Leelanau County Sheriff v. Kiessel
824 N.W.2d 576
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kiessel, a deputy sheriff and honorably discharged veteran, was terminated for severe misconduct on October 30, 2009.
- Kiessel requested a VPA hearing; the Prosecuting Attorney (PA) issued a May 12, 2010 order reinstating Kiessel with back pay.
- Plaintiffs filed a circuit court complaint seeking a writ of superintending control, arguing the PA lacked VPA jurisdiction to reinstate or award back pay.
- The circuit court remanded to the PA to consider jurisdiction; the PA reaffirmed jurisdiction and Kiessel was reinstated with back pay.
- The circuit court later vacated the PA’s orders, concluding deputies are not within the VPA; Kiessel appealed.
- The issue presented centers on whether the VPA applies to deputy sheriffs and whether the PA may order reinstatement with back pay while recognizing sheriff's discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the VPA apply to deputy sheriffs and authorize PA review? | Plaintiffs contend VPA applies to deputies and allows PA review and reinstatement with back pay. | Kiessel argues VPA does not apply to midterm deputy matters or override sheriff's discretion. | VPA applies to deputy sheriffs; PA may order reinstatement with back pay. |
| Does MCL 51.70's 'at the sheriff's pleasure' power limit the VPA's reach? | Plaintiffs contend VPA overrides sheriff’s at-will authority where applicable. | Kiessel argues sheriff's discretion remains absolute under 51.70. | VPA reasonably limits the sheriff’s at-will authority with respect to honorably discharged veterans. |
| Can a reinstatement order under the VPA override the sheriff’s discretion over duties and delegation? | Plaintiffs assert reinstatement with back pay is permissible notwithstanding duty assignments. | Kiessel argues reinstatement cannot dictate how duties are performed or delegated. | Reinstatement must acknowledge sheriff’s discretion regarding duties and delegation. |
| Did Kiessel waive appellate review by not providing complete transcripts as required? | Plaintiffs claim failure to file full transcripts constitutes waiver. | Kiessel contends transcripts were provided and issues are de novo reviewable. | Kiessel did not waive appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraternal Order of Police, Ionia Co Lodge No. 157 v Bensinger, 122 Mich App 437 (1983) (recognizes sheriff's discretion and limits on surrendering law enforcement powers)
- Labor Mediation Bd v Tuscola Co Sheriff, 25 Mich App 159 (1970) (sheriff’s discretion in assigning duties driving reinstatement remedies)
- Nat’l Union of Police Officers Local 502-M, AFL-CIO v Wayne Co Bd of Comm’rs, 93 Mich App 76 (1979) (sheriff's power to hire/fire is limited by PERA; duties and power balanced with legislature)
- Beadling v Governor, 106 Mich App 530 (1981) (separation of powers concerns in executive review contexts)
- Jackson v Detroit Police Chief, 201 Mich App 173 (1993) (defines public department and boundaries of VPA applicability)