Summary
In Remick, however, the trial court had conducted a de novo hearing and simply erred in the standard applied in evaluating the evidence.
Summary of this case from Anderson v. General MotorsOpinion
Docket No. 11859.
Decided March 24, 1972.
Appeal from Ingham, Donald L. Reisig, J. Submitted Division 2 January 12, 1972, at Lansing. (Docket No. 11859.) Decided March 24, 1972.
Complaint by Leonard R. Remick before the Michigan Civil Rights Commission against Donald A. Burge, Prosecuting Attorney of Kalamazoo County. Complaint dismissed. Plaintiff appealed to circuit court. Affirmed. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Krolikowski Remick, for plaintiff. Farhat, Burns Story, P.C. (by E. Michael Stafford), for defendant.
The Const 1963, art 5, § 29, provides inter alia:
"There is hereby established a civil rights commission which shall consist of eight persons, not more than four of whom shall be members of the same political party, who shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, for four-year terms not more than two of which shall expire in the same year. It shall be the duty of the commission in a manner which may be prescribed by law to investigate alleged discrimination against any person because of religion, race, color or national origin in the enjoyment of the civil rights guaranteed by law and by this constitution, and to secure the equal protection of such civil rights without such discrimination."
Plaintiff-appellant sought the issuance of a complaint against his employer on the ground that his employment was discriminatorily terminated. The discrimination appellant asserted was age.
The commission accepted his petition for a complaint. On the merits it refused to issue it. A referee hearing was held and the referee affirmed the commission action. The circuit court, upon the prescribed de novo hearing, affirmed on the ground that the holding sought to be reviewed was supported by "competent material and substantial evidence". The wording was taken verbatim from Const 1963, art 6, § 28, covering the final decisions, rulings, or orders of "any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial".
We recently spoke to the standard to be applied in a de novo review of final orders of this commission. See Burrell v. Annapolis Hospital, 36 Mich. App. 537 (1971).
The trial judge very likely did not have this opinion available at the time of his review. However, after having carefully examined the whole record, we conclude that the result he reached would be identical under the constitutionally provided and judicially interpreted trial de novo.
We note that the appellee employer did not challenge the jurisdiction of the commission to entertain a complaint alleging discrimination based upon age, and hence we do not pass upon the issue.
We are obligated to affirm.
All concurred.