case, the Legislature has amended certain provisions of the cra and the pwdcra. The effect of these amendments is not before the Court and we render no opinion regarding this amended legislation.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.