Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Bridget M. McCormack Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kathryn L. Loomis BAUSERMAN v UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY Docket No. 160813. Argued on application for leave to appeal on October 6, 2021. Decided July 26, 2022. Grant Bauserman, Karl Williams, and Teddy Broe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought a putative class action in the Court of Claims against the Unemployment Insurance Agency, alleging that defendant had violated their due-process rights in violation of Const 1963, art 1, § 17 and that defendant had also engaged in unlawful collection practices. Plaintiffs, who were all recipients of unemployment compensation benefits, specifically alleged that defendant had used an automated fraud-detection system—the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS)—to determine that plaintiffs had received unemployment benefits for which they were not eligible and then garnished plaintiffs’ wages and tax refunds to recover the amount of the alleged overpayments, interest, and penalties that defendant had assessed without providing meaningful notice or an opportunity to be heard. Defendant moved for summary disposition on multiple grounds, including that the claims were not timely filed and that plaintiffs could not pursue a constitutional-tort claim against defendant because plaintiffs had alternative remedies they could pursue under the Michigan Employment Security Act (MESA), MCL 421.1 et seq. The Court of Claims, CYNTHIA D. STEPHENS, J., denied defendant’s motion, reasoning, in part, that plaintiff’s constitutional claims were viable because the administrative remedies were inadequate. Defendant appealed. In an unpublished per curiam opinion issued July 18, 2017 (Docket No. 333181), the Court of Appeals, GADOLA, P.J., and METER and FORT HOOD, JJ., reversed, concluding that plaintiffs’ claims were not timely filed. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on the application. 501 Mich 1047 (2018). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the actionable harm in a predeprivation due-process claim occurs when a plaintiff has been deprived of property and that such a claim accrues when a plaintiff has first incurred the deprivation. As a result, Bauserman and Broe had timely filed their claims within six months following the deprivation of their property, but Williams had not. The Supreme Court thus affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendant’s argument that plaintiffs failed to raise cognizable constitutional-tort claims. 503 Mich 169 (2019). On remand, in a published opinion issued December 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals, METER and FORT HOOD, JJ. (GADOLA, P.J., concurring), concluded that the alleged violations arose from actions taken by state actors pursuant to a governmental policy and that they could be characterized as an …
Original document ES