Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LINSEY PORTER, Petitioner-Appellee, v CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, Respondent-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED May 30, 2006

No. 263470 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 04-419307-AA

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Neff and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted a circuit court order reversing the decision by of administrative law judge (ALJ) "to the extent that it did not require [respondent] to compensate [petitioner] his wages for services for the period from July 2002 to June 30, 2003." We reverse. I. Facts and Proceedings Petitioner was elected to serve as Mayor of the city of Highland Park ("the City) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2003. On June 20, 2001, pursuant to the Local Government Fiscal Responsibility Act (LGFRA), MCL141.1201 et seq., the Governor determined that the City was in a state of financial emergency, and an Emergency Financial Manager (EFM) was appointed to manage the City. On July 17, 2001, the EFM issued a directive suspending the Mayor's salary. Petitioner claims that he continued to serve as Mayor though he no longer received a salary and was unable to occupy his office space. On June 30, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Wage and Hour Division (WHD), alleging that respondent had violated the Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (PWFBA), MCL 408.471 et seq., by failing to pay his salary1 after it was suspended by the EFM.2 The WHD entered an order finding that petitioner's claim

1

Petitioner later filed a supplemental complaint for the period of July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003.
2

Specifically, petitioner alleged that respondent violated MCL 408.472 by failing to pay his
(continued...)

-1-


for wages before July 1, 2002 was time-barred under MCL 408.481(1), which provides a 12month statute of limitations for wage claims. The order also stated that respondent had not violated the PWFBA. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to his claimed compensation.3 Following an administrative appeal hearing, the ALJ agreed that petitioner's claim for wages before July 1, 2002 was time-barred under MCL 408.481(1). However, in regard to the validity of petitioner's claim for wages after July 1, 2002, the ALJ determined that resolution of the claim required the interpretation of the LGFRA, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the WHD. Petitioner then appealed to the circuit court. The court found that the EFM's action of suspending petitioner's salary violated the Contract Clauses of the state and federal constitutions4 and violated petitioner's right to due process of law, as petitioner had a vested right to his salary already earned. The circuit court also found unconstitutional MCL 141.1221(1)(q), which expressly sanctioned the EFM's actions in suspending the Mayor's compensation before the amendment had taken effect (January 8, 2004 - one week after petitioner's term in office ended). On remand from the circuit court, the ALJ awarded petitioner his compensation from July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003.5 II. Standard of Review A circuit court's review of an administrative agency's decision is limited to determining whether the decision was contrary to law, was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, was arbitrary and capricious, was clearly an abuse of discretion, or was otherwise affected by substantial and material error of law. [Dignan v Pub School Employees Retirement Bd, 253 Mich App 571, 576; 659 NW2d 629 (2002).] However, this Court reviews a circuit court's review of an agency's decision for clear error. Dep't of Civil Rights ex rel Johnson v Silver Dollar Caf

Download LINSEY PORTER V CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK.pdf

Michigan Law