Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


CECIL A. COLLINS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v WILMER JONES HAM, CAROL COTTRELL, and DARNELL EARLEY, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008

No. 275493 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 05-058461-CK

CECIL A. COLLINS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v CITY OF SAGINAW, Defendant-Appellee. No. 275494 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 06-059867-CK

Before: Gleicher, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Hoekstra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff filed two separate actions arising from his termination as the city manager for the city of Saginaw, one against the city and the other against various individual defendants. The actions were consolidated below and the trial court granted defendants' joint motion for summary disposition, dismissing plaintiff's various claims under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10). Plaintiff appeals as of right. Because the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claims, we affirm. I. Underlying Facts Plaintiff was hired as the city manager for the city of Saginaw. His written employment contract contained the following term regarding termination of the agreement: 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement is for an indefinite term as required by Section 25 of the City Charter. The Agreement may be terminated -1-


by either party at any time for any reason subject to the requirements of Section 27 of the City Charter and as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5 below. Section 27 of the city charter provides: Removal Section 27. The manager may be removed by a majority vote of the members of the council as herein provided, except that no manager who has been in the service of the city for one (1) year or more prior to a regular city election shall be removed within the ninety (90) days subsequent to such election unless by a two-thirds vote of the members of the council. At least thirty (30) days before removal of the manager, the council shall adopt a resolution stating its intention to remove him and the reasons therefor, a copy of which shall be served forthwith on the manager, who may within ten (10) days demand a public hearing, in which event the final resolution removing the manager shall not be adopted until such public hearing has been held. Upon passage of a resolution stating the council's intention to remove the manager, the council may suspend him from duty, but his pay shall continue until his removal. The action of the council in removing the manager shall be final. At a meeting on September 12, 2005, the city council voted to terminate plaintiff 's employment by a vote of five to four. A written resolution, dated September 16, 2005, provided: Whereas, Councilwoman Cottrell stated it was her opinion that the relationship between Council and the Manager had irreparably deteriorated, she moved to terminate the employment relationship with the City Manager effective immediately. Adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilpersons Cottrell, Coulouris, Federspiel, Coleman and Mayor Ham - 5. Nays: Councilpersons Haynes, O'Neal, Soza and Thurin - 4. Plaintiff was later notified that he was suspended as city manager, effective September 12, 2005, subject to his right to request a public hearing. Defendant Darnell Earley replaced plaintiff as interim city manager. Following a public hearing on November 3, 2005, the council voted to terminate plaintiff 's employment. Plaintiff filed an action against three city officials, Wilmer Jones Ham, the city's mayor, Carol Cottrell, a city council member and mayor pro tem, and Earley, who had been the deputy city manager until July 2005, when plaintiff decided to eliminate that position. Earley declined reassignment as the city's director of finance and agreed to the termination of his employment on August 31, 2005. Plaintiff's complaint against these individual defendants included a claim for tortious interference with a contract or advantageous business relationship or expectancy, alleging that Ham, Cottrell, and Earley conspired to terminate his employment in order to

-2-


appoint Earley as city manager, contrary to the terms of plaintiff 's employment agreement, the city charter, and the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq. Plaintiff filed a separate action against the city, asserting claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) defamation, and (4) violation of the OMA. Plaintiff alleged that the city breached his employment agreement by failing to comply with

Download CECIL A COLLINS JR V WILMER JONES HAM.pdf

Michigan Law