Mary Lynn Taylor v. Michigan, et al.

Did the implementation of Michigan’s School Denial Period create an established property interest, and/or an economic liberty interest for Appellant, due to an established nine (9) month contractual obligation of employment with Petitioner’s employer, given the fact that Petitioner was prohibited from receiving UIA benefits during her traditional summer break, where she was required to have earnings separate from the public-school system, during her three (3) month summer break? IL Question Presented Is Act 451 of 1976-THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE, in part, unconstitutional and in violation of Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights, Equal Protection rights, Economic Liberty rights, Personal Property rights, and a nine (9) month Contractual Obligation, when and where the statute is applied through a new calendar? III. Question Presented Do the actions of Michigan’s Department of Education, or any officials in positions appointed by the Department of Education, violate Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, when offering school districts waivers to bypass state law (school start date), for more than eighteen years, while creating and financially supporting new calendars, that take and convert a public-school employee’s (Petitioner’s), time and earnings, for the state’s own use, based on Act 451 of 1976- The Revised School Code?