08-97450, 6 pages), the panel affirmed the Michigan Court of Claims' denial of plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint to substitute a fish and seafood allergy as the alleged disability underlying her claim asserting violation of the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act
(PWDCRA).<br />"The Court of Claims denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, holding both that it was the product of undue delay and that the proposed amendment was futile," according to the appeals court opinion.<br />The April 10 unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Michael F.
Courts have consistently held that contractual limitation periods as short as six months are reasonable and have applied them to a variety of employment-related actions under Michigan law, including discrimination and retaliation claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act
. Such contractual limitation period provisions, however, may not reduce the limitations period for federal claims, but those claims do generally require that the employee file a complaint with a governmental agency before a lawsuit can be filed in court.