The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will continue to hear oral arguments in several cases today, October 13, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Supreme Court courtroom on the 6th floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice, 925 W. Ottawa in Lansing. Oral arguments will be livestreamed from the MSC website (www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court).
As part of a longstanding tradition to mark the opening of the new MSC session, the president of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society delivered the organization’s annual report at the beginning of case call on Wednesday.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page (www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court/schedule-of-oral-arguments).
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys.
Thursday, October 13, 2022
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
161612-3
Jennifer Janetsky (attorney Cary McGehee)
Plaintiff-Appellant
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
County of Saginaw and Christopher Boyd (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees
and
Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office and John McColgan
Defendants
—————
Jennifer Janetsky (attorney Cary McGehee)
Plaintiff-Appellant
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw CC - Prill, G.)
County of Saginaw and John McColgan (attorney Douglas Curlew)
Defendants-Appellees
and
Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office
Defendant
The plaintiff, an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Saginaw County, claims that her immediate supervisor, the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, brokered an allegedly unlawful plea deal. She reported a suspected violation of law stemming from the plea deal to the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney. She claims that after she made this report, her supervisor became angry with her and her workplace became a hostile work environment. After going on paid administrative leave, the plaintiff ultimately resigned. She then filed a lawsuit against her immediate supervisor, the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and Saginaw County, alleging a violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), as well as various intentional torts. The defendants moved for summary disposition, and the trial court dismissed certain defendants and claims. But the plaintiff’s WPA and public policy claims against Saginaw County, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, and the plaintiff’s former supervisor survived, as did the plaintiff’s intentional tort claims of assault and battery and false imprisonment against her former supervisor and Saginaw County. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the defendants should have been granted summary disposition as to all claims. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether: (1) the plaintiff reported a violation or a suspected violation of MCL 780.756(3) under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and if not, whether her allegations related to MCL 780.756(3) give rise to a common-law claim for termination in violation of public policy, see Suchodolski v Mich Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692 (1982); (2) the defendants’ alleged reaction to the plaintiff’s objections under MCL 771.1 to the criminal sentence she objected to gives rise to a WPA claim and, if not, to a common-law claim under Suchodolski; and (3) the plaintiff’s supervisor exhibited “good faith” under Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (2008), such that he is eligible for qualified immunity.
161835
People of Michigan (attorney Melissa Keyes)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(St Clair - West, M.)
Theresa Marie Gafken (attorney Derek Linkous)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder in a death that resulted from a car crash. She was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by reading a second-degree murder jury instruction that set forth the element of malice differently than the standard jury instruction, but determined that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the defendant was threatened and of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense; (2) whether the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury as to the intent element of second-degree murder; and (3) whether any error was harmless.
162601
Technical Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (attorney Frank Guido)
Respondent-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(MERC)
Daniel Lee Renner
Charging Party-Appellee.
Daniel Renner, a Saginaw County employee, wanted to file a grievance. He was a member of the bargaining unit represented by plaintiff TPOAM but was not a member of the union. He initiated an individual grievance, but was told that he had to use the procedure in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Under the CBA, a grievance requires the involvement of the union. The union told Renner that he had to pay a fee estimated at $1,290 to secure the union’s assistance. Renner did not pay the union’s fee and the union took no steps to assist him in the grievance process. Renner filed a Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation by demanding a fee in exchange for representation. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the union’s pay-for-services procedure violated § 10(2)(a) of PERA, MCL 423.210(2)(a), by unlawfully discriminating against nonunion members and restraining them from exercising their § 9 right to refrain from joining or assisting a labor organization. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether: (1) the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission that the union violated MCL 423.210(2)(a) by offering grievance representation to union members as a benefit of union membership and to nonunion members through a pay-for-services procedure; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in determining that MCL 423.211 did not provide a viable method for Renner to pursue grievances with the employer directly; and (3) the record supports the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Renner properly exercised his right to a direct grievance.
162777
People of Michigan (attorney Paul White)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Saginaw - Boes, J.)
Alexis Christine Welsh (attorney Douglas Baker)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of conspiracy to commit assault with intent to murder and three counts of felony-firearm in relation to a drive-by shooting in which shots were fired at several individuals on the front porch of a house. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 20 to 40 years in prison for the conspiracy convictions, plus 2 years for each felony-firearm conviction. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the defendant’s conspiracy with regard to an intent to murder one individual could be transferred to a charge of conspiracy with intent to murder others. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the defendant’s convictions, but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that transferred intent could apply to a conspiracy charge, but determined that the instructional error did not undermine the reliability of the verdict. On remand, the trial court resentenced the defendant to a reduced term of 13? to 40 years for the conspiracy convictions, plus 2 years for each felony-firearm conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s sentences in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the trial court reversibly erred by instructing the jury that the doctrine of transferred intent may apply to a conspiracy charge; and (2) whether the trial court considered acquitted conduct in determining the defendant’s sentence in violation of People v Beck, 504 Mich 605 (2019).
162680
Lakisha McMillon (attorney Carla Aikens)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kalamazoo - Lipsey, A.)
City of Kalamazoo (attorney Richard Cherry)
Defendant-Appellee.
The plaintiff applied for a job with the City of Kalamazoo in 2004. She filled out an application and underwent testing and a background check, but she did not get the job. In 2005, the city contacted her about a job as a public safety officer, and she was hired. She did not fill out another application in 2005. In 2019, the plaintiff sued the city, alleging various forms of racial, sexual, and disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. The defendant moved for summary disposition, relying in part on a provision in the application the plaintiff had signed in 2004 that set a nine-month limitations period. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether: (1) Timko v Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc, 244 Mich App 234 (2001), correctly held that limitations clauses in employment applications are part of the binding employment contract; (2) the appellant is bound by the terms of a document that states “this ... is not a contract of employment,” see Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 452 Mich 405 (1996); (3) contractual limitations clauses that restrict civil rights claims violate public policy, see, e.g., Rodriguez v Raymours Furniture Co, Inc, 225 NJ 343 (2016); and (4) these issues are preserved. See Michigan Gun Owners, Inc v Ann Arbor Public Schools, 502 Mich 695, 708-709 (2018).
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
