MARY MONICA LINDEMANN V STATE OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARY MONICA LINDEMANN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 194692
Court of Claims
LC No. 95-015997 CM
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
MARY MONICA LINDEMANN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 194693
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 95-081980 AS
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Young, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
These consolidated appeals follow the summary dismissal of plaintiff’s actions for injunctive
relief and monetary damages brought simultaneously in the Ingham Circuit Court and the Court of
Claims. We affirm. These cases are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff’s failure to challenge the circuit court’s determination that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction precludes us from affording plaintiff any remedy in her circuit court action. Roberts & Son
Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744
(1987).
-1
Plaintiff’s complaint filed in the Court of Claims alleges that her federal and state constitutional
rights to free speech, association, due process and equal protection are being abridged by the director
of the state agency at which she is employed. Plaintiff correctly asserts that the state cannot require an
individual to relinquish free speech and free association rights guaranteed to the individual by the state
and federal constitutions as a condition of public employment. Council No. 11, American Federation
of State, County, & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v Civil Service Commission, 87 Mich App
420, 428-429; 274 NW2d 804 (1978), aff’d 408 Mich 385; 292 NW2d 442 (1980); see also Abood
v Detroit Board of Education, 431 US 209, 233-235; 97 S Ct 1782; 52 L Ed 2d 261 (1977); Elrod
v Burns, 427 US 347, 357-360; 96 S Ct 2673; 49 L Ed 2d 547 (1976); Kusper v Pontikes, 414 US
51, 56-57; 94 S Ct 303; 38 L Ed 2d 260 (1973).
Nevertheless, while plaintiff’s complaint raises constitutional issues, the resolution of those issues
depends on the resolution of factual issues that are within the competency of the Civil Service
Commission to determine in the first instance. The essence of plaintiff’s claim on appeal is that she has
suffered a de facto demotion as a consequence of her off-duty involvement in partisan political activity.
Whether plaintiff has indeed suffered a de facto demotion presents a fact question for the commission to
resolve. Hardy v State Personnel Director, 392 Mich 1, 4-5, & 5, n 1; 219 NW2d 61 (1974).
Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s constitutional claims are not of the type that warrant immediate
review and the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine controls. Michigan Supervisors Union
OPEIU Local 512 v Department of Civil Service, 209 Mich App 573, 578-579; 531 NW2d 790
(1995); Hardy, supra, p 5, n 1.
Moreover, plaintiff has failed to adequately document her claim that she is being denied access
to her administrative grievance procedures and, therefore, has failed to demonstrate the need for judicial
intervention to guarantee her access to these administrative procedures.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
