Majchrzak v. Cnty. of Wayne

• Decision Date: 23 March 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–13971.
• Citation: 838 F.Supp.2d 586
• Parties: Robert MAJCHRZAK, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE and Kerreen Conley, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

838 F.Supp.2d 586

Robert MAJCHRZAK, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF WAYNE and Kerreen Conley, Defendants.

Case No. 10–13971.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

Dec. 22, 2011.

Opinion Denying Reconsideration March 23, 2012.

Richard G. Mack, Miller, Cohen, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Cheryl Yapo, Wayne County Corporation Counsel, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.

On October 5, 2010, Robert Majchrzak (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit, alleging that Wayne County (“the County”) and Kerreen Conley wrongfully terminated his employment in response to his raising concerns about faulty equipment at a sewage pumping station. Plaintiff and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and these motions are presently before the Court. The matter has been fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument on September 8, 2011. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendants' motion and grants Plaintiff's motion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a pump station mechanic at the Milk River Pumping Station (“MRPS”), a sanitary sewage pump station located in northeast Wayne County, Michigan. MRPS serves the cities of Grosse Pointe Woods, Harper Woods, and St. Clair Shores. During heavy rains, the water level rises in an underground storage area known as the “wet well.” When the wet well reaches a certain level, water is pumped to a Detroit wastewater treatment plant, preventing the flooding of basements in nearby homes. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has issued a permit authorizing MRPS to discharge water into the Milk River in accordance with certain limitations and monitoring requirements.¹ MRPS is required by law to comply with the permit's terms. SeeMichigan Compiled Laws § 324.3109.

Wayne County operates MRPS and sets billing rates for customer communities. Wayne County also prepares the MRPS budget, although budget oversight responsibility lies with the Milk River Intercounty Drainage District (the “Drainage District”), a drainage district created pursuant to Michigan's Drain Code of 1956, Michigan Compiled Laws § 280.101 et seq. The Drainage District is led by a five-member Drainage Board consisting of one representative each from Wayne County, Macomb County, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture, plus two rotating members from the cities of Harper Woods, Grosse Pointe Woods, and St. Clair Shores. In July 2010, the Board's members were Michael Gregg, from the Michigan Department of Agriculture; Butler Benton, Jr., from the Wayne County Department of Public Services; Gene Schabath, from the Macomb County Public Works Office; Robert Hinson, the Mayor of St. Clair Shores; and James Leidlein, the Manager of the City of Harper Woods. As part of the annual budgeting process, Wayne County invites representatives of the customer communities to an informal meeting to review the budget before it is presented to the Drainage Board. The purpose of this meeting is to review the budget and advise the communities of significant changes.

On July 1, the informal budget meeting was held in the City of Grosse Pointe Woods. Dennis Scully presented the budget for Wayne County, and attending as representatives of the customer communities were Laura Stowall for Harper Woods and Al Fincham for Grosse Pointe Woods. Plaintiff took four hours of vacation time to attend the meeting, allegedly appearing without invitation. Appearing with Plaintiff was Irene Maguet, a St. Clair Shores resident who frequently attends Drainage Board meetings and has been called “the watch-dog for the Milk River.” Conley Dep. 39:24, Mar. 31, 2011.

Plaintiff claims that he introduced himself to the meeting attendees as a citizen of Macomb County who worked at the Milk River Pump Station. Majchrzak Dep. 127:24–128:1, Mar. 7, 2011. Fincham and Stowall did not recall Plaintiff stating that he was a concerned citizen. Stowall Dep. 29:1–13, Apr. 26, 2011; Fincham Dep. 36:16–24, Apr. 26, 2011. Attendees were handed copies of the following memo Plaintiff had drafted:

To: Inter–County Drainage Board

Date: July 1, 2010

Equipment that is out of service or out of commission at the Milk River Pumping Station:

1) The # 7 storm pump-out of commission since May 1, 2008.

2) The # 3 storm pump-out of service since October 1, 2009.

3) The # 1 storm pump can only be started manually.

4) The automatic inlet valves for # 2, # 5 & # 6 chlorine pumps are out of service.

5) The effluent sample pump is out of commission (It is used to safely get wastewater samples per the N.P.D.E.S. permit).

6) Two of the four basin dewatering pumps are out of service since April 1, 2010.

7) Basin # 1 flushing system is out of commission since 2005. (There is 10? or more of sludge in the basin now)

8) Twenty five percent of basin # 2 flushing valves are out of service since 2005. (There are pockets of sludge 10? or more in basin # 2 right now).

9) The # 1 & # 2 aeration blowers are out of commission since January 27, 2009. (# 2 electrical panel started on fire-cause was not determined?)

10) Milk River outbound flow-meter is out of service since April 2010.

11) One of the three main aeration discharge pipes is out of service since 2007 (Pipe blown apart at coupling).

12) Why was the snowplowing at Milk River contracted out last year? Milk River has a 4x4 truck with a plow and has always been capable of doing it themselves. The contractor was always a day late and only did 70% of what they were contracted to do.

13) Why was the grass cutting/trimming contracted out ($4,000) last June of 2009 at Milk River when a new 50? Troy-built riding mower and a 20? Snapper push mower was purchased the previous year specifically for Milk River personnel. (The equipment was taken to Wyandotte Wastewater Treatment facility last fall so it wouldn't disappear). The County waited until the end of April 2010 to get bids to cut the grass (the grass was already 6?–8? tall). A bid of $8,000 was beyond the County's approval. So the 50? Troy-built mower was brought back and the 2 employees were told to cut the grass. The grass was 10?–12? high and no 20? Snapper push mower has returned yet. It has been asked to be returned twice.

14) The “County” has implemented a preventative maintenance program, which is to be commended. Although due to budget cuts, a $100 million dollar deficit and a reduction in staffing it is unable to perform the repair or maintenance of its critical equipment/systems. This is being brought to your attention because the operational capability of certain systems is compromised. If they continue to be neglected the duties and responsibility of the “operator” is in jeopardy. It is highly recommended that a quarterly meeting between “upper” management and its employees that “operate” the facilities take place. Communication, establishing a short term/long term “plan” with the people that operate Wayne County's facilities have never been tried. Why not involve the “employee” that operates the facility daily? The County expects accountability and responsibility from their employees—shouldn't the employee receive the same.

Pl.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A. Meeting attendees apparently questioned Plaintiff about the contents of this memo.

After the meeting, Scully advised Kerreen Conley, Wayne County's Facilities Management Director, of Plaintiff's attendance at the meeting and his 14–point memo. Conley, Benton, and Wayne County Superintendent Firooz Fath–Azam investigated the memo for accuracy. This investigation concluded that although many of the statements regarding equipment failures were correct, MRPS was in compliance with all operational requirements.

On July 7, 2010, Conley terminated Plaintiff's employment. His discharge notice provides the following reason for termination:

On July 1, 2010 Robert Majchrzak attended a meeting for which he was not invited, made false claims (policy 3.01) and engaged in an activity that was a direct conflict of interest (policy 3.06), misrepresented information that was detrimental to the reputation and operations of the County.

Pl.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F.

On October 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action, seeking damages under Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (“WPA”), Michigan Compiled Laws § 15.361 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The central inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). After adequate time for discovery and upon motion, Rule 56 mandates summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party bears the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant has an initial burden of showing “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.

Once the movant meets this burden, the non-movant must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). To demonstrate a genuine issue, the non-movant must present sufficient...