Wrongful discharge; Violation of the Veterans’ Preference Act (VPA); Power of the Civil Service Commission & the Legislature when it comes to classified civil service employees; Const 1963, art 11, § 5 & art 4, § 48; Department of Soc Servs v Kulling; Absence of an allegation that the rights protected by Const 1963, art 1, § 2 were violated

In this case alleging wrongful discharge and violation of VPA, the court held that because the Civil Service “Commission possesses plenary power over the state-classified civil service, the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint.” Plaintiff, an honorably discharged military veteran, began working for defendant-State Police in 2012. He was a state civil servant. Defendant terminated his employment in 2021. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in 2022, challenging his termination. The court compared this case to Kulling, where it held that because “the counter-plaintiff did not allege that the plaintiff deprived him of the rights guaranteed under Const 1963, art 1, § 2, and he had the right to present his retaliation claim to the Commission and to appeal that decision to circuit court, . . . the Commission had ‘exclusive jurisdiction over this matter, because it involves a state-classified civil servant.’” The court noted that “Kulling is binding under MCR 7.215(J)(1), and like the counter-plaintiff in Kulling, plaintiff here has not alleged a violation of the rights guaranteed by Const 1963, art 1, § 2, or legislation implementing that section. Nor has he pointed to any other constitutional provision that the VPA was enacted to enforce.” Thus, the trial court “did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s employment-related claims on this basis.” Affirmed.