# Doe v. Department of Corrections

> Michigan Court of Appeals · March 22, 2000 · 240 Mich. App. 199

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729817

## Case

- **Full name:** Doe v. Department of Corrections
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 22, 2000
- **Citations:** 240 Mich. App. 199; 611 N.W.2d 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Hoekstra, Kelly, Gribbs, Doctoroff, Murphy, Markey, Talbot
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729817

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729817. Public record. Not legal advice.