Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Home - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20160203_S147511_55_01_147511_2016-02-03_or.pdf">Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. Michigan, No. 147511</a>, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application to consider whether the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is cognizable in the Court of Claims.  The parties disagreed on a percent increase for the compensation agreement for fiscal years 2009-2011.  The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of defendants with regard to plaintiff’s claims of unjust enrichment and equal protection, but granted summary disposition, in part, in favor of plaintiff with regard to the breach of contract claim.  The plaintiff did not appeal the ruling regarding the unjust enrichment and equal protection claims.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. 
  
The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to determine whether the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is cognizable in the Court of Claims, given that the Civil Service Commission has constitutional authority to “fix rates of compensation” for the classified service, and given that the relief the plaintiff requests is not available unless the Civil Service Commission reconsiders its rate-setting decision.

core/freeform

Partner

Matthew T. “Matt” Nelson

Labor and Employment

MSC grants oral argument to consider whether the Court of Claims has authority to determine compensation rate

The Warner Norcross + Judd LLP lawyer responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website is managing partner <a href="/people/mark-j-wassink/" aria-label="Mark Wassink">Mark Wassink</a> who can be reached at <a href="mailto:mwassink@wnj.com" aria-label="email Mark Wassink">mwassink@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2189. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website.

MSC grants oral argument to consider whether the Court of Claims has authority to determine compensation rate

professionals