City of Wayne Retirees Association v. City of Wayne
This text of City of Wayne Retirees Association v. City of Wayne (City of Wayne Retirees Association v. City of Wayne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
September 11, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice
160809-10 David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem
Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra CITY OF WAYNE RETIREES ASSOCIATION, Richard H. Bernstein CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, TIMOTHY Elizabeth T. Clement REYNOLDS, ROBERT ENGLISH, EDMUND Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices ROTHFELDER, DANIEL HAMANN, and CHERYL FISHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SC: 160809; 160810 COA: 343522; 343916 Wayne CC: 17-009118-CK CITY OF WAYNE, Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MCCORMACK, J., (concurring).
I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal because, as the Court of Appeals recognized, the outcome in this case is resolved by our decision in Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich 296 (2019).
The issue in Kendzierski was whether retiree healthcare benefits provided through the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs) were vested, i.e., unalterable for the plaintiff-retirees’ lifetimes, or were instead time-limited promises that did not survive the expiration of those CBAs.
As I explained in my dissent, I believe the CBAs in Kendzierski were ambiguous and that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to present extrinsic evidence to resolve that ambiguity. Kendzierski, 503 Mich at 327 (MCCORMACK, C.J., dissenting). But this Court disagreed, concluding that the benefits were unambiguously time-limited and that the defendant was, therefore, entitled to summary disposition for that reason. Id. at 326 (opinion of the Court). 2
Plaintiffs in this case have offered arguments for ambiguity that are similar to those the Court considered and rejected in Kendzierski. While I find these arguments to be persuasive, plaintiffs have not asked us to reconsider our decision in Kendzierski. For that reason, I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal.
BERNSTEIN, J., joins the statement of MCCORMACK, C.J.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 11, 2020 a0911 Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
City of Wayne Retirees Association v. City of Wayne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-wayne-retirees-association-v-city-of-wayne-mich-2020.