Michigan State Employees Association v MESC – 5.02

Michigan State Employees Association v MESC
Digest no. 5.02

Section 27(i)

Cite as: Michigan State Employees Ass’n v MESC, 94 Mich App 677 (1980); lv den, 408 Mich 952 (1980).

Appeal pending: No
Plaintiffs: Michigan State Employees Association, et al.
Defendants: Michigan Employment Security Commission, et al.
Docket no.:
Date of decision: January 9, 1980

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Application of the school denial period to instructional, research, professional and principal administrative employees of three named state schools is permitted by the United States Constitution.

FACTS: “The individual plaintiffs are a class of employees described as classified civil service employees of the State of Michigan employed in instructional, research, professional or principal administrative capacities at the State Technical Institute and Rehabilitation Center, the Michigan School for the Blind, and the Michigan School for the Deaf. They are normally employed 42 or 46 weeks per year being laid off during the summer close down of these institutions.”

DECISION: The plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed.

RATIONALE: “The state’s failure to treat plaintiffs as it does other civil service employees who qualify for benefits during seasonal layoffs is not arbitrary and irrational. They are treated as are all other employees involved in the instruction and administration of local school and community college educational facilities. It appears that the legislature has uniformly excluded some seasonal employees from unemployment benefits for the purpose of protecting the fiscal integrity of the compensation program and possibly because the legislature held the opinion that employees know of the seasonal layoff well in advance (and may consider it an employment benefit) and are not faced with the same economic crunch’ as those who are unpredictably laid off during the year.

“The challenged statutory provision meets not only the ‘rational basis’ test, but also bears a ‘substantial relation’ to the purpose of the law.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/90