Toth v. Callaghan
995 F. Supp. 2d 774
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- PA 45 of 2012 barred MERC from proceeding with an administrative hearing on GSRA unionization at the University of Michigan.
- Plaintiffs challenge PA 45 as violating Michigan’s change-of-purpose clause (Article IV, § 24) and claim federal and state equal protection issues.
- Intervenor is the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan; initiating Plaintiffs are Christie Toth and GEO, a graduate employee union.
- MERC previously recognized GSRAs as non-public employees; in 2011 MERC reconsidered but paused while PA 45 was enacted.
- PA 45 was enacted via a legislative path that Plaintiffs argue changed purpose from emergency-manager reform to barring GSRA bargaining rights; the court granted summary judgment on the change-of-purpose claim and reserved equal protection.
- The court applied constitutional avoidance, deciding state-law grounds first and not reaching the federal equal protection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA 45 violates the Michigan change-of-purpose clause | Toth/GEO argue PA 45 changes purpose | Defendants contend no change of purpose | PA 45 violates Article IV, § 24. |
| Whether to decide equal protection claims after state grounds | Plaintiffs rely on federal/state equal protection | Defendants seek federal analysis | Court declines to rule on equal protection; resolves state ground. |
| Whether the court should apply constitutional avoidance | Court adopts avoidance, resolves state issue first. | ||
| Whether the change-of-purpose analysis is novel or settled | Not novel; Michigan precedent supports analysis. | ||
| Remedies after ruling on change-of-purpose | Declines injunctive relief at this stage but leaves possibility open. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kevorkian, 447 Mich. 436, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994) (change-of-purpose analysis; focus on original purpose and fair notice)
- Anderson v. Oakland Cnty. Clerk, 353 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. 1984) (title-body and change-of-purpose considerations in amendments)
- Kevorkian (state high court), 527 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 1994) (reiterates the purpose-focused test for change of purpose)
- Haig v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (S. Ct. 1974) (federal avoidance principles in constitutional questions)