Remick v. Burge, Docket No. 11859

• Decision Date: 24 March 1972
• Docket Number: Docket No. 11859,No. 2,2
• Citation: 39 Mich.App. 444,197 N.W.2d 868
• Parties: , 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 31, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7954 Leonard R. REMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald A. BURGE, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 868

197 N.W.2d 868

39 Mich.App. 444, 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 31,

5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7954

Leonard R. REMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald A. BURGE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 11859.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

March 24, 1972.

Released for Publication June 7, 1972.

Raymond W. Krolikowski, Krolikowski & Remick, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Leo A. Farhat, Lansing, William F. Bledsoe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michigan Civil Rights Comm., Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

O'HARA, Judge.

The Const.1963, art. 5, § 29, provides Inter alia:

'There is hereby established a civil rights commission which shall consist of eight persons, not more than four of whom shall be members of the same political party, who shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, for four-year terms not more than two of which shall expire in the same year. It shall be the duty of the commission in a manner which may be prescribed by law to investigate alleged discrimination against any person because of religion, race, color or national origin in the enjoyment of the civil rights guaranteed by law and by this constitution, and to secure the equal protection of such civil rights without such discrimination.'

Plaintiff-appellant sought the issuance of a complaint against his employer on the ground that his employment was discriminatorily terminated. The discrimination appellant asserted was age.

The commission accepted his petition for a complaint. On the merits it refused to issue it. A referee hearing was held and the referee affirmed the commission action. The circuit court, upon the prescribed De novo hearing, affirmed on the ground that the holding sought to be reviewed was supported by 'competent material and substantial evidence.' The wording was taken verbatim from Const.1963, art. 6, § 28, covering the final decisions, rulings, or orders of 'any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial.'

We recently spoke to the standard to be applied in a De novo review of final orders of this commission. See Burrell v. Annapolis Hospital, 36 Mich.App. 537, 193 N.W.2d 900 (1971).

The trial judge very likely did not have this opinion available at the time of his review. However, after having carefully examined the whole record, we conclude that the result he reached would be identical...