Employment dispute implicating the Veterans Preference Act (VPA) (MCL 35.402) & the Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA) (MCL 15.362); Whether a military veteran comes within the protection of the VPA; DeGraaf v City of Allegan; "First deputy"; Cremer v Board of Rd Comm’rs of Alger Cnty; Whether the VPA was violated; Sherrod v Detroit; Whether termination was justified; In re Grant; WPA claim; West v General Motors Corp.; A plaintiff's motivation; Whitman v City of Burton

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendants (city and officials) summary disposition of plaintiff's (a military veteran) VPA and WPA claims. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging violations of the VPA and WPA after his employment as assistant to the city manager was terminated. On appeal, the court agreed that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendants. First, although “it was not erroneous for the [trial] court to recognize the necessity of addressing the question whether the” VPA applied, “there was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether or not plaintiff was a ‘first deputy.’” It was “not possible to resolve this question at this stage because doing so would require impermissible fact finding by the [trial] court on summary disposition.” The trial court “concluded that plaintiff was not a ‘first deputy’ by making fact finding and credibility determinations, basing its decision primarily on its finding that the opinions of” the former city manager were credible. Further, “it was undisputed that plaintiff was given both an oral and written indication that his employment was terminated . . . before he received any type of hearing under the VPA. Thus, there is no question of material fact that the VPA was violated.” And because the trial “court’s decision was based on fundamental misunderstandings of the legal framework, impermissible judicial fact finding on summary disposition, and its failure to properly apply the substantial evidence test,” the court vacated the trial court’s rulings as to the VPA. As to the WPA, the court noted that the trial “court’s assessment attempted to resolve the factual ambiguities that appear in the email conversation, which is improper on summary disposition.” Vacated and remanded.