By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal filed by the City of Grand Rapids against the Department of Civil Rights over the statute of limitations on complaints.
In 2023, Grand Rapids sued the department, alleging it was violating the three-year statute of limitations in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in many cases it is bringing against the city of Grand Rapids' police department.
The Court of Claims decided for Civil Rights, as did the Court of Appeals.
In its February 2026 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled there is a 180-day timeline for individuals to file a civil rights complaint, but not for the agency to reach a charging decision.
“Neither the MDCR nor the Legislature has imposed a deadline by which the investigation of a complaint must proceed to the charging phase,” the unpublished Court of Appeals decision said. “If plaintiff believes this to be an absurd result, which this court does not, the proper forum to bring this concern would be the MDCR itself or the Legislature. This court will not impose a statute of limitations where one is not applicable.”
In an order dated Friday, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal.
“We are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court,” the order said.
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal filed by the City of Grand Rapids against the Department of Civil Rights over the statute of limitations on complaints.
In 2023, Grand Rapids sued the department, alleging it was violating the three-year statute of limitations in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in many cases it is bringing against the city of Grand Rapids' police department.
The Court of Claims decided for Civil Rights, as did the Court of Appeals.
In its February 2026 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled there is a 180-day timeline for individuals to file a civil rights complaint, but not for the agency to reach a charging decision.
“Neither the MDCR nor the Legislature has imposed a deadline by which the investigation of a complaint must proceed to the charging phase,” the unpublished Court of Appeals decision said. “If plaintiff believes this to be an absurd result, which this court does not, the proper forum to bring this concern would be the MDCR itself or the Legislature. This court will not impose a statute of limitations where one is not applicable.”
In an order dated Friday, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal.
“We are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court,” the order said.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
