Opinion ID: 842360
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the method of measurement under mcl 15.602(2)

Text: Defendant maintains that the Legislature's failure to define the method of measuring the 20-mile minimum distance in § 2 renders the statute ambiguous, because the term 20 miles is susceptible to being measured in either radial miles or road miles. Moreover, defendant claims that this ambiguity is easily resolved by looking to the purpose of the statute, which defendant claims is to ensure that employees' travel time is not too long. However, we reject defendant's claim that the statute is ambiguous. As an initial matter, the plain meaning of the word mile is a measurement of a distance totaling 5,280 feet. [11] Nothing in the ordinary definition of the word indicates that this distance is to be measured along available routes of public travel. [12] Certainly, had the Legislature desired that the permissible residency restriction be measured in road miles or along roadways it surely could have said so. [13] We presume that the Legislature intended the common meaning of the words used in the statute, and we may not substitute alternative language for that used by the Legislature. [14] Because inserting the word road before miles in the statute subverts the plain language of the statute, defendant's preferred interpretation fails. [15] The context of the statute provides further support for the conclusion that the distance stated in MCL 15.602(2) is to be measured linearly. The statute specifically provides that the 20-mile distance is to be measured from an employee's property to the nearest boundary of the public employer. In contrast to use of the phrase nearest road, for example, use of the phrase nearest boundary does not contemplate a travel route, because the nearest boundary of the public employer might be in a field, in the middle of a lake, or in a backyard. Thus, the fact that the statute specifies one terminus without consideration of navigability further militates in favor of measuring the permissible residency requirement in radial miles. We also observe that defendant's claimed statutory purpose is completely contrary to the structure of the statute. Defendant claims that road miles are the proper method of measurement because the purpose of MCL 15.602(2) is to ensure that an employee's travel time to get to work is not too long. Defendant notes that efficient travel time is especially critical for police, fire, or emergency personnel. However, the general prohibition on residency requirements contained in § 1 prohibits an employer from requiring that an employee reside within either a specified distance or travel time from the employee's workplace. In contrast, the permissible parameter contained in the § 2 exception allows an employer to impose a residency requirement that is a specified distance from the nearest municipal boundary. The issue of travel time is conspicuously absent in § 2, indicating that travel time is not a permitted consideration when imposing