Carl Peterson v. City of River Rouge
329551
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a former River Rouge police officer, received a duty disability pension in 1994 that the approving resolution said would convert to a regular retirement at the “voluntary retirement age” in the applicable CBA.
- The City Charter defined voluntary retirement age as 55 (with certain older-member exceptions); the CBA provided 10‑year vesting payable after age 50; the retirement handbook contained inconsistent statements but said the CBA controls conflicts.
- Plaintiff reached age 50 on October 7, 2007; the Board did not convert his pension then (allegedly an oversight); in June 2013 the Board voted to retroactively convert the pension effective his 50th birthday and recalculated benefits.
- Plaintiff sued the City, Board, Board members, Deputy Clerk Susan Joseph, and Board counsel Joseph McCarroll asserting breach of contract, superintending control, violation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA), tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and other claims; FOIA claim was dismissed by stipulation.
- The trial court granted defendants’ summary disposition motions (statute-of-limitations dismissal of WPA; CBA controls so other claims fail; denial of sanctions for alleged spoliation). Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty‑disability pension converted to a regular retirement at age 50 or 55 | Peterson: handbook or Charter controls; conversion should be at 55 | Defendants: CBA governs mandatory retirement terms under PERA; CBA sets voluntary retirement age as 50 | Held: CBA controls under PERA; conversion occurred at 50; breach claim dismissed |
| Whether a writ of superintending control was available to prevent conversion until age 55 | Peterson: City/Charter duty requires preventing conversion; no adequate remedy | Defendants: CBA settled the issue; superintending control improper where adequate remedy exists | Held: Superintending control unavailable; summary disposition proper |
| WPA claim — timeliness and causation | Peterson: Board acted in retaliation for his earlier reports/acts | Defendants: WPA claim is time‑barred (90 days) and lacks causal proof linking 1990s events to 2013 action | Held: WPA claim untimely and lacking causation; dismissed |
| Tortious interference / civil conspiracy | Peterson: Joseph and McCarroll instigated wrongful recalculation motivated by animus | Defendants: No breach (CBA applied); defendants were city agents, not third parties; no unlawful acts | Held: Claims fail—no contract breach and no wrongful acts; conspiracy fails without underlying tort |
| Sanctions for alleged destruction of recordings/e‑mails (spoliation) | Peterson: defendants destroyed audio recordings and withheld e‑mails after notice; requests default sanction | Defendants: Recordings discarded before notice; omitted e‑mails appear inadvertent; evidence wouldn’t change outcome because CBA controlled | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying default; lost evidence wouldn’t have altered legal result |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME Council 25 v Wayne County, 292 Mich. App. 68 (2011) (PERA controls conflicts over mandatory bargaining subjects)
- Local 1383, Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters v City of Warren, 411 Mich. 642 (1981) (collective bargaining agreements prevail over conflicting charter provisions)
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v City of Detroit, 391 Mich. 44 (1974) (retirement benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining)
- AFT Michigan v Michigan, 497 Mich. 197 (2015) (elements of a valid contract require mutual promises or exchange)
- Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc., 268 Mich. App. 83 (2005) (elements for tortious interference with a contract)
- Lawsuit Fin, LLC v Curry, 261 Mich. App. 579 (2004) (defendant must be a third party, not an agent, for tortious interference)
- Recorder’s Court Bar Ass’n v Wayne Circuit Court, 443 Mich. 110 (1993) (standards for invoking superintending control)
- Bloemendaal v Town & Country Sports Ctr, Inc., 255 Mich. App. 207 (2002) (duty to preserve evidence once litigation is reasonably foreseeable)
- Brenner v Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (1997) (sanctions for spoliation must be tailored and reviewed for abuse of discretion)