Gilbraltar School District Vs. MESPA  443, Mich 326, (1993)
The central question posed is the extent to which an arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement survives the expiration date of a collective bargaining agreement. This issue was recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the context of private sector disputes *335 under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC 151 et seq.; Litton Financial Printing Div v NLRB, 501 US 190; 111 S Ct 2215; 115 L Ed 2d 177 (1991). We have long recognized that Michigan's public employment relations act, MCL 423.201 et seq.; MSA 17.455(1) et seq., is modeled on the NLRA. Although not controlling, we look to federal precedent developed under the NLRA for guidance in our interpretation of the PERA, Central Michigan Univ Faculty Ass'n v Central Michigan Univ, 404 Mich 268; 273 NW2d 21 (1978); Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n v Pontiac (After Remand), 397 Mich 674; 246 NW2d 831 (1976); Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v Detroit, supra at 53. Thus, Litton is an appropriate place to begin our inquiry.


Koester Vs. City of Novi, 326, (1993) In this case we are asked to determine two things: (1) whether plaintiff has stated a claim under the Handicappers' Civil Rights Act (HCRA), M.C.L. § 37.1101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.550(101) et seq., and (2) whether comments and harassing conduct relating to a woman's pregnancy can give rise to a claim for sexual harassment as defined by the Michigan Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq. We hold that pregnancy, standing alone, is not a handicap under the HCRA because it is not a substantial limitation of a major life activity. We also hold that harassing comments and conduct relating to a woman's pregnancy may give rise to a claim of sexual harassment as defined by the CRA.