PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT
Act 205 of 1897
35.401 Veteran; preference for appointment and public employment; effect of physical impairment; vacancy in elective office; qualifications; conflict with MCL 38.401 to 38.428; "veteran" defined.
Sec. 1.
(1) In every public department and upon the public works of the state and of every county and municipal corporation of this state, a veteran shall be preferred for appointment and employment. Age, loss of limb, or other physical impairment that does not, in fact, incapacitate, does not disqualify them. If it is necessary to fill by appointment a vacancy occurring in an elective office, the appointment is subject to this act. The applicant shall be of good moral character and shall have been a resident of the state for at least 2 years and possess other requisite qualifications, after credit allowed by any civil service laws. If there is a conflict between this act and 1941 PA 370, MCL 38.401 to 38.428, 1941 PA 370, MCL 38.401 to 38.428, shall prevail.
(2) As used in this section, "veteran" means an individual who meets both of the following:
(a) Is a veteran as defined in section 1 of 1965 PA 190, MCL 35.61.
(b) Was honorably discharged.
History: 1897, Act 205, Eff. Aug. 30, 1897 ;-- CL 1897, 1690 ;-- Am. 1899, Act 85, Imd. Eff. May 25, 1899 ;-- Am. 1907, Act 329, Eff. Sept. 28, 1907 ;-- CL 1915, 1041 ;-- Am. 1919, Act 224, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1923, Act 88, Eff. Aug. 30, 1923 ;-- CL 1929, 900 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 66, Imd. Eff. May 4, 1931 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 298, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- Am. 1944, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 22, Imd. Eff. Feb. 29, 1944 ;-- CL 1948, 35.401 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 179, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 121, Imd. Eff. May 14, 1976 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 28, Imd. Eff. Mar. 13, 2008 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 211, Eff. Sept. 20, 2016
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case:
Sherrod v. City of Detroit, 625 N.W.2d 437 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Sherrod v. City of Detroit, 625 N.W.2d 437 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “1221] holding an office or employment in any public department or public works of the state or any county, city or township or village of the state, except heads of departments, members of commissions, and boards and heads of institutions appointed by the governor and officers…”
Leelanau Cnty. Sheriff v. Kiessel, 824 N.W.2d 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Defendant James Kiessel appeals by right a circuit court order granting plaintiffs the Leelanau County Sheriff and Leelanau County a writ of superintending control vacating an order of the Leelanau County Prosecuting Attorney (PA), who was serving as a hearing officer under the…”
Carter v. Ann Arbor City Attorney, 722 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “When two others were ultimately hired for the available positions, plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Ann Arbor City Attorney to employ him as an assistant city attorney. Plaintiff asserted that because he is a veteran and qualified for the…”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“402 of the veterans preference act (VPA), MCL 35.401 et seq . The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, Charles Vayda, was entitled to notice and a hearing under the VPA before the termination of his employment with the Lake County Sheriff's Office after he became a member of…”
Dearborn Heights Sch. Dist. No 7 v. Wayne Cnty. MEA/NEA, 592 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“The plaintiff then brought claims under the veterans’ preference act, MCL 35.401 et seq.; MSA 4.1221 et seq. In lieu of conducting a full hearing, the parties stipulated that the court could use the plaintiff’s record from the proceedings before the Michigan Employment Security…”
In Re Grant, 645 N.W.2d 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Plaintiff alleges that the discharge was in violation of the procedures outlined in the Veterans’ Preference Act (vpa), MCL 35.401 et seq., and that in reviewing the matter the circuit court failed to properly employ the applicable standard of review.”
Bajis v. City of Dearborn, 391 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“The requirement of "good moral character” as set forth in MCL 35.401; MSA 4.1221, applies only to applicants for positions.”
Jackson v. Detroit Police Chief, 506 N.W.2d 251 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Hart, seeking a declaration of his right to protection under the veterans’ preference act (vpa), MCL 35.401 et seq.; MSA 4.1221 et seq. The trial court summarily dismissed plaintiffs complaint pursuant to MCR 2.”
Beadling v. Governor of Michigan, 308 N.W.2d 269 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“On February 7, 1977, plaintiff wrote to the Governor and requested a hearing concerning his discharge pursuant to the preference in employment act, MCL 35.401 et seq.; MSA 4.1221 et seq. 2 *533 Plaintiff received a response from the Governor one week later which indicated that…”
Lenz v. Mayor of Detroit, 73 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. 1955).
· cites it 2× “The statute involved is PA 1897, No 205, as amended (CL 1948, § 35.401 et seq. [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 4.1221 et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 35.401(1) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 35.401(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.