Summer v. Southfield Board of Education
310 Mich. App. 660
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Meredith Summer, a Southfield teacher employed since 1999, received a “minimally effective” evaluation for 2011–2012, was laid off at the end of that year, but taught summer school in 2012. She alleged retaliation and procedural unfairness tied to an internal harassment complaint and lack of evaluation feedback.
- Summer sued under the Revised School Code (MCL 380.1248 and MCL 380.1249), seeking reinstatement, voiding her evaluation, and damages/fees.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing (a) jurisdiction for layoff challenges belonged to the Teacher Tenure Commission (TTC) or MERC for union-related claims, (b) MCL 380.1249 creates no private cause of action, and (c) Summer failed to state a claim under MCL 380.1248.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8), concluding the TTC/MERC had jurisdiction and that §1249 did not create a private right of action.
- The Court of Appeals (Wilder, P.J.) affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: it held circuit courts have original jurisdiction over §1248 claims post-2011 amendments; §1249 does not create a private right of action; but §1248 may permit a private §1249‑based challenge when a noncompliant evaluation produced a personnel decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for layoff-related claims | Summer: circuit court is a “court of competent jurisdiction” under MCL 380.1248(3) so she may sue in circuit court | Defendants: TTC (or MERC for union issues) has exclusive jurisdiction; plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies | Court: reversed trial court — circuit courts (Michigan judiciary) have original jurisdiction over §1248 §1249 layoff claims after 2011 amendments; trial court erred in (C)(4) dismissal |
| Private right of action under MCL 380.1249 | Summer: §1249 supports claims about evaluation system fairness and may give rise to remedies | Defendants: §1249 contains no express private cause of action; enforcement is by statutory mechanisms | Court: affirmed trial court — §1249 does not create a private right of action |
| Viability of §1248 claim when evaluation process violated §1249 | Summer: her layoff was arbitrary/capricious and tied to an evaluation process that lacked transparency and opportunity to improve | Defendants: plaintiff merely alleges a ‘‘subterfuge’’/pretext claim that belongs to TTC; plaintiff did not plead statutory violations required by §1248 | Court: reversed/vacated in part — a §1248 claim may be based on a personnel decision premised on an evaluation that did not comply with §1249 (i.e., noncompliant evaluation that produced an improper layoff can state a private §1248 claim) |
| MERC jurisdiction for alleged union retaliation | Summer: reference to union rep status was background, not a PERA claim | Defendants: MERC has exclusive jurisdiction over union‑activity claims | Court: reversed trial court — complaint did not allege a MERC/PERA claim; trial court erred in sending union issue to MERC |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Enjoi Transp. Solutions, 307 Mich. App. 182 (setting standard of review for summary disposition)
- Stone v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 307 Mich. App. 169 (rules on MCR 2.116(C)(8) pleadings sufficiency)
- Forest Hills Coop. v. City of Ann Arbor, 305 Mich. App. 572 (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Freiberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Big Bay De Noc Sch. Dist., 61 Mich. App. 404 (discussed historical ‘‘subterfuge’’ doctrine for layoffs)
- Garden City Ed. Ass’n v. Sch. Dist. of City of Garden City, 975 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich.) (holding §1249 contains no private right of action)