Doster v. Department of Mental Health

• Decision Date: 18 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 87222,87222
• Citation: 161 Mich.App. 436,411 N.W.2d 725
• Parties: Clarence DOSTER, Ervin Johnson and Dorothy Lamb, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and Michigan Department of Civil Service, Defendants-Appellees. 161 Mich.App. 436, 411 N.W.2d 725
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 725

411 N.W.2d 725

Clarence DOSTER, Ervin Johnson and Dorothy Lamb, et al Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and Michigan Department of Civil Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87222.

161 Mich.App. 436, 411 N.W.2d 725

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 13, 1986.

Decided March 19, 1987.

Released for Publication Sept. 18, 1987.

[161 MICHAPP 438] Andrew L. Goldstein, P.C. by Andrew L. Goldstein, Okemos, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and George L. McCargar and Thomas R. Wheeker, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellees.

Before R.B. BURNS, P.J., and GRIBBS and DAVIS, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Doster, Ervin Johnson, Dorothy Lamb, and others, appeal as of right from the Wayne Circuit Court's August 26, 1985, order which affirmed the June 5, 1984, decision of the Employment Relations Board (ERB) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Appellants were black male and female employees of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) whose positions were abolished or who were demoted effective April 24, 1981. The ERB's decision reversed a grievance hearing officer's order directing that appellants be reinstated, with back pay and full seniority, to certain positions at the DMH and ordered the Director of the DMH to redetermine which positions were to be abolished, taking into consideration the affirmative action policies of the CSC and the DMH. We affirm.

[161 MICHAPP 439] This case was before this Court in Doster v. Estes, 126 Mich.App. 497, 337 N.W.2d 549 (1983), lv. den. 418 Mich. 913 (1984). At that time, we concluded that the issuance and continuance of restraining orders allowing appellants to maintain their positions was erroneous, granted summary judgment to appellees on appellants' due process and equal protection claims, and ruled that appellants had to exhaust their administrative remedies before the courts would consider their claims that pronouncements of the Michigan Equal Employment Opportunity Council (MEEOC) and the DMH regarding affirmative action created enforceable rights for appellants which were violated by appellees.

Following this Court's decision, appellants filed a grievance, claiming that the Director of the DMH had failed to consider affirmative action when he abolished their positions, contrary to departmental policy. The hearing officer found that, initially, the Director of the DMH had not considered the impact on affirmative action although the director did properly consider the policy when layoffs were effectuated. There was no finding of bad faith. The hearing officer ordered that the grievants be reinstated to various classes, levels and geographic locations which he believed to be appropriate under the circumstances. The DMH and the CSC appealed that order to the ERB, which determined that the hearing officer's findings of fact were supported by the record, but that the hearing officer had exceeded his authority when he reinstated the grievants to the positions he deemed appropriate. The ERB noted:

"The affirmative action policy is lawful, necessary, and reasonable and it does not improperly impinge on the employing departments' constitutional[161 MICHAPP 440] right to abolish positions for reasons of administrative efficiency.

"The record confirms the factual finding of the Hearing Officer that the impact on affirmative action of Department of Mental Health's decision to abolish the positions in question was not considered by it when it made the initial decision to abolish them. The Department did properly consider the policy when the abolishments and resulting layoffs and bumpings were effectuated. In some cases, although not for Grievants, waivers of seniority based layoffs and bumping were recommended to the Commission by the Department.

"In the opinion of the Board, the Hearing Officer correctly concluded that the Department was in error in failing to consider as an element of its initial decision to abolish the positions, the effect of the Commission's affirmative action policy.

"The Board does not adopt the rationale of the Hearing Officer's decision and concludes that, in granting relief, he erroneously, and in excess of his authority, substituted his personal judgement [sic] for that of the employing department. In effect, he ordered what he would have done had he been the department head. That consideration and decision belongs to the employing department head.

"The Board sets aside the Hearing Officer's order reinstating Grievants to various classes, levels, and geographical locations. The Board orders the Director of the Department of Mental Health to redetermine which of the positions involved in this case are to be abolished, and in doing so, to take into consideration the affirmative action policy of the Civil Service Commission and Affirmative Action Plan of the Mental Health Department."

On August 24, 1984, appellants filed a petition for review in Wayne Circuit Court, and on August 2, 1985, that court issued an opinion affirming the ERB's decision.

Review of Civil Service Commission decisions [161 MICHAPP 441] shall include the determination whether such decision was authorized by law, and in cases where a hearing is required, whether it is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record, Davis v. Civil Service Comm, 148...