Moss & Colella, P.C.

In Rouch World, LLC v Department of Civil Rights, the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022 addressed whether Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2019, Natalie Johnson and Megan Oswalt had asked the Rouch World event center if they could host their wedding ceremony. The owners of the center “explained that hosting and participating in a same-sex wedding ceremony would violate their sincerely held religious belief that marriage is a sacred act of worship between one man and one woman.” In finding that the ELCRA’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompassed a prohibition based on sexual orientation, the Michigan Supreme Court relied significantly on the The Supreme Court of the United States’s decision in Bostock v Clayton Co. “It is impossible” the US Supreme Court had held “to discriminate against a person for being homosexual . . . without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” In a crucial section of its opinion, block-cited by the Michigan Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court provided this compelling demonstration of why this is in fact impossible: “Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.” The Court concluded that the denial of “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service” on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes discrimination “because of . . . sex” and, therefore, constituted a violation of the ELCRA. This case marks a victory for the rights of individuals in Michigan and should be celebrated with its two-year anniversary coming up next month, especially during June, marked as Pride Month in Michigan. Gretchen Whitmer remarked earlier this month “Michigan will always be a place where everyone has the freedom to be who they are and love who they love” Moss & Colella, P.C. has been at the forefront of civil rights litigation in Michigan for more than 20 years, with our experienced attorneys handling all types of civil rights cases in Detroit, throughout Michigan, and selected cases across the country. This is the third post a regular series focusing on civil rights decisions of significance from the Michigan State Courts. #pride2024 #pridemonth #civilrights #michiganlaw #LoveIsLove #pridemonth2024 #lgbtqiaplus

In Woodman v Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") (2023), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the contours of the availability of attorneys’ fees under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  Attorneys typically take on FOIA challenges with the understanding that they will recover fees as part of a settlement or if the challenge prevails in court.  Underpinning this is the fee-shifting provision of FOIA, designed to (1) encourage voluntary compliance with disclosing records under FOIA & (2) encourage plaintiffs unable to afford the expense of litigation to obtain judicial review of wrongful denials of FOIA requests. At issue in this case was the MDOC’s denial of reporters’ requests for video records relating to an altercation that led to one of the inmate’s deaths. The denial was based on the “penal security” exemption, exempting from disclosure records that would impact a prison's ability to maintain building and employee / prisoner security. In a telling sign, the Court highlighted at the outset of its legal analysis a prior Michigan Court of Appeals’ case for the premise that: FOIA is a manifestation of this state’s public policy favoring public access to government information, recognizing the need that citizens be informed as they participate in democratic governance, and the need that public officials be held accountable for the manner in which they perform the duties. In keeping with that public policy, the Court refused to adopt a narrow definition of what it means for a litigant to “prevail” in a challenge to a FOIA denial. The Court found that as the MDOC has fully denied the FOIA requests, the challenge to the denial (1) was reasonably necessary to compel disclosure and (2) substantially brought about disclosure. Of particular importance, the Court found that the plaintiffs “obtained everything they initially sought.” Critical to this point was the Court’s rejection of MDOC’s attempt at nuance. The MDOC argued, unsuccessfully, that the reporters did not get “everything” they requested as the video provided blurred faces.  Fee-shifting provisions are instrumental in allowing those denied statutory or constitutional rights to access justice with the assistance of counsel. FOIA is also a critical tool for attorneys in investigating and evaluating potential civil rights cases and also to gather information to include in a complaint commencing an action.  This decision bolsters both in Michigan. Moss & Colella, P.C. has been at the forefront of civil rights litigation in Michigan for more than 20 years, with our experienced attorneys handling all types of civil rights cases in Detroit, throughout Michigan, and selected cases across the country.   This is the second in a weekly series focusing on civil rights decisions of significance from Michigan State Courts. #civilrights #michiganlaw #michigancivilrights #FOIA #digitalmarketing #marketing #socialmedia 

In Miller v Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), the Michigan Supreme Court earlier this month decided that the Michigan State Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 ("ELCRA") allows for "third-party" or "associational" retaliation claims in the employment context. What that means is that an employer can not take an adverse employment action against Individual A based on the exercise of protected activity by Individual B. This principal as applied to the individuals in the case before the Court meant that Plaintiffs Miller and Whitman, who had been fired, had an actionable claim against their employer, the MDOC, based on their position that they were fired in retaliation for their close friend's pursuit of claims of discrimination against the MDOC. Before this decision, it was clear that an individual had an actionable claim against their employer if that employer took an adverse action against that individual for their exercise of protected activity. By this decision, Michigan now recognizes as actionable a claim that an employer took an adverse action against a fellow employee who is close to that individual. This is ultimately an important and welcome development that further protects an important exercise of one's civil rights. Michigan law is now clear that an employer can not retaliate against you for taking steps to protect your civil rights by punishing a spouse, significant other, family member or close friend who is also a fellow employee. *** Moss & Colella, P.C. has been at the forefront of civil rights litigation in Michigan for more than 20 years, with our experienced attorneys handling all types of civil rights cases in Detroit, throughout Michigan, and selected cases across the country. This is the first post in what is slated to be a weekly series focusing on civil rights decisions of significance from the Michigan State Courts. #civilrights #michiganlaw #michigancivilrights #marketing #innovation #digitalmarketing #branding #legal #law #litigation #employmentlaw #retaliation

Milestone event for Moss & Colella, P.C.! Check out the firm's new billboard on the Lodge (M-10) in Detroit. #personalinjury #triallawyers #personalinjurylaw #civilrights

"David Moss, senior partner and co-founder of Moss & Colella, told Lawyers Weekly that Well-Being Week in Law reminds him to reflect on how challenging the practice of law is." Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gh9a6tBz

In his latest column for Detroit Legal News, firm partner A. Vince Colella discusses the paradox of limiting a business owner's duty to keep its customers safe. "Expanding the duty to protect customers beyond simply expediting the police will shift the economic burden back to the business owners, and in turn, make their establishments safer." Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/gtudXFq4

"David Moss, senior partner and co-founder of Moss & Colella, told Lawyers Weekly that Well-Being Week in Law reminds him to reflect on how challenging the practice of law is." Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gh9a6tBz

ESPN's coverage of this heartbreaking story of institutional racism is not only responsible journalism but serves as a reminder that the struggle for equality must always be recognized by national media outlets to prevent the shroud of secrecy around localized racial animus. Moss & Colella, P.C. along with nationally recognized civil rights advocate Ben Crump and Texas trial lawyers Marion Reilly / Joseph Hoffer is proud to represent the Tucker family and looks forward to exposing the discriminatory transgressions of the Fort Myers/Lee County school system for the years of unfair treatment of black student-athletes. https://lnkd.in/d8QakRtR #madridtucker #detroitcivilrights

A call for reform! In his latest Colella in Context column, A. Vince Colella scrutinizes how ‘caps’ on Michigan medical malpractice cases have impacted the recovery of those suffering and why they are not needed. Read the full column here: https://lnkd.in/eCnBkVX8 #medicalmalpractice #medmal #personalinjury

We are thrilled to announce the newest addition to our team - Shannon Gresock, our new legal assistant! We are confident that her skills and dedication will be a valuable asset to our team. Let's give Shannon a warm welcome! 😊