Defendant county commissioner also served on the County's Criminal Justice and County Affairs Committee, which was responsible for reviewing Plaintiff's job performance, and the Humane Animal Treatment Society (HATS), an advocacy group.

Plaintiff presented evidence that HATS was vying for control of the animal shelter, in part, because of the difference in belief between HATS members and Plaintiff regarding euthanasia of shelter animals.  This evidence included emails from the Defendant acting "as a member of HATS."  The trial court found that a question of fact existed regarding Defendant's motives in the employment action. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government is immune from tort liability if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority.  Here, the Court found that Defendant may have been acting outside the scope of his authority by creating a potential conflict of interest.  MCL 46.30 prohibits a county commissioner from having a direct or indirect interest "in any contract or other business transaction with the county" unless the board is cognizant of the member's interest and three-quarters of the board approves the contract or transaction.  No such waiver or super majority approval was noted.

Conflict of interest issues are ever-present in municipal affairs.  Advanced screenings of possible conflicts should be reviewed with legal counsel.  If such investigations are not perused, a local government may lose the benefits of Michigan's governmental immunity standard.  In this case, the costs of litigation will continue as the question of fact regarding Defendant's motives is left to a jury determination.