Koester Vs. Novi, Michigan ;  Plaintiff female police officer brought an action against defendant police department for pregnancy discrimination under the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act (HCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws 37.1101 et seq. (Mich. Stat. Ann. 3.550(101) et seg.), and for sex discrimination A trial court (Michigan) granted summary judgement to the department on the pregnancy claims and for the female officer on the harassment claim.  Both parties appealed.

Cranford Vs. Wayne County Sheriff, Eric Smith and Wayne County;  Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition and dismissing all counts of plaintiff's first amended complaint. Defendants cross-appealed the trial court's denial of their request for sanctions on the basis that plaintiff's complaint was frivolous.

Deputy Sheriff's Association of Michigan and Larry Orlowski Vs. State of Michigan and Sheriff's Coordinating and Training Council;  This case involves the interpretation of the Local Corrections Officers Training Act, MCL 791.531 et seq.  Defendants argue that counties whose training programs have been certified and who lawfully remit only $2  of the $12 booking fee collected from each incarcerated person are eligible to receive training grants from defendant Sheriff's Coordinatiing and Training Council.  Plantiffs argue that under the plain language of the act, only counties that remit the entire $12 booking fee are eligible to receive grants.

Zoma Vs. City of River Rouge;  This case concerns the defendants act of closing down the plaintiff's arcade. Defendant appeals the right from the February 2, 1993 judgement entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $23,253 following a jury trial in the Wayne Circut Court.

Wayne County vs. Michigan AFSCME Council 25;  Respondent, Wayne County, appeals as of right the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) order adopting the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) recommended order, ruling in favor of the charging parties, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and its affiliated Locals 25, 101, 409, 1659, 1862, 2057, 2926, and 3317 (hereinafter “charging parties”), and finding that respondent breached its duty to bargain.