Abbott Nicholson Attorneys Prevail Before the Michigan Court of Appeals in Precedent Setting Public Employment Law Case.
Posted Oct. 30th 2017
Abbott Nicholson has represented Lake County in litigation spanning numerous years related to a question of first impression for the Michigan courts- whether an individual, Mr. Vayda, who was employed as a deputy sheriff could simultaneously serve as an elected member of the County Board of Commissioners. Lake County took the position, based upon the County Board of Commissioners Act, that it would be unlawful for an individual to simultaneously hold both positions and sought a declaratory ruling to that effect. When Mr. Vayda took the oath of office as a Commissioner, he was placed on unpaid leave from his deputy position. The Lake County Circuit Court agreed and granted summary disposition for the County. Mr. Vayda did not appeal that ruling and his employment as a deputy was terminated based upon the court’s ruling.
However, he took the position that he was entitled to a hearing under the Veteran’s Preference Act (VPA) prior to the termination of his employment as a deputy. Mr. Vayda sued the County for failing to provide a VPA hearing, even though the Court had ruled that he was ineligible to continue to be employed as a deputy while simultaneously serving as a Commissioner. The Lake County Circuit Court inexplicably agreed with Mr. Vayda, and granted him summary disposition. Lake County appealed, and on October 19, 2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals in a published opinion reversed the decision of the Lake County Circuit Court granting summary disposition for the Plaintiff and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of Defendant, Lake County. The Court of Appeals recognized that it was Mr. Vayda’s decision to attempt to simultaneously hold two incompatible positions that rendered him ineligible for continued employment as a deputy and, consequently, he had no right to a hearing under the VPA. The Court of Appeals noted that “it is clear that the VPA is designed only to protect a qualifying veteran who holds public employment from adverse employment action taken by his or her employer, not to impose arduous notice and hearing procedures any time a veteran makes a voluntary career move.”
The VPA is a relatively obscure 1897 law that is rarely interpreted by Michigan courts, so it is helpful that the Court of Appeals issued this well-reasoned published opinion. Abbott Nicholson attorneys John McGlinchey and Kristen Baiardi have many years of experience representing public employer clients in matters involving the VPA and advising clients of their obligations under the VPA.
The full opinion can be found by clicking here.