Steven Buller v. Emmett Charter Township
352358
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Buller was hired in 1996 as Emmett Charter Township’s building inspector, mechanical inspector, and plan reviewer and contends he became the de facto "building official" though never formally appointed.
- He was paid on a fee basis throughout (received W-2s and employer taxes early; in 2014 the Board switched inspectors to 1099 independent-contractor treatment, a change Buller voted to approve).
- In 2018 Buller sued, alleging entitlement to full-time fringe benefits (health, vacation, sick leave), MERS pension contributions dating to 1996, conversion/common-law and statutory claims, fraud, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deprivation of property, unjust enrichment, and a declaratory judgment that his 1099 classification violated federal law.
- The Township moved for summary disposition on multiple grounds (jurisdiction, immunity, failure to state a claim, no genuine issue of material fact); Buller cross-moved asserting he was the building official and an employee.
- The trial court found Buller an independent contractor paid on a fee basis and granted summary disposition for the Township; Buller appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found a factual dispute whether Buller functioned as building official/employee, but ruled his claims fail as a matter of law because the MERS plan and the employee manual preclude the relief he seeks and federal tax-classification relief is not available in that forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buller was the Township's building official / an employee | Buller says he was de facto building official and an employee under the economic-reality test | Township says he was never formally appointed and was an independent contractor | Court: a factual dispute exists on that status, but resolution unnecessary to dispose of claims because other legal bars apply |
| Entitlement to MERS pension contributions | Buller claims he should have received MERS contributions since 1996 | Township/plan: MERS excludes individuals who are wholly paid on a fee basis | Held: Buller was paid on a fee basis and is ineligible as a matter of law |
| Entitlement to full-time fringe benefits under the employee manual | Buller claims he worked >35 hours/week and thus is entitled to full-time benefits | Township: manual requires being hired/"normally scheduled" as full-time; no proof Buller was scheduled 35+ hours; manual may be nonbinding | Held: No evidence he was "normally scheduled" full-time; no entitlement to benefits |
| Fraud (promissory/representation) | Buller alleges Township representatives told him he was an employee and would receive benefits | Township: Buller failed to show detrimental reliance or resulting injury (worked 20+ years without benefits) | Held: Summary disposition affirmed; plaintiff did not show requisite reliance/injury |
| Declaratory judgment re federal misclassification | Buller sought declaration that 1099 classification violated federal law | Township: federal tax classification issues must be resolved through IRS procedures or a tax-refund suit; not via state declaratory action | Held: Claim improper here and effectively abandoned on appeal; trial court correctly dismissed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 460 Mich 348; 596 NW2d 190 (1999) (standard of review for summary disposition).
- Lucas v. Awaad, 299 Mich App 345; 830 NW2d 141 (2013) (fraud requires showing of reliance and injury).
- McDonald v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 291 F.3d 718 (11th Cir. 2002) (federal employee vs. independent-contractor tax status is for IRS administrative process or a tax-refund action).
- Renny v. Port Huron Hosp., 427 Mich 415; 398 NW2d 327 (1986) (employers cannot selectively apply personnel policies; policies in force should be applied uniformly).