Brian K Ritchey v. City of Bay City
334016
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a veteran Bay City police officer, was discharged after events on May 2, 2013 involving a confrontation at Steamer’s Pub with patron Joshua Elzinga and off-duty officer Don Aldrich.
- Plaintiff, while on duty and in uniform, went to the bar after receiving a private text (saying Don was “gonna fight” Elzinga); he reported the response to dispatch as a routine COPS stop.
- Bartynski and plaintiff removed and handcuffed Elzinga; Elzinga recorded Don’s earlier conduct on his phone but the phone went missing after officers and Aldrich/Carrie Aldrich were together out of sight.
- A referee found that Don or Carrie likely took Elzinga’s phone, that plaintiff was positioned to observe and failed to prevent its taking, and that plaintiff targeted/bullied Elzinga and misused his authority.
- Mayor Shannon upheld termination following the referee’s hearing; plaintiff sought superintending control in circuit court, which dismissed his writ; plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether referee’s factual findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence | Ritchey: record lacks sufficient evidence to support referee’s findings about the phone and his conduct | City: circumstantial and testimonial evidence sufficed; referee reasonably inferred phone was taken and plaintiff failed to act | Court: substantial-evidence standard met; findings supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence |
| Whether plaintiff’s conduct constituted official misconduct or willful neglect under MCL 35.402 | Ritchey: his actions did not amount to misconduct; he was not responsible for securing the phone | City: plaintiff used authority to target a citizen, misreported reason to dispatch, allowed Aldrich/Carrie access, and failed to preserve evidence | Court: conduct amounted to misconduct and willful neglect; termination lawful |
| Whether circuit court reviewed the entire record when applying standard of review | Ritchey: circuit court’s statement suggested review of limited materials only | City: circuit court reviewed referee’s findings and the record sufficiently | Court: circuit court adequately reviewed the record and properly applied the substantial-evidence test |
| Whether conflicting evidence required reversal or a different outcome | Ritchey: record contains evidence inconsistent with referee’s findings | City: mere existence of conflicting evidence does not overcome substantial-evidence standard | Court: presence of conflicting evidence does not permit substituting court’s judgment; referee’s findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grant, 250 Mich. App. 13 (articulates the competent, material, and substantial evidence standard for review of veteran termination)
- Boyd v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 220 Mich. App. 226 (standard for appellate review of agency factual findings)
- Libralter Plastics, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 199 Mich. App. 482 (circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish a fact)
- People v. Hardrick, 258 Mich. App. 238 (conduct unbecoming an officer supports disciplinary action)