PATRICIA PIASECKI V CITY OF HAMTRAMCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICIA PIASECKI,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 21, 2001
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 222890
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-826764-CL
CITY OF HAMTRAMCK and GARY ZYCH,
Defendants-Appellants.
Updated Copy
March 15, 2002
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Hood and Murphy, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal by leave granted the trial court's order denying defendants' motion for
summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We reverse and remand.
This case arises from plaintiff 's discharge from her position as director of income tax for
defendant city of Hamtramck. Former Hamtramck Mayor Robert Kozaren appointed plaintiff to
the position. Plaintiff was appointed to the same position by Kozaren's successor, defendant
Gary Zych. As director of income tax, plaintiff reported directly to the mayor.1
After learning that Kozaren pleaded guilty to charges in connection with his failure to
report federal income tax, defendant Zych sent plaintiff a memo, dated May 15, 1998, instructing
plaintiff to "take immediate action to acquire the back income taxes owed to the city by Robert
Kozaren and report to this office within one week with a status report." In a response letter,
dated May 20, 1998, plaintiff stated that she could not comply with the request for a status report
on the matter because city ordinance and state law precluded her from divulging confidential tax
information. Thereafter, defendant Zych discharged plaintiff from the position as director of
income tax. Plaintiff brought the instant action, alleging she was discharged, contrary to public
policy, because she refused to violate the law and provide confidential information to the mayor.
Defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming it was not illegal for plaintiff to provide
1
It is undisputed that plaintiff was an at-will employee of the city of Hamtramck. In February
1998, plaintiff signed a statement and acknowledgment of employment conditions, which states
in part: "I understand that my employment and compensation can be terminated at anytime, with
or without cause, and with or without notice, at my option or at the option of the Mayor of the
City of Hamtramck."
-1-
the information requested by defendant Zych and, therefore, it could not be said that plaintiff was
discharged for refusing to violate the law. The trial court denied defendants' motion. This Court
granted defendants leave to appeal.
We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v
Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). Likewise, issues arising
from the interpretation and application of statutes are reviewed de novo. Oakland Co Bd of Co
Rd Comm'rs v Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass'n, 456 Mich 590, 610; 575 NW2d
751 (1998). In reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10),2 we
consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, or any other documentary evidence
submitted in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to decide whether a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Ritchie-Gamester v Berkley, 461 Mich 73, 76; 597 NW2d 517 (1999);
Rollert v Dep't of Civil Service, 228 Mich App 534, 536; 579 NW2d 118 (1998). All reasonable
inferences are resolved in the nonmoving party's favor. Hampton v Waste Mgt of Mi, Inc, 236
Mich App 598, 602; 601 NW2d 172 (1999).
The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes3 is to ascertain and give effect to
the Legislature's intent. Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515;
573 NW2d 611 (1998). If the plain and ordinary meaning of a statute is clear, judicial
construction is neither necessary nor permitted. Elia v Hazen, 242 Mich App 374, 381; 619
NW2d 1 (2000). We may not speculate regarding the probable intent of the Legislature beyond
the words expressed in the statute. In re Schnell, 214 Mich App 304, 310; 543 NW2d 11 (1995).
When reasonable minds may differ regarding the meaning of a statute, the courts must look to
the object of the statute and the harm it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable
construction that best accomplishes the purpose of the statute. Marquis v Hartford Accident &
Indemnity (After Remand), 444 Mich 638, 644; 513 NW2d 799 (1994).
Directly at issue in this case is § 74 of the Hamtramck Uniform City Income Tax
Ordinance. Section 74 provides:
(1) Information gained by the administrator, city treasurer or any other city
official, agent or employee as a result of a return, investigation, hearing or
verification required or authorized by this ordinance is confidential, except for
official purposes in connection with the administration of the ordinance and
except in accordance with a proper judicial order.
(2) Any person who divulges this confidential information, except for
official purposes, is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not exceeding
$500.00 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 90 days, or both, for each
2
Although defendants' motion was based on MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), we analyze the motion
under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because the record indicates the trial court reviewed matters outside
the pleadings. Spiek, supra at 338.
3
The rules of statutory construction also apply to the interpretation of municipal ordinances.
Gora v Ferndale, 456 Mich 704, 711; 576 NW2d 141 (1998).
-2-
offense. In addition, an employee of the city who divulges this confidential
information is subject to discharge for misconduct.4
We conclude that the plain language of the ordinance did not preclude plaintiff from
divulging the information requested by defendant Zych. Subsection 74(1) plainly provides that
information gained by plaintiff as the result of investigations in her capacity as director is
confidential.5 However, the section provides a specific exception where the information gained
is "for official purposes in connection with the administration of the ordinance . . . ." Thus, the
dispositive question becomes whether defendant Zych's request for the information constituted
an official purpose in connection with the administration of the income tax ordinance.
It is clear from defendant Zych's memo to plaintiff that his purpose in seeking a "status
report" in regard to Kozaren was to collect back taxes owed the city by Kozaren. A plain reading
of the Hamtramck income tax ordinance establishes that the purpose of the ordinance is to
facilitate collection of income taxes owed the city. Plaintiff acknowledged during a deposition
that the mayor's principle responsibilities were to secure adequate revenue to deliver city services
and to ensure that city services were administered efficiently. Under these circumstances, we
conclude as a matter of law that defendant Zych had an official purpose in requesting the
information.
We further conclude as a matter of law that defendant Zych's official purpose for
obtaining the information was in connection with the administration of the ordinance. The
Charter of the City of Hamtramck provides, in relevant part, that the mayor is "the chief
executive officer of the city" and is responsible for ensuring "that the laws relating to the city and
4
That section conforms to § 74 of the City Income Tax Act, MCL 141.674.
5
Neither party disputes that the investigation requested by defendant Zych was "required or
authorized" by the ordinance. Section 73 of the Hamtramck Uniform City Income Tax
Ordinance provides:
(1) The administrator personally, or his duly authorized agent or a duly
authorized city employee, may examine the books, papers, and records of any
person, employer, taxpayer or his agent or representative, for the purpose of
verifying the accuracy and completeness of a return filed, or, if no return was
filed, to ascertain the tax, withholding, penalties or interest due under this
ordinance.
(2) The administrator or his duly authorized agent may examine any
person, under oath, concerning income which was or should have been reported
for taxation under this ordinance, and for this purpose may compel the production
of books, papers and records and the attendance of all parties before him, whether
as parties or witnesses, if he believes such persons have knowledge of such
income.
-3-
the ordinances and regulations adopted by the city council are enforced." Hamtramck Charter,
ch IX, § 1. The Hamtramck Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance does not define what is meant
by "administration" of the ordinance. Nor does the city charter specifically define the term
"enforce." Therefore, it is proper to rely on dictionary definitions in determining the meaning of
the terms. Popma v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 446 Mich 460, 470; 521 NW2d 831 (1994).
"Administration" is defined, in part, as "the management and direction of a government,
business, institution, or the like." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1997).
"Enforce" means to "compel obedience to." Id. Both terms are rooted in the power to influence
or control. See id., defining "direction," in part, as "control; supervision" and "compel," in part,
as "to secure or bring about by force or power." As such, we conclude that the mayor's general
obligation to enforce the city's ordinances necessarily includes "administration" of the income
tax ordinance as that term is used in the exception provided in subsection 74(1).
Therefore, defendant Zych's request for the "status report" fell within the exception of §
74, and plaintiff would not have committed a crime had she divulged the information requested
by defendant Zych. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff 's
claim that she was discharged because she refused to violate the law.
Reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition for defendants. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ William B. Murphy
-4-
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.
