Schlinkert v. Henderson, 1

• Decision Date: 05 September 1951
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 49 N.W.2d 180,331 Mich. 284
• Parties: SCHLINKERT v. HENDERSON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 180

49 N.W.2d 180

331 Mich. 284

SCHLINKERT v. HENDERSON.

No. 1.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 5, 1951.

Raymond R. Campbell, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellant.

Louis J. Colombo, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

REID, Chief Justice.

This is an action for libel. From an order of the trial court dismissing the action on motion, the plaintiff appeals.

Well pleaded allegations of the declaration must be taken as true.

Plaintiff's action is founded on a letter written by defendant, who at the time was a member of the Michigan state liquor control commission, to the Michigan state civil service commission, having reference to plaintiff, who at that time was an employee of the Michigan state liquor control commission. The letter was addressed to the civil service commission, attention: Mr. Arthur Rasch, director, and is recited in the declaration as follows:

'Gentlemen:

'The liquor control commission forwarded to your office, under date of August 4th, a purported reorganization program.

'My vote was cast in opposition to the proposal and I announced I would file a separate recommendation to your commission.

'The proposed reorganization program, stripped of all of its superfluous verbiage, is nothing more than a subterfuge, under the pretense of economy, designed to dispose of General Louis A. Kunzig and replace him with one John K. Schlinkert. It also embodies the reshuffling of administrative responsibilities that would prepare the ground and make it fertile for the return of the political connivery and corruption with which the commission was infested prior to the creation of the position of executive director and the appointment of General Kunzig. This is particularly true in view of the fact that fear of an investigation by a one-man grand jury has been eliminated. The history of liquor commissions in several states has been one of continuous political chicanery and corruption, a condition Michigan can proudly point to as nonexistent since the creation of General Kunzig's position.

'The proposed reorganization program provides for a new position to be known as that of director of purchasing and merchandising. The duties as outlined cover a preponderant list of important functions controlling virtually every department of the commission. It is intended that Mr. Schlinkert, whose present position is titled director of purchasing, take over these responsibilities. His present title is a misnomer, and he is merely a supervisor in charge of a small clerical staff which prepare inventory and sales reports from commission records, as a guide for purchasing requirements. Mr. Schlinkert is not fitted by temperament, experience or capacity to take the responsibility of even a small portion of the duties outlined. Mr. Schlinkert has repeatedly boasted that he made a sizeable contribution to the Democratic campaign fund and he expected to be rewarded. He is the only civil service employee with the commission, who, to my knowledge, has indulged in partisan politics since I have been a member of this bi-partisan commission. In the final analysis the program is designed to eliminate General Kunzig, a man of integrity and capacity, who holds the respect and affection of the hundreds of employees of the commission and promote Mr. Schlinkert, whose qualifications are dubious and who, in effect, is paying for a promotion that he could not attain by meritorious service. In conclusion, it is my opinion that if this ridiculous subterfuge is consummated, it will be a severe blow to the civil service structure. It will create apprehension of insecurity in the minds of thousands of fine men and women now in the employment of the State of Michigan.

'In view of the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the proposed reorganization program be rejected.

'Yours very truly,

'Harry Henderson,

Commissioner'

'HH/hp

The declaration alleges that defendant, actuated by malice, caused the letter to be made available to a number of newspapers, naming four newspapers, and that defendant well knew the falsity of the charges and inferences in said letter; it further alleges that plaintiff has never been guilty of paying for a promotion, making sizable donation to the Democratic campaign fund during his employment by the liquor control commission, nor playing politics in connection with his such employment, nor has he, plaintiff, been so suspected.

Plaintiff claims that defendant was not charged with any authority or duty to make a rating for plaintiff, who was an employee of the liquor control commission of which defendant was one of the three commissioners, plaintiff being in the classified state civil service.

Part of the controversy of which this suit is also a part, is recited in Kunzig v. Liquor Control Commission, 327 Mich. 474, 42 N.W.2d 247.

Defendant answered the declaration. He admits that he released a copy of the letter to newspapers but denies the imputed...