ficano’s appointees are suing wayne county and the county executive over severance payouts
DESCRIPTION
More at wxyz.comTRANSCRIPT
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
JAMES BUFORD, HASSAN SAAB,CAMERON PRIEBE, KEITH LEE,LEONARD DIXON, and KERREEN CONLEY,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 12- - CK
v. Hon.
COUNTY OF WAYNE, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, and ROBERT A. FICANO, Wayne CountyExecutive in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
Edward D. Plato (P29141)THE PLATO LAW FIRMAttorney for Plaintiffs30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425Farmington Hills, MI 48334Phone (248) 855-6650
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in this Complaint.
Edward Plato (P29141) Attorney for Plaintiffs
NOW COME, PLAINTIFFS, JAMES BUFORD, HASSAN SAAB, CAMERON PRIEBE,
KEITH LEE, LEONARD DIXON, and KERREEN CONLEY by and through their attorney,
Edward D. Plato of THE PLATO LAW FIRM, and state the following for their cause of action
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
against the Defendants named herein and further seek declaratory relief against Defendants,
COUNT OF WAYNE and ROBERT A. FICANO, stating as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AND JURISDICTION
1. That Plaintiff, JAMES BUFORD, is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident
of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff
was and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
2. That Plaintiff, HASSAN SAAB, is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident
of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff
was and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
3. That Plaintiff, CAMERON PRIEBE, is and was at all times relevant hereto a
resident of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto,
Plaintiff was and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
4. That Plaintiff, KEITH LEE, is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of the
County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was
and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
5. That Plaintiff, LEONARD DIXON, is and was at all times relevant hereto a
resident of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto,
Plaintiff was and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
6. That Plaintiff, KERREEN CONLEY, is and was at all times relevant hereto a
resident of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto,
Plaintiff was and is employed with the Defendant, County of Wayne.
2
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
7. That Defendant, COUNTY OF WAYNE (hereinafter “Wayne County”), is a
municipal corporation and at all times relevant hereto was the employer of the Plaintiffs set
forth above.
8. That Defendant, ROBERT A. FICANO (hereinafter “Defendant Ficano”), is a
resident of the County of Wayne, State of Michigan and at all times relevant to this action was
the Wayne County Executive.
9. That jurisdiction in this court is proper as plaintiffs’ seek monetary damages
above the jurisdictional limit of this Court and Defendants’ further seek declaratory relief
pursuant to MCR 2.605.
10. That Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to MCL 600.1615 and further
because the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the County of Wayne and the
principle place of business of Defendant Wayne County is in the County of Wayne.
11. That Plaintiffs are all high ranking County executives and appointees of
Defendant Ficano and are long time employees of Wayne County with a vast amount of
institutional knowledge and expertise in their respective departments.
12. That on or about January 25, 2011, Defendants offered a retirement incentive to
all Wayne County appointees and approximately forty appointees, including Plaintiffs herein,
accepted the retirement incentive which was memorialized in a Separation Agreement and
Release and Waiver of Claims, an exemplary copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”
and the originals of which are in Defendants’ possession.
13. That upon realizing that the County would incur the loss of great institutional
knowledge and valuable expertise when all of the employees offered the retirement incentive
accepted it, fifteen Wayne County employees, including Plaintiffs herein, were specifically
3
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
requested by Defendants to continue their employment with Wayne County and to not
separate from their employment with the County until at least February, 2012. In exchange for
their agreement not to immediately separate from their employment with the County and to
remain until at least February, 2012, Defendants agreed that all of terms of the Separation
Agreement and Release and Waiver of Claims, attached as Exhibit “A” will be made available
to Plaintiffs upon their delayed separation from the County employment in or after February,
2012. This agreement was memorialized in a letter to Plaintiffs and, upon information and
belief, approximately nine other Wayne County appointees, dated February 11, 2011 and
attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
14. That in reliance upon the terms of the Separation Agreement and Release and
Waiver of Claims and in further reliance upon the agreement memorialized in the letter of
February 11, 2011 as described above, approximately fifteen Wayne County employees,
including Plaintiffs herein, agreed to forego their retirement from the County for at least one
year in reliance upon the promise and agreement that the Separation Agreement and Release
and Waiver of Claims, attached as Exhibit “A” would be available and applicable to them once
they separated from employment with the County in or after February, 2012.
15. That in approximately September of 2011, Defendants came under intense public
scrutiny on a well publicized issue concerning a two-hundred thousand dollar severance
payment by Wayne County to Ms. Turkia Mullin when she left her position as Head of
Economic Development for Wayne County to take a position as the Director of the Wayne
County Airport Authority in August of 2011.
16. That subsequent to the media attention and public scrutiny involving the Turkia
Mullin severance payment, Defendant Ficano directed twelve appointees into a meeting, which
4
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
was held on or about October 14, 2011, and at which they were advised that he was revoking
the retirement incentive agreements they had been promised. Subsequently, almost two
months later, Ms. Georgetta Kelly, Wayne County’s Director of Personnel and Human
Resources, notified the Wayne County appointees (who had continued their employment with
the County in reliance upon the Separation Agreement and Release, Exhibit “A”, and the
agreement to extend all terms of the Separation Agreement and make it available to Plaintiffs
when they separate from their County employment in or after February, 2012, Exhibit B,
including Plaintiffs herein) that Defendants were unilaterally rescinding the agreement with
Plaintiffs and the other Wayne County appointees despite Plaintiffs and the others having
continued their employment with Wayne County in full reliance on the agreement with
Defendants.
