Eckstein v. Kuhn
408 N.W.2d 131, 160 Mich. App. 240 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article 6, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution, which subjects final decisions of administrative agencies to judicial review 'as provided by law,' does not create an independent right of appeal to the courts; such a right must be explicitly established by a statute or court rule.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant Chief Engineer for the Oakland County Drain Office under a county merit system.
- The merit system rules provided that disciplinary actions, including discharge, must be for cause and could be appealed to the Personnel Appeal Board (PAB).
- The rules stated that the PAB's decisions were 'binding' on employees and departments.
- On August 9, 1982, Oakland County dismissed the plaintiff from his position.
- Plaintiff appealed his dismissal to the PAB, which found cause for discipline but modified the dismissal to a 90-day suspension and a demotion.
- Following the PAB's decision, defendant Kuhn, the Drain Commissioner, refused to permit the plaintiff to return to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff appealed his dismissal to the Oakland County Personnel Appeal Board (PAB) on August 13, 1982.
- On August 20, 1982, Plaintiff sued Oakland County and its officials in circuit court, alleging wrongful discharge and due process violations.
- Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add claims under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act and for federal civil rights conspiracy.
- On November 10, 1982, the PAB issued its decision, modifying plaintiff's dismissal to a suspension and demotion.
- Defendants (Oakland County) successfully sought leave to appeal the PAB's decision to the circuit court.
- The circuit court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims.
- Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed the defendants' appeal of the PAB decision, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's rulings by leave granted to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article 6, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution grant a county a right to appeal a final decision of its internal Personnel Appeal Board to a circuit court when no statute or court rule specifically authorizes such an appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Article 6, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution does not guarantee a right of appeal from an administrative agency's decision; it only allows for judicial review 'as provided by law.' The court reasoned that the phrase 'as provided by law' vests the Legislature with the authority to create the mechanism for appeal. Citing precedent like Evans v United States Rubber Co and Robertson v Detroit, the court held that since no statute or court rule authorizes a direct appeal from a municipal administrative agency like the PAB to the circuit court, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. The court also held that summary judgment was properly denied on the plaintiff's Whistleblowers' Protection Act claim but should have been granted on the 42 USC 1985(3) conspiracy claim because no class-based discrimination was alleged.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Shepherd, J.
Yes, the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. While there is no direct right of appeal, Article 6, § 28 entitles parties to at least seek some form of discretionary review from the courts, such as by leave to appeal or through an order of superintending control. This judge reasoned that due process requires that any adjudication of important rights must be open to judicial review in some form. Since the circuit court initially exercised its discretion by granting leave to appeal, it had jurisdiction and should not have later dismissed the appeal; instead, it should have decided the case on the merits.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the constitutional provision for judicial review of administrative agency decisions in Michigan is not self-executing for local agencies. It establishes the precedent that unless the legislature explicitly creates a statutory right of appeal from a municipal administrative body, no such appeal exists as of right or by leave. This reinforces the principle of legislative control over the jurisdiction of lower courts and directs parties aggrieved by local agency decisions to seek alternative remedies like an original action for an order of superintending control, rather than a direct appeal.
Unlock the full brief for Eckstein v. Kuhn