Szymanski v. Evans

438 F.Supp.3d 790

David J. SZYMANSKI, Plaintiff,

v.Warren EVANS and County of Wayne, Defendants.

2:19-cv-11008

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed March 10, 2020

Robin Beth Wagner, Michael L. Pitt, Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiff.

Bruce A. Campbell, Tracy A. McAllister, Wayne County Corporation Counsel, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case raises the question of whether a retired Wayne County probate judge's years of service on the court may be considered in determining whether he is eligible to receive continuing health insurance coverage under Wayne County's so-called "Amann Resolutions" plan while in retirement. Plaintiff David Szymanski, who had served for 20 years as a Wayne County probate judge, five years as the County's Chief Deputy Treasurer, and one year as a laborer for the County Road Commission filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Wayne and Warren Evans, Chief Executive Officer of the County, are improperly denying him healthcare benefits he is entitled to as a retired County employee. After carefully considering the terms of the plan and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court must conclude that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court will accordingly grant Defendants' motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1993 the Wayne County Commission, the County's legislative body, enacted a series of ordinances known as the "Amann Resolutions." These resolutions permit individuals who have served in a qualifying County position for at least eight years to receive post-employment healthcare coverage. See ECF No. 9-2, PageID.66–67 (County Resolution No. 2011-512). In 2011, the Commission enacted Resolution 2011-512,¹ the most recent of the Amann Resolutions, which provides in relevant part:

If a person is separated from the County after January 1, 1994, with at least a total of 8 years of County service [and has served in one of the enumerated qualifying positions] ... that person shall be entitled to the same insurance and health care benefits for himself or herself, his or her spouse and dependents, as a retiree from the Defined Benefit Plan 1.

Under the language of the ordinance, only a former employee who served in a qualifying position and who also has "at least a total of 8 years of County service" is eligible for post-employment healthcare benefits. Plaintiff was elected to Wayne County Probate Court in 1990. ECF No. 1, PageID.4 (Compl.). He spent 19 years serving as a probate judge, from January 1, 1991 until December 22, 2010. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. He was subsequently appointed to serve as Chief Deputy Treasurer of the County in 2010 and remained in that role until his retirement in September 2015. ECF No. 1, PageID.5–6. The parties agree that Plaintiff's time as Chief Deputy Treasurer satisfies the component of Resolution No. 2011-512 requiring individuals seeking post-employment coverage to have served in one of the resolution's enumerated qualifying positions.² Plaintiff had also previously spent one year working for the Wayne County Road Commission as a laborer during the 1970s. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. Because Plaintiff's employment as Chief Deputy Treasurer for the County and as a laborer represents only approximately five years and nine months years of "County service" the dispositive question in this case is whether Plaintiff's 19 years of employment as a County probate judge also counts as "County service." See ECF No. 9-4 (Pl.'s Employee Roster Report). If it does, he is entitled to post-employment healthcare coverage under the Amann Resolutions; if not, he fails to qualify.

Plaintiff asserts that various County representatives assured him his service as a probate judge would make him eligible for post-retirement healthcare benefits. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. For example, as he approached the end of his tenure as a probate judge Plaintiff consulted with Tim Taylor, Director of Human Resources for Wayne County, about his future retirement benefits. He claims Taylor reassured him that his almost two decades as a probate judge would count towards the requisite "County service" required for Amann benefits. ECF No. 1, PageID.5. Indeed, Taylor subsequently confirmed to Plaintiff by email that he and his dependents would become eligible for the Amann benefits. ECF No. 1, PageID.6. Plaintiff further alleges that during a 2015 meeting with Ken Wilson, a representative of the County's Human Resources Department, Wilson reiterated that Plaintiff would be eligible for post-employment healthcare benefits beginning in October 2015. ECF No. 1, PageID.7. Consistent with Wilson's comments, a statement of Plaintiff's retirement benefits he obtained dated August 22, 2015 described him as "Eligible for health/life insurance" and stated that he had spent more than 25 years in the service of Wayne County. ECF No. 9-5, PageID.79 (Pl.'s Wayne Cty. Emp. Ret. Sys. File). He further observes that his paychecks were issued by Wayne County. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. After Plaintiff retired in September 2015, he continued to receive healthcare coverage through December 2015. ECF No. 1, PageID.8–9; ECF No. 9, PageID.52 (Defs.' Mot. To Dismiss Br.). Although Plaintiff characterizes that coverage as Amann benefits, Defendants assert he was in fact receiving retiree-healthcare benefits as part of the Executive Benefit Plan (not Amann benefits). Compare ECF No. 1, PageID.8–9 with ECF No. 9, PageID.52.

On October 28, 2015, Human Resources Director Tish King issued Administrative Personnel Order 03-2015 which ended certain retiree and Amann healthcare benefits, replacing them with monthly stipends. See ECF No. 1, PageID.9; ECF No. 9, PageID.52. According to Plaintiff it was Evans who authorized or directed King to issue this order. In 2018, Wayne County again made changes to its healthcare program, offering Amann-eligible individuals the option of either reinstating their healthcare coverage or remaining in the stipend program by waiving future healthcare coverage. ECF No. 9, PageID.53. Plaintiff asserts that in June 2018 the County sent letters to several retirees informing them that their Amann benefits were being restored. ECF No. 1, PageID.11. But he was not among the recipients of that letter. Id. Plaintiff then met with members of the Wayne County Corporation Counsel's office to figure out why he was not being provided the option of having his benefits restored. ECF No. 1, PageID.12. During this meeting, attorneys for the County explained to Plaintiff that he was not entitled to Amann benefits because his position as a probate judge did not constitute service as an employee of the County and he therefore lacked the requisite eight years of "County service." ECF No. 1, PageID.12.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 4, 2019 asserting several claims for constitutional violations via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Among them are claims for denial of property rights without the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of substantive due process, and unconstitutional taking of property. Plaintiff also alleges breach of contract under Michigan law. As relief, he requests that the Court issue a declaratory judgment stating that he is entitled to Amann benefits, order Defendants to restore those benefits, and award damages as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendants Evans and Wayne County moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim on May 22, 2019. See ECF No. 9. The Court will grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff's claims without prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of a lawsuit where the defendant establishes the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is generally confined to the pleadings. Jones v. City of Cincinnati , 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008). Courts may, however, consider any exhibits attached to the complaint or the defendant's motion to dismiss "so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein." Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Amini v. Oberlin Coll. , 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) ). The exhibits attached by the parties in this case satisfy those parameters.

In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts "must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pled factual allegations as true and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts consistent with their allegations that would entitle them to relief." League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen , 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Kottmyer v. Maas , 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2006) ). Though this standard is liberal, it requires a plaintiff to provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" in support of her grounds for entitlement to relief. Albrecht v. Treon , 617 F.3d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal , the plaintiff must also plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted). A plaintiff falls short if she pleads facts "merely consistent with a defendant's liability" or if the alleged facts do not "permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Albrecht , 617 F.3d at 893 (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678–679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ).

DISCUSSION

The dispositive question before the Court is whether Plaintiff's...