Michigan Court Of Appeals Shortens The Notice Deadline For Disability Discrimination Claims Against The State To Six Months

What It Means for State Instrumentalities and Universities

On August 3, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a published decision that a claim under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) against the State of Michigan or one of its agencies is a claim for “personal injuries.” The six-month notice provision of the Court of Claims Act (COCA), MCL 600.6431(4), therefore governs the claim, rather than the default one-year period of MCL 600.6431(1). Short v. Michigan State Police, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 375823). Because the Opinion is published, it binds Michigan trial courts.

While the case arose from a State Police demotion, not a higher education matter, the notice statute it construes applies to state instrumentalities which includes constitutionally created public universities. Institutions that are arms of the state now face a notice window half as long as many practitioners have assumed, while the limitations period for the underlying claim remains three years.

Background: How the Court of Claims Act Notice Requirement Works

The State of Michigan and its instrumentalities cannot be sued unless the Legislature consents. The COCA is that consent, and it carries a condition. Before pursuing most claims against the state, a claimant must first put the state on notice by filing with the clerk of the Court of Claims either the claim itself or a written notice of intention to file a claim that meets certain conditions. The Supreme Court has explained that the requirement exists so the responsible state entity learns about a potential claim, can prepare for litigation, and can set aside reserves to cover potential liability. Under COCA, claims for “property damage or personal injuries” carry a six-month notice period while other claims require notice to be brought no later than one year after the events giving rise to the claim.

What the Court Decided

The plaintiff, a first lieutenant and post commander with the Michigan State Police, alleged that the Agency demoted him three ranks because of his disability. He filed a notice of intention to file a claim in the Court of Claims roughly nine months after the disciplinary appeal hearing giving rise to his claim. The trial court applied a one-year notice period and denied the Agency’s motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition applying a six-month notice period because the PWDCRA claim was one for “personal injuries.”

COCA does not define “personal injuries.” The panel treated the phrase as a legal term of art and consulted legal dictionaries, which define personal injury to include any invasion of a personal right and not only bodily harm. Because the PWDCRA makes the opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination on the basis of disability a guaranteed civil right, MCL 37.1102(1), the panel concluded that a PWDCRA claim alleges the invasion of a personal right and so states a claim for personal injuries.

Why the Decision Matters for Public and Universities

• The notice statute reaches public institutions. In Christie v. Wayne State Univ, 511 Mich 39 (2023), the Supreme Court held that COCA’s notice requirement applies to all claims against the state and its instrumentalities, including claims filed in circuit court.¹ Christie itself involved Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) and PWDCRA claims against a state university, so the question decided in Short arises directly in the higher education setting.
• The panel rejected an earlier decision. In Chiravuri v. Univ of Mich, an unpublished per curiam opinion issued September 11, 2025 (Docket No. 373389), a different panel applied the one-year period to an ELCRA claim. The Short panel disagreed with that analysis and declined to follow it. Unlike Short, Chiravuri is unpublished and not binding.
• The reasoning is not confined to disability claims. The panel framed the question as whether ELCRA and PWDCRA claims are claims for personal injuries, and its rationale rests on the character of a statutory civil right rather than on anything particular to disability. No published decision has yet specifically extended the holding to the ELCRA, but expect, given the reasoning in Short, that this holding likely will apply to ELCRA claims filed at the Court of Claims as well.
• The damages pleaded do not control. The plaintiff amended his Complaint to emphasize lost earnings and lost career opportunity and withdrew his claim for exemplary damages. The panel looked to the nature of the right invaded rather than to the relief sought, so this amendment had no bearing on their decision.
• The six months runs from the event, not from accrual. The Short panel concluded subsection (4) governs instead of subsection (1). Subsection (4) measures the period from the event that gives rise to the claim. Subsection (1), by contrast, runs from the date the claim accrued.
• The limitations period has not changed. PWDCRA and ELCRA claims remain subject to a three-year limitations period. The notice deadline is a separate and much earlier bar, and a claimant can lose an otherwise timely claim by missing it.

Next Steps

How Short affects any given matter depends on its posture: when the event occurred, when a compliant notice was filed, whether the institution is a state defendant for COCA purposes, and what other defenses are available. Butzel’s Higher Education and Labor and Employment attorneys are available to review pending and threatened matters against the new standard. Please contact your Butzel counsel to discuss litigation strategy for your institution.

A Note on Scope

COCA’s notice requirement applies to the state and its agencies. Private colleges and universities, as well as community colleges, are not subject to it. The status of individual employees sued in their personal capacities calls for separate analysis. Institutions should confirm their own posture rather than assume the six-month rule applies, or does not apply, across the board.

Footnote

1. Notably, Butzel successfully represented the public university before the Michigan Supreme Court in Christie.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.