17. That on January 31, 2012, Plaintiffs herein notified Defendants of their desire to
retire from their employment with Wayne County during one of the agreed upon two week
windows set forth in Defendants letter of February 11, 2011, Exhibit “B”.
18. That Defendants have given no indication that they intend to honor the terms and
conditions of the Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver of Claims, Exhibit “A”, nor
the agreement memorialized in the letter of February 11, 2011, attached as Exhibit “B”. Upon
information and belief, Defendants intend to treat the said agreements as rescinded despite
Plaintiffs’ reliance upon said agreements and continued employment with the County of
Wayne.
5
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT
19. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations made in
paragraphs 1 through 19, above, as if fully set forth herein.
20. That Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into Separation Agreements, an example
of which is attached as Exhibit “A”, and then further agreed that Plaintiffs would not separate
from their employment with the County until or after February 2012 in exchange for Wayne
County honoring the terms of the Separation Agreement for the delayed retirements.
21. That in reliance upon on the agreements between Defendants and Plaintiffs,
attached as Exhibits “A” and “B”, Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, remained in the
employ of Wayne County and did not separate from their employment from the County until or
after February, 2012, in fulfillment of their part of the terms of the agreements.
22. That Defendants have not honored and have breached the agreements
described above or have otherwise wrongly attempted to rescind the agreements which
Plaintiffs have relied upon, all to the detriment of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter Judgment against the
Defendants for compensatory damages in the amount Plaintiffs are entitled for Defendants
breach of contract, together with costs and attorneys fees so wrongfully incurred.
COUNT II – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
23. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations made in
paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth herein.
24. That Defendants Wayne County and Ficano made specific promises to Plaintiffs,
which promises were memorialized in the agreements attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
6
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
Exhibit “B”, while fully knowing that these promises would induce Plaintiffs to delay their
retirement, although they were entitled to retire under the terms of the Separation Agreement
in February 2011 and would induce them to not separate from their employment with Wayne
County until or after February, 2012.
25. That Plaintiffs did continue their employment with Wayne County and delayed
their retirement under the terms of the Separation Agreement and Release, to which they were
entitled, based upon the assurances and promises of Defendants that the terms and conditions
of the Separation Agreement would be made available to them if they separated their
employment from the County until or after February, 2012.
26. That Defendants have not honored and have failed to fulfill the promises made to
Plaintiffs or have otherwise wrongfully attempted to rescind their promises all to the detriment
of the Plaintiffs.
27. That as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Defendants’
promises, Plaintiffs have sustained damages including the compensatory as promised to
Plaintiffs in the Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver of Claims and damages
resulting from Defendants’ failure to fulfill the promises made and wrongful attempt to rescind
their promises.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter Judgment against the
Defendants for compensatory damages in the amount Plaintiffs are entitled for Defendants’
breach of promises made, together with costs and attorneys fees so wrongfully incurred.
7
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
COUNT III – DECLARATORY RELIEF
28. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1 through 28 as if fully set forth herein.
29. That Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief pursuant to MCR 2.605 to obtain a
judicial decree that the agreements between Defendants and Plaintiffs, attached hereto as
Exhibits “A” and “B”, are valid and enforceable and that Defendants’ attempt to unilaterally
rescind these agreements, after Plaintiffs have relied upon them and continued their
employment with Wayne County, is invalid and unenforceable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court, pursuant to
MCR 2.605, make the following declaration of rights:
A. That the Separation Agreement and Release and Waiver of Claims between
Plaintiffs and Defendants, an exemplary copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A”,
and the agreement to make all of the terms of the Separation Agreement
available to Plaintiffs if they agreed to delay their retirement until or after
February, 2012, as memorialized in the letter of February 11, 2011, attached as
Exhibit “B”, are valid and enforceable.
B. That Defendants’ attempt to rescind either or both of these agreements on or
about October 14, 2011, and by letter of the same date, is void, invalid, and
unenforceable.
C. That Plaintiffs may proceed to retire from the County of Wayne, pursuant to the
terms of the Separation Agreement, during one of the two week window periods
of their choosing, as described in Exhibit “B”, with all terms of the Separation
Agreement to be applied.
8
LAW
OF
FIC
ES
TH
E P
LA
TO
LA
W F
IRM
3050
0 N
OR
TH
WE
ST
ER
N H
IGH
WA
Y
S
UIT
E 4
25
F
AR
MIN
GT
ON
HIL
LS, M
ICH
IGA
N 4
8334
(24
8) 8
55-6
650
D. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs and attorneys fees incurred in this action.
E. That the Court order a speedy hearing of this action for declaratory relief and
advance it on the Court’s calendar pursuant to MCR 2.605(D)
F. That the Court grant Plaintiffs such additional and further relief as the Court
deems equitable, just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________Edward D. Plato (P29141)Attorney for PlaintiffsTHE PLATO LAW FIRM30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 425Farmington Hills, MI 48334(248) [email protected]
April 13, 2023
9