a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1949, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). III. Analysis Defendant’s motion argues that each of Plaintiffs claims alleged in his complaint cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. The Court thus addresses each of Plaintiffs claims beginning with his claims of age and race discrimination. A. As Alleged, Plaintiffs Discrimination Claims Are Not Time-Barred Plaintiffs complaint, which was filed on July 18, 2011, alleges that his employment was terminated “on or about July 17, 2008.” (Pl.’s Compl. at ¶ 7.) It is not disputed that discrimination claims under Michigan’s ELCRA have a three year statute of limitation. See Garg v. Macomb Cnty. Cmty. Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263, 696 N.W.2d 646, 659 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Defendant’s motion misstates
recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding that a cause of action for defamation accrues on the date the defamatory material is published to a third party holding that a person must file a claim under the civil rights act within three years of the date his or her cause of action accrues holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury