Governmental immunity; Odom v Wayne Cnty; Defamation & tortious interference; “Governmental function”; American Transmissions, Inc v Attorney Gen; Motion to file an amended complaint; Gross negligence; Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES); The Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act (MCOLESA); Macomb County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO); Macomb Community College (MCC)

Because defendants-MCOLES and Rosa “were protected by governmental immunity from the tort claims levied against them and any amendment of the complaint would be futile,” the court affirmed the Court of Claims opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants and denying plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs (law enforcement officers) “accused MCOLES, a government agency, of defamation and tortious interference with a contract.” They claimed “that instructors used excessive force, made sexual and sexist comments, and inappropriately touched students during and outside of training exercises.” The court held that “defamation claims against MCOLES go beyond the investigation and are based on the materials released and statements made to the Macomb Daily.” It concluded that governmental “immunity is extended in these circumstances under American Transmissions.” The court noted “MCOLES, through its agent Rosa, responded to a request for information and comment from a reporter about an investigation conducted within MCOLES’s governmental function.” The court determined that governmental “immunity protected MCOLES from tort liability for defamation and the Court of Claims correctly granted summary disposition in defendants’ favor.” The court held that the “Court of Claims also properly granted summary disposition in Rosa’s favor on governmental immunity grounds.” The court held that as “a government employee, Rosa’s right to protection is governed by MCL 691.1407(2), rather than subsection (1).” As described in Odom, “the immunity conferred on governmental employees depends on whether the tort alleged is intentional or negligent. [Plaintiff-] Franks accused Rosa of defamation.” Thus, the court found that “Rosa was entitled to governmental immunity either way.” The court noted that “Rosa was engaged in a governmental function in conducting his investigation and in answering questions posed by the Macomb Daily. Accordingly, the second element of the governmental immunity test is satisfied. Similarly, Rosa was acting within the scope of his authority.” The court noted that as “manager of the MCOLES Standards and Compliance Section, Rosa was tasked with investigating alleged violations of MCOLES’s standards, policies, procedures, laws, and regulations. When the MCSO and MCC brought the allegations of alleged sexual harassment and impropriety to MCOLES’s attention, it was Rosa’s job to investigate, prepare a report, and make recommendations, which he did.” The court found “Franks’s allegations do not rise to the necessary level of ‘gross negligence.’” The court concluded that absent “a showing the MCOLES investigation was conducted with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth, the statements supported by the evidence uncovered during that investigation could not be the result of gross negligence.”