Mr. John Miller is a shareholder in the Firm’s litigation group. John represents public school districts and municipalities in a wide array of litigation—including: employment, FOIA and Open Meetings Act, general education, special education, civil rights, constitutional law, personal injury claims, and workers’ compensation. Mr. Miller has represented governmental entities and private employers throughout Michigan’s state and federal courts—both at the trial and appellate levels.
Prior to law school, Mr. Miller received a Master’s degree in Public Administration from Northern Michigan University and a Bachelor’s degree from Northern Michigan University. Mr. Miller is a past member of Highland Township’s Planning Commission and is a current member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Miller received the highest Bar Exam Score in the State of Michigan, July 2008. In law school, he received an MSU King Scholarship and received National Jurisprudence Awards in Criminal Law, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, Securities Litigation, and Research, Writing and Advocacy.
In his spare time, Mr. Miller enjoys biking, skiing, rock climbing and backpacking.
- Government Law
- Northern Michigan University, B.A., cum laude
- Northern Michigan University, M.P.A., summa cum laude
- Michigan State University College of Law, J.D., summa cum laude
Admitted to Practice
- Michigan 2008
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2009
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 2009
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan 2015
- U.S. Supreme Court 2016
- Herman v Clio Area Schools, ____ Mich App____ (2016)(published decision)(establishing that school districts can regulate the possession of firearms on school property).
- Knox-Pipes v. Genesee Intermediate Sch. Dist., No. 322295, 2015 WL 5657396 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2015)(reversing denial of summary disposition and vacating a $1,000,000 verdict.)
- Houser v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch., No. 321357, 2015 WL 5488669 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2015)(reversing denial of summary disposition for school district and confirming that school districts are entitled to immunity when providing honest responses to reference checks.)
- Zdrowski v Algonac Community Schools, No. 13-cv-12995, ___ F. Supp.3d___ (ED Mich. 2015)(Granting dismissal of a multi-count discrimination complaint against the school district and two teachers)
- Campbell v Dundee Community Schools, No 12-cv-12327, 2015 WL 4040743 (ED Mich. 2015)(Granting summary judgment to School District and its employees. The former student alleged that her civil rights were violated when she was molested by a coach in middle school.)
- Dizdarevic v. City of Hamtramck, 2014 WL 7896367 (E.D.Mich. 2014)(court granted summary judgment for City and officers in lawsuit alleging plaintiff was falsely imprisoned for 6 months)
- City of Pontiac Retired Employees Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2014)(successfully petitioning 6th Circuit to reconsider appeal en banc, which resulted in the 6th Circuit reversing unfavorable opinion)
- Burns v. City of Saginaw, 2015 WL 525968 (6th Cir. 2015)(affirming dismissal of police officer’s federal civil rights complaint against the City of Saginaw)
- Griffin v. Sanders, 914 F.Supp.2d 864 (E.D.Mich. 2012)(dismissing disability discrimination claims against school district and teachers)
- Fuhr v. Sch. Dist. of Hazel Park, No. 08-CV-11652, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105820 (E.D. Mich. 2011)(summary judgment granted for the school district on a multi-count employment discrimination lawsuit)
- Light Source, Inc. v. Display Dynamics, Inc., 2:09-cv-14268, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45804 (E.D. Mich. 2011)(obtained a judgment exceeding $500,000 for a local subcontractor against an Ohio general contractor)
- Pack v. Mt. Morris Consol. Sch., No. 10-cv-12125, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17149 (E.D. Mich. 2011)(motion to dismiss granted for the school district on the basis that prior administrative hearing barred any new litigation)
- Bloch v. Davison Cmty. Schs, No. 290709, 2010 Mich. App. LEXIS 1479 (Mich. App. 2010)(successfully argued in the trial court and the court of appeals that the plaintiff’s freedom of information act request was appropriately denied by the school district).