Case: Babcock v. State of Michigan
2:22-cv-12951 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Filed Date: Dec. 6, 2022
Closed Date: Nov. 10, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about disability accommodations in government buildings in Michigan.
On December 6, 2022, the plaintiffs, three women that rely on disability-accessible, barrier-free buildings and restrooms, filed this suit in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan. They alleged that several government buildings were not accessible and in violation of both state and federal law. The plaintiffs brought their suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), the Michigan Barrier Free Design Act, the Michigan Uniform Construction Code and applicable International Building Codes, the Michigan Sidewalks: Persons With Disabilities Act, and sex discrimination, in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The plaintiffs sued the State of Michigan, County of Wayne, City of Detroit, Wayne County Building Authority (WCBA), Detroit Building Authority (DBA), Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority (DWJBA), and Hines Detroit Services LLC, an organization involved in the redevelopment of two facilities in question. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The plaintiffs requested to certify a class of all injured persons with mobility and incontinence impairments, who have been denied equal access to government facilities and services owned, leased, and operated by the state of Michigan and some of its political subdivisions. The case was assigned to District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith.
One of the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew from the case for personal reasons on December 27, 2022. The State of Michigan filed a motion to dismiss on March 10, 2023. The motion to dismiss was amended on March 14, 2023, because the original version was over the allowed length. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not plead sufficiently detailed or specific factual allegations. On April 26, 2023, the court dismissed without prejudice Hines Detroit Services as a defendant after both parties agreed.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2023 which removed Hines as a defendant and provided more detailed information of the allegations. On May 2, 2023, the court denied without prejudice the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case as moot because of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
On June 2, 2023, defendant DWJBA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. DWJBA argued that the amended complaint had inaccurate and insufficient allegations to establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, failed to establish standings, and that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
The same day, defendants Wayne County Building Authority and the County of Wayne (Wayne County defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 6, 2023, the City filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. That same day, DBA filed an amended motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. On June 23, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint demanding a jury trial. On June 26, 2023, the case was reassigned from District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith to District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey.
On July 6, 2023, DWJBA and the State of Michigan filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. On July 10, 2023, the parties agreed to stipulate to the dismissal of Wayne County Building Authority. The next day, the Detroit Building Authority was also dismissed. On July 10, 2023, the court issued an order denying without prejudice the motion to dismiss since the plaintiffs had filed a second amended complaint. On July 14, 2023, the City of Detroit and the County of Wayne both filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
On March 30, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiffs showed they intended to continue accessing the buildings and structures in question and thus had standing. The plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was dismissed. While the court found that some of the allegations were vague, enough were specific for the case to proceed. Under the ADA, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims regarding facilities in Washtenaw County, Livingston County, Ingham County; claims asserted by one of the plaintiffs, and claims regarding visually impaired persons failed to state a valid claim. Further, the court dismissed the claim under the Rehabilitation Act because it failed to show a relevant program or activity that was receiving federal financial assistance.
The order dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims except for the ADA and PWDCRA claims. It also dismissed allegations regarding all state-owned buildings, except for the State’s liability for local court facilities.
On April 15, 2024, the County, City, and State answered the second amended complaint with affirmative defenses. The State argued that if determined to be liable, the plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part because the requested actions would constitute an undue financial burden and administrative burden upon the defendant. On April 29, 2023, DWJBA filed its answer to the second amended complaint.
On May 28, 2024, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford was recused from the case and Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti was assigned.
On July 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement their second amended complaint. They provided information specifically describing plaintiff Jacobson’s representation of clients and potential clients in the CAYMC. The defendants responded in opposition to the motion to supplement due to unduly delay on July 15, 2024.
The plaintiffs submitted their reply to the response on July 22, 2024. They argued that the claims fall within the three-year statute of limitations and if the court ruled against their motion they would submit a new complaint.
The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for settlement discussions on September 25, 2024.
On October 4, 2024, the State of Michigan filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing based on the claims remaining after the March 20, 2023, court decision.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the second amended complaint on October 23, 2024, since the alleged events occurred nearly a year after the initial complaint. The court cited a case supporting the argument that plaintiffs who lack standing from the start of a case cannot reply on factual changes during the suit to support the case.
On October 24, 2024, the State filed a motion for permission to be exempt from participation in a settlement conference arguing that it didn’t own the facilities in question and it didn’t have the authority to renovate the facilities. This request was denied by the court on November 5, 2024.
On November 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response to the October 4, 2024, motion to dismiss. The argued that the State cannot avoid its liability due to funding or ownership assertions. On November 15, 2024, a settlement conference was held, but no settlement was reached.
The State filed its reply to the plaintiffs’ response regarding the motion to dismiss on November 19, 2024, arguing that it is not liable for local courthouse facilities and that it is not obligated to join the other defendants.
On March 13, 2025, a settlement conference was held, and the parties reached a settlement agreement, subject to each municipal body’s approval. In the final settlement, without admitting liability, the defendants agreed to change certain policies and make major improvements to make their buildings more accessible within one year. The defendants also agreed to pay $225,000 towards plaintiffs’ expert and attorney fees and costs.
In light of the parties’ settlement and anticipated forthcoming order of dismissal, the court denied without prejudice the State’s motion to dismiss and the Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority’s motion to compel on September 15, 2025.
On November 7, 2025, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case. The court dismissed the case with prejudice on November 10, 2025.
Summary Authors
Charles Clark (3/8/2023)
Renuka Wagh (10/27/2023)
Cara Claflin (1/19/2025)
Skylar Parpan (3/22/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66614542/parties/babcock-v-michigan-state-of/
Abdnour, Elizabeth Kamm (Michigan)
Bartnik, Michael W. (Michigan)
Almonrode, Sharon S. (Michigan)
Baldwin, Angela L. (Michigan)
Bierlein, Kyle (Michigan)
Almonrode, Sharon S. (Michigan)
Coschino, Kimberly M (Michigan)
Drysdale-Crown, Cassandra A. (Michigan)
Garcia, Lawrence T. (Michigan)
Hollander, Frances J. (Michigan)
Hollowell, Melvin B. (Michigan)
Longworth, Gregory N. (Michigan)
Quigley, Erica Lynn (Michigan)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66614542/babcock-v-michigan-state-of/
Last updated July 7, 2026, 6:11 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 6, 2022
Closing Date: Nov. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All injured persons with mobility and incontinence impairments, who have been denied equal access to government facilities and services owned, leased, and operated by the state of Michigan and some of its political subdivisions.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
City
City of Detroit
County
Wayne County
State
State of Michigan
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 2:22-cv-12951
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: 225000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Case Summary of Babcock v. State of Michigan, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43954/ (last updated 3/22/2026).