State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Mental Health

• Decision Date: 01 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 4,Docket No. 70418,4
• Citation: 365 N.W.2d 93,421 Mich. 152
• Parties: STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, a non-profit Corporation, and Lyn Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, a Legislatively created agency of the State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 93

365 N.W.2d 93

STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, a non-profit Corporation, and Lyn Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, a Legislatively created agency of the State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 70418.

Calendar No. 4 May Term, 1984.

421 Mich. 152, 365 N.W.2d 93

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued May 8, 1984.

Decided Dec. 28, 1984.

Released Jan. 29, 1985.

Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, P.C., by Michael E. Cavanaugh, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., George L. McCargar, Thomas R. Wheeker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept. of Atty. Gen., Mental Health Div., Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

Donald Pailen, Corp. Counsel, Frank W. Jackson, Trudy D. Archer, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Detroit, amicus curiae for the City of Detroit.

BOYLE, Justice.

We granted leave in this case to consider the appropriate standards for granting preliminary injunctions in civil service employee discharge cases. Our holding addresses the required showing of irreparable injury necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction in such cases.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff Lyn Jones is a state civil servant who supports herself and her son by working as a registered nurse in the children's unit of the Clinton Valley Center, an inpatient facility operated by defendant Michigan Department of Mental Health. On September 13, 1980, while plaintiff was the nurse in charge of the unit, a 17-year-old patient drowned in a bathtub, apparently as a result of suffering an epileptic seizure. After an investigation into the death, three employees--plaintiff, the head nurse of the children's unit, and the child care worker who had taken decedent to the bath and shower room--were dismissed for patient neglect. ¹

All three employees filed grievances and, in addition, on October 3, 1980, brought suit in the circuit court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent their dismissals until completion of the grievance procedure. In her verified complaint, plaintiff alleged irreparable injury resulting from a violation of her due process rights, ² and from the loss of her and her child's sole source of support. After a hearing on October 8, 1980, consisting solely of the arguments of counsel, the circuit court granted the preliminary injunction "until further order of the Court."

Defendant appealed. While the cases were pending before the Court of Appeals, plaintiff's dismissal was reduced to a six-month suspension, and she was ordered "otherwise reinstated with full back pay and benefits," at the fourth level of the grievance procedure. ³

The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of the preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiff had "established the type of irreparable injury necessary to support" issuance. In particular,

"[s]he provides the sole financial support for [her] 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." MSEA v. Dep't of Mental Health, 120 Mich.App. 39, 44-45, 328 N.W.2d 11 (1982).

We granted leave to appeal.

II

Whether a preliminary injunction should issue is determined by a four-factor analysis: harm to the public interest if an injunction issues; whether harm to the applicant in the absence of a stay outweighs the harm to the opposing party if a stay is granted; the strength of the applicant's demonstration that the applicant is likely to prevail on the merits; ⁴ and demonstration that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted. See GCR 1963, 705.7(1)(b)(i). This inquiry often includes the consideration of whether an adequate legal remedy is available to the applicant. ⁵ Our analysis in this case is limited to the question whether a sufficient showing of irreparable injury was made to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction where wrongful discharge from civil service employment was alleged.

III

The legal protection of employee interests in job security is the exception, rather than the rule, in this state. In the absence of contractual agreements to the contrary, see, e.g., Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), and of unlawful reasons for discharge such as race or sex discrimination, private sector employees are terminable at the will of their employers.

The need to create a stable pool of public employees providing continuous meritorious service led to the adoption of different rules for public employees. Before the introduction of the merit civil service system in Michigan, the high rate of state employee turnover created economic and efficiency losses for the state due to the loss of experienced employees, as well as wasted money and time spent training new employees. Meritorious state employees were "cynical about the fruits of industry" partially because they were "fairly certain that they [wouldn't] be working for the State for any extended period." A study of the civil service system further found that many employees lacking politically powerful and influential sponsors felt compelled to spend much of their work time preserving and currying favor with persons able to influence their prospects of retaining their jobs. Report of the Civil Service Study Commission, pp. 42-44, 36, 40 (1936).

In response to these problems, the patronage system was abolished, and the merit civil service system was introduced, by constitutional amendment in 1940. Const. 1963, art. 11, Sec. 5. See also Council No. 11, AFSCME v. Civil Service Comm., 408 Mich. 385, 397-401, 292 N.W.2d 442 (1980) (discussing the history of the constitutional amendment). One element of the new system was the protection of civil servants from termination except for just cause.

The purpose of job tenure in the civil service is not primarily to provide a benefit to public employees. Instead, job tenure is a means by which to promote economy and efficiency in the civil service. See 15A Am.Jur.2d, Civil Service, Sec. 1, p. 6; State ex rel. Stoer v. Raschig, 141 Ohio St. 477, 486, 49 N.E.2d 56 (1943). Providing job security to capable and efficient employees promotes these objectives in several ways: it attracts capable and efficient persons to public employment, ensures their retention by prohibiting arbitrary or improperly motivated dismissals, and provides an incentive to the employees for continued efficiency and industry. See 15A Am.Jur.2d, supra; 67 C.J.S., Officers Sec. 16, p. 258; Odau v. Personnel Board of State, 250 Wis. 600, 604, 27 N.W.2d 726 (1947). Moreover, the guarantee of job security and fair treatment is important in maintaining a faithful and motivated public employee workforce with high morale. Toussaint, supra, 408 Mich. pp. 613, 619, 292 N.W.2d 880.

The protection from mistreatment provided by the requirement of just cause for dismissal would be undermined if civil servants were routinely subject to the severe burdens of wrongful dismissal. Such a system might undermine the purpose of merit civil service, in that it could lead to a deterioration of the morale of public employees and a reluctance of capable people to enter the civil service. ⁶ Economy and efficiency might also be reduced, since new employees would have to be trained, and wrongfully discharged employees would receive back pay for time they had not worked. It is for this reason that the protection of job tenure provided by the civil service system can not be interpreted as a mere guarantee of reinstatement and back pay in the event of wrongful discharge.

Job security is obviously an important benefit to the employee. The guarantee of job tenure absent just cause for dismissal under the Michigan civil service system creates a property right for public employees which the state may only take away in accordance with due process, Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974). Job security is thus an important benefit of public employment.

This Court has recognized the significance of an individual's work in his or her life:

"Every [person's] employment is of utmost importance to him. It occupies his time, his talents, and his thoughts. It controls his economic destiny. It is the means by which he feeds his family and provides for their security. It bears upon his personal well-being, his mental and physical health." Lowe v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 705, 389 Mich. 123, 148, 205 N.W.2d 167 (1973).

Discharge from public employment may make it almost impossible to obtain other work.

"Employability is the greatest asset most people have. Once there is a discharge from [government employment], dismissal may be a badge that bars the employee from other [government] employment. The shadow of that discharge is cast over the area where private employment may be available." Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 95, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974) (Douglas, J., dissenting ).

Yet, despite the discharged employee's inability to obtain other employment, the employee may be ineligible for unemployment benefits because the "cause" for termination may constitute "misconduct" under M.C.L. Sec. 421.29(1)(b); M.S.A. Sec. 17.531(1)(b).

Further the injury caused by the effects of wrongful discharge may not be fully remedied by reinstatement and back pay. ⁷ As Justice Marshall pointed out:

"The availability of a backpay 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...