Michigan State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Mental Health, Docket No. 55016

• Decision Date: 06 January 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 55016
• Citation: 120 Mich.App. 39,328 N.W.2d 11
• Parties: MICHIGAN STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, and Lyn Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellant. 120 Mich.App. 39, 328 N.W.2d 11
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 11

328 N.W.2d 11

MICHIGAN STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, and Lyn Jones Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 55016.

120 Mich.App. 39, 328 N.W.2d 11

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 3, 1982.

Decided Oct. 5, 1982.

Released for Publication Jan. 6, 1983.

[120 MICHAPP 41] Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, P.C. by Michael E. Cavanaugh, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellees.

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

Before CAVANAGH, P.J., and ALLEN and PENZIEN ^*, JJ.

[120 MICHAPP 42] CAVANAGH, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals by right from an Ingham County Circuit Court injunctive order which prohibited defendant both from terminating plaintiff employee's employment and from withholding her pay. Defendant had attempted to fire plaintiff employee, a registered nurse, on the basis that she had negligently supervised a male epileptic patient at Fairlawn Center who had accidentally drowned in a bathtub.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief to plaintiffs. Second, defendant argues that it did not deny plaintiff employee's due process rights by not affording plaintiff employee a full evidentiary hearing prior to the attempted discharge.

In equity cases such as those granting or denying injunctive relief, this Court reviews the record de novo, giving due deference to the findings of the circuit court. This Court is required to sustain the findings of the circuit court unless it is convinced that, had it heard the evidence in the first instance, it would have been compelled to reach a contrary result. Groveland Twp. v. Jennings, 106 Mich.App. 504, 509-510, 308 N.W.2d 259 (1981).

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending trial or, in this case, pending plaintiff employee's administrative appeal. An injunction should not be granted unless the party requesting it satisfies the court that, without the issuance of the injunction, he or she will suffer irreparable injury. In addition, there must be a showing that there is no adequate remedy at law. Barkau v. Ruggirello, 100 Mich.App. 617, 623, 300 N.W.2d 342 (1980).

The concept of "irreparable injury" is an elusive legal term of art, "defying reduction to a mere [120 MICHAPP 43] black-letter definition". Grand Rapids v. Richardson, 429 F.Supp. 1087, 1093 (WD Mich., 1977). Defendant argues that loss of income and damage to reputation do not constitute the type of irreparable injury necessary to support an injunction against an employee's dismissal pending an administrative appeal. If plaintiff employee's claim of wrongful discharge is ultimately sustained, defendant maintains that reinstatement with full back pay would preclude any irreparable injury. In support of this proposition, defendant cites the case of Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974). In Sampson, a federal employee sued for a declaration that her discharge was invalid and sought an injunction against the termination of her employment. The United States Supreme Court held that a temporary loss of income, ultimately to be recovered, and a claim of damage to reputation did not constitute irreparable injury on which to base the issuance of a temporary injunction. 415 U.S. 91-92, 94 S.Ct. at 953. In a footnote, the Court stated that cases may arise in which an employee's discharge would have an extraordinary effect on the employee such that irreparable injury might be found, however, insufficiency of savings or difficulties in obtaining other employment were factors common to most discharged employees and would not support such a finding. 415 U.S. 90, fn. 68, 94 S.Ct. at 953, n. 68.

In Sampson, the Court was dealing only with rights that should be accorded to federal employees under the federal civil service statutes. Michigan has a different civil service system, and the courts in Michigan may apply different standards for preliminary injunctive relief.

We find the dissenting opinions in Sampson to be more persuasive. As Justice Douglas noted:

[120 MICHAPP 44] "Employability is the greatest asset most people have. Once there is a discharge from [employment], dismissal may be a badge that bars the employee from other federal employment. The shadow of that discharge is cast over the area where private employment may be available. And the harm is not eliminated by the possibility of reinstatement, for in many cases the ultimate absolution never catches up with the stigma of the accusation." 415 U.S. 95, 94 S.Ct. at 955.

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan in dissent, stated:

"Many employees may lack substantial savings, and a loss of income for more than a few weeks' time might seriously impair their ability to provide themselves with the essentials of life--e.g., to buy food, meet mortgage or rent payments, or procure medical services. * * *

"The availability of a back pay award several years after a dismissal is scant justice for a Government employee who may have long since been evicted from his home and found himself forced to resort to public assistance in order to support his family. And it is little solace to those who are so injured to be told that their plight is 'normal' and 'routine'. Whether common or not, such consequences amount to irreparable injury which a court of equity has power to prevent." 415 U.S. 101-102, 94 S.Ct. at 958.

In this case, plaintiff employee is a divorced mother with a nine year-old son who resides with her. She provides the sole financial support for that child, has no savings, and would have no means of supporting herself and her child if terminated from her job. In addition, if defendant is permitted to fire plaintiff employee for alleged patient neglect, it is unlikely that she will be able to obtain employment elsewhere as a registered nurse. We agree with the Court's decision in Lake [120 MICHAPP 45] Michigan College Federation of Teachers v. Lake Michigan Community College, 390 F.Supp. 103, 138 (WD Mich., 1974); rev'd on other grounds 518 F.2d 1091 (CA 6, 1975), that: "the loss of the breadwinner's wages, even for a short period of time, constitutes specific irreparable damage. That is especially true * * * where there is testimony that several of plaintiffs are the sole support of families with several younger children."

We find that plaintiff employee has established the type of irreparable injury necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff employee has also demonstrated that she does not have an adequate remedy at law. Although it is true that plaintiff employee could ultimately be reinstated in her job with back pay, the remedy is not "as adequate, complete and certain as the relief in equity". Steggles v. National Discount Corp., 326 Mich. 44, 49, 39 N.W.2d 237 (1949). This is because plaintiff employee's administrative remedy was not immediately available, which is a major consideration in determining the adequacy of any legal remedy. Schantz v. Ruehs, 348 Mich. 680, 683, 83 N.W.2d 587 (1957); Van Buren Public School Dist. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 61 Mich.App. 6, 17, 232 N.W.2d 278 (1975). Other Michigan cases have also held that it is proper for a trial court to grant a preliminary injunction so that employment may be maintained while the employee pursues administrative remedies. See Van Buren Public School Dist., supra; Cohen v. Detroit Joint Board Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 327 Mich. 606, 42 N.W.2d 830 (1950); Baltic Mining Co. v. Houghton Circuit Judge, 177 Mich. 632, 144 N.W. 209 (1913).

We hold that the trial court did not err in [120 MICHAPP 46] granting plaintiff employee the preliminary injunction. Loss of income and damage to reputation may constitute the type of irreparable injury necessary for injunctive relief. In addition,...