 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heckmann v. Detroit Chief of Police7/26/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Markey and Murray, JJ.
Plaintiff Eric Heckmann is a civilian employee of the fiscal operations section (FOS) of the Detroit police department ("the department"). On September 11, 2002, plaintiff wrote a five-page letter to the then newly appointed chief of police detailing allegations of gross mismanagement and fraud within the department, including the hiring of unnecessary employees who performed no meaningful work, misuse of overtime, falsification of time records, misuse of government property, and premature payments of invoices. Plaintiff claims that as a result of this letter defendants threatened or otherwise discriminated against him in violation of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. Plaintiff sued and also alleged in a second count that defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition, and plaintiff appeals by right. Because we find that plaintiff pled and factually supported some of his WPA claims, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings in the trial court.
I. Summary of Facts and Proceedings
Plaintiff is a long-time City of Detroit employee who has worked for the city's police department since 1992. In 2002, plaintiff was a principal accountant in the department's FOS. Plaintiff claims that in August 2002, he sent a memorandum to Deputy Chief Brenda Goss Andrews, supervisor of the department's management services bureau, requesting a meeting to discuss his observations of financial misconduct within the FOS. Upon receiving no response from Andrews, plaintiff sent his September 2002 letter to then newly appointed chief of police, Jerry Oliver. Plaintiff also forwarded a copy of the letter to Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and to the president of the Association of Professional and Technical Employees (APTE), a union in which plaintiff was a member. Plaintiff acknowledged that beginning in January 2003 the union had initiated approximately five grievance procedures on his behalf.
Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive a response to his September 2002 letter until being called to a meeting in Andrews' office on April 8, 2003. Defendant Marlene Hobbs and Hasumati Patel, the manager of the FOS also attended. After Patel's appointment in January 2003, plaintiff initiated the first of his grievances, which alleged Patel had been appointed to her position contrary to the union contract and the city's own rules regarding promotional opportunities. Plaintiff also had criticized Hobbs in his September 2002 letter, but Hobbs was promoted in April 2003 to the position of head governmental analyst in charge of the accounts payable unit of the FOS. Plaintiff claims that during the April meeting Andrews discussed his September 2002 letter and claims Andrews told plaintiff that he should "start looking for a job elsewhere" if he kept "making waves" and forcing Andrews to waste her time.
Plaintiff asserts that Andrews' comment to him at the April meeting was a "threat" within the meaning of MCL 15.362. Plaintiff further alleges that after the April meeting, defendants "otherwise discriminated" against him by reducing his duties and socially isolating him. With respect to the former claim, plaintiff testified that Patel authored a memorandum on April 10, 2003, outlining the respective work assignments of various FOS personnel. According to plaintiff, although others were assigned ten or more duties, he was assigned only four. Plaintiff acknowledged, however, that his four assigned responsibilities entailed accounting for approximately $65 to $80 million dollars. Regarding so
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|