Keuhn v. Michigan State Police, Docket No. 197547

• Decision Date: 19 August 1997
• Docket Number: Docket No. 197547
• Citation: 225 Mich.App. 152,570 N.W.2d 151
• Parties: Daniel P. KEUHN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 151

570 N.W.2d 151

225 Mich.App. 152

Daniel P. KEUHN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 197547.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Aug. 5, 1997, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Aug. 19, 1997, at 9:20 a.m.

Released for Publication Nov. 6, 1997.

Malley & Fett, P.C. by James K. Fett and Marla A. Linderman, Ann Arbor, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Richard P. Gartner, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MARK J. CAVANAGH, P.J., and HOLBROOK and JANSEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this employment discrimination case, defendant appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order denying its motion for a change of venue from Livingston County to Ingham County. We affirm.

The order on appeal arises out of plaintiff's discrimination action against defendant pursuant to Michigan's Civil Rights Act (CRA), M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq. Plaintiff filed the complaint in the circuit court for Livingston County, where he resided and was employed as a Michigan State Police trooper assigned to the Brighton Michigan State Police Post. Plaintiff, a white male, alleged in his complaint that he had been passed over for a promotion to the position of sergeant at the Livingston County post, despite his years of service and high promotional exam scores.

Venue relates to and defines the particular county or territorial area within the state or district in which the cause must be brought or tried. Grebner v. Oakland Co. Clerk, 220 Mich.App. 513, 516, 560 N.W.2d 351 (1996). It has long been recognized that the establishment of venue is properly within the Legislature's power. Coleman v. Gurwin, 443 Mich. 59, 62, 503 N.W.2d 435 (1993). Pursuant to the CRA, a civil rights action "may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, or for the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his principal place of business." M.C.L. § 37.2801(2); M.S.A. § 3.548(801)(2). Where, as here, venue is established by statute, this Court's primary objective is to effectuate legislative intent without harming the plain wording of the act. Coleman, supra, at 65, 503 N.W.2d 435.

To determine in this case where plaintiff's "alleged violation occurred," we must examine how promotional decisions are made in the state policedepartment. A review of the lower court record indicates that the first step in the process is the Civil Service Commission's compilation of a list of names based on employees' exam scores. Part of plaintiff's complaint concerns defendant's now-expired augmentation program, a program which dictated that not only were applicants with high exam scores included on this initial list (the "first band" employees) but also employees with lower scores who met certain race or gender criteria (the "second band" employees). The second step in the decision-making process is the submission of recommendations from the list by the commander of the local post with a vacancy. The commanders, who may consult the immediate supervisor of the person they are considering, use race or gender as a...