Moss & Colella, P.C.

Personal Injury Law Firm in Southfield is looking to add a legal secretary to support our senior attorneys and partners. Please send all resumes to vcolella@mosscolella.com

Today, Moss & Colella celebrates 27 years of representing clients in Personal Injury and Civil Rights cases! Our legal team is passionate about fighting for those who have suffered from personal injury and wrongful death. When you choose Moss & Colella, P.C., you'll get a team who will do what it takes to get you the compensation you deserve. #michiganlawyers #pilawyers #michiganinjury #michigancivilrights #michiganlawfirm

Please join us in congratulating firm founders A. Vince Colella and David Moss for being included on the 2025 Best Lawyers list! Read the full announcement here: https://lnkd.in/gqMMDBEg #civilrights #personalinjury #litigation

Cheers to the Super Lawyers awardees from Moss & Colella, P.C.: David Moss, A. Vince Colella and Matthew McCann. Read about their accomplishments here. https://lnkd.in/e4pYsyiZ #personalinjurylaw #civilrightslaw

In Doe v Alpena Public School District, the Michigan Supreme Court last month issued a decision further insulating schools from responsibility for student-on-student sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct.  The student, Doe, was repeatedly touched in a sexually inappropriate manner by another student. Despite notice of the offenses to the school district, and the school district's assurances of preventive, the incidents continued. Before the Michigan Supreme Court was the issue of whether Michigan Eliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) provides for a claim against a school district for a hostile educational environment stemming from student on student sexual harassment. One potential basis for this liability would be the doctrine of in loco parentis. Latin for “in the place of the parent,” it treats school administrators as standing in the place of students’ parents when the parents cannot protect, guide, and discipline them. The majority found the in loco parentis doctrine inapplicable. Instead, it found applicable hostile-work-environment claims criteria. One of the requirements for such liability is respondeat superior, i.e., an employer is generally liable for the torts its employees commit within the scope of their employment. Because the offending student was not an employee, the school district could not possibly have been liable. In his dissent, Judge Bernstein advocated for replacing the respondeat superior element of an ELCRA hostile environment claim with in loco parentis to modify it for application in educational context. This was the approach taken by the Court of Appeals, below. Schools arguably exercise even more control over conduct of students than employer over employee. While there is no mention of sovereign immunity, its presence loomed large in the background. Immunity is not a defense to an ELCRA claim. However, school districts and their employees are immune from negligence suits in cases as they were not the immediate efficient direct cause preceding the injury – the offending student was. Ultimately, the state of the law in Michigan is that there is little to no recourse against a school district for sexual or other violence which occurs while students are in the school district’s care and custody. It’s a harsh truth. A possible bright spot is federal law. The Sixth Circuit has held that Title IX supports a claim for student-on-student sexual harassment against the school district. The plaintiff's burden is significant, but not insurmountable 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 fifth post in what is a regular series focusing on civil rights decisions of significance from the Michigan State Courts. #civilrights #sexualharassment #michigan

Attorney A. Vince Colella is featured on Wood TV8 to discuss Civil Rights in a fleeing and eluding case after the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who was previously found guilty of fleeing from Kalamazoo police officers. Colella sheds light on the fact that this ruling means that police should set higher standards for what they consider reasonable suspicion. https://lnkd.in/grimZrcV https://lnkd.in/gQgvG2RD

Timely article with insights from A. Vince Colella of Moss & Colella, P.C. on safety issues associated with carnival rides and how they are - or are not - covered by state regulations. https://lnkd.in/e7yr9aHs #personalinjurylaw #carnivalrides #safetyregulations #recreationalwaivers

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