William R Henderson v. Civil Service Commission
321 Mich. App. 25
Mich. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2012 the Michigan DOC abolished ~2,472 RUO and CMUO positions and reassigned incumbents to newly created CO and CMO positions with lower pay; the union (MCO) grieved that the abolitions were a pay-cut device rather than for administrative efficiency.
- The Civil Service Commission’s Office of Classifications, Selections and Compensation (OCSC) conducted desk audits (~120 positions) and concluded many former RUOs/CMUOs did not perform treatment-focused duties contemplated by the RUO/CMUO specs; it recommended CO/CMO classifications.
- Plaintiffs filed technical classification complaints; a Technical Review Officer (TRO) and the Employment Relations Board (ERB) upheld the OCSC findings and the CSC adopted that as its final decision.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, which applied the "competent, material, and substantial evidence" standard and reversed the CSC, finding the study and TRO decisions flawed and arbitrary, restoring RUO/CMUO classifications.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the circuit court used the correct standard of review and whether the CSC’s decision was authorized by law; it concluded the circuit court erred, reversed the circuit court, and reinstated the CSC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for CSC decision where no hearing required | Apply Constitutional minimum plus APA substantial-evidence review (competent, material, and substantial evidence applies) | Where no hearing was required, review is limited to whether decision was "authorized by law" (not the substantial-evidence test) | Court of Appeals: only the "authorized by law" standard applies when no hearing is required; circuit court erred applying substantial-evidence review |
| Whether CSC decision was authorized by law (arbitrary & capricious) | TRO/CSC decisions were unsupported, based on flawed/misleading surveys and failure to rely on incumbents' reports; thus arbitrary and capricious | CSC acted within its constitutional authority, used a detailed study with multi-layer review; decision not arbitrary or capricious | Court of Appeals: CSC decision was authorized by law; circuit court improperly reweighed evidence, made credibility calls, and substituted its judgment |
| Scope to consider record evidence on appeal to circuit court | Circuit court should review entire record and assess evidentiary support under APA standards | Circuit court's review of evidentiary weight is improper absent a hearing; scope limited to legality and procedural compliance | Court of Appeals: transmission of record for appellate procedure does not expand scope; circuit court cannot reweigh evidence when no hearing was required |
| Whether prior classifications or lack of explicit definition of "treatment team" invalidate CSC process | Prior reclassifications and employee confusion over term undermined CSC's study and conclusions | Prior classifications and semantic disputes do not show unlawful procedure or lack of determining principle; CSC had constitutional authority and adequate process | Court of Appeals: prior decisions and semantic issues irrelevant to narrow authorized-by-law review; CSC’s process had an adequate determining principle |
Key Cases Cited
- Viculin v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 386 Mich. 375 (1971) (discusses scope/method of judicial review of CSC decisions following a hearing)
- Ross v. Blue Care Network of Mich., 480 Mich. 153 (2008) (where no hearing required, review limited to whether agency action is authorized by law)
- Brandon Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Educ. Special Servs. Ass’n, 191 Mich. App. 257 (1991) (circuit court may not review evidentiary support of agency determination when no hearing is required)
- Wescott v. Civil Serv. Comm., 298 Mich. App. 158 (2012) (reiterates authorized-by-law scope for decisions not requiring a hearing)
- Hanlon v. Civil Serv. Comm., 253 Mich. App. 710 (2002) (standard for appellate review of lower court’s review of agency action)
- Coalition of State Employee Unions v. State, 498 Mich. 312 (2015) (reflects plenary powers of CSC in its classification authority)
- AFSCME Council 25 v. State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 294 Mich. App. 1 (2011) (noting Civil Service Commission’s broad authority in its field)