Opinion ID: 1693747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Kidder Court held:

Text: [The economic reality test] examines a number of criteria including [1] control, [2] payment of wages, [3] hiring, firing, [and] the maintenance of discipline, and [4] common objective. These factors are viewed together in their entirety under a totality of the circumstances test. [ Id. at 42, 564 N.W.2d 872.] The majority states that, because the state adjutant general acted as an agent of the federal government, the first factor compels a finding that plaintiff was a federal employee. In other words, the plaintiff was under the control of a federal agent. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the state adjutant general acted as a federal agent. The majority cites Gilliam v. Miller [3] and Leistiko v. Stone [4] to support its assertion that the state adjutant general is an agent of the federal government. I find the majority's reliance on both cases misplaced, because both are distinguishable from the case at issue. In Gilliam, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals simply stated that the Oregon Adjutant General acts as a federal agency for the limited purpose of determining whether the federal Administrative Procedures Act applies. The Ninth Circuit Court was not presented with the question before us, whether a national guard technician is a federal or a state employee. Moreover, in Leistiko, there was no discussion about whether a state official acts as a federal agent. I find compelling the fact that the Michigan Legislature created the office of the adjutant general. M.C.L. § 32.700; M.S.A. § 4.678(300). In fact, it vested our Governor with the authority to appoint the adjutant general. [5] One of the adjutant general's duties is to act as liaison in the transaction of official business for the state.... [6] Therefore, the Legislature intended the state adjutant general to be a state agent, not a federal agent. The state adjutant general has the authority to employ, command, and control the day-to-day activities of the technicians. Accordingly, plaintiff was in the control of the state. Likewise, the same analysis would apply to factor three of the test, because the state adjutant general is vested with the authority to hire, fire, and maintain discipline over plaintiff. As to factor two, wages, it is undisputed that plaintiff received his wages from federal funds. However, in Tulppo v. Ontonagon Co., [7] the Court of Appeals stated that federal funding is not dispositive as a factor to determine whether an employee is a state or federal employee. Thus, the fact that plaintiff was paid from federal funds does not carry great weight. Finally, as to factor four, common objective, the majority holds that plaintiff's work as a technician was part of the common objective of the federal government. However, the majority conveniently ignores the fact that a person enlisting in the national guard takes an oath to defend not only the United States, but also the Constitution of the State of Michigan. M.C.L. § 32.625; M.S.A. § 4.678(225). This provides further support that plaintiff was both a state and a federal employee. Factors one, three, and four favor a finding that plaintiff was employed by the state of Michigan. Therefore, I would conclude that plaintiff's employment was covered under § 161(1)(a). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., concurs with MARILYN J. KELLY, J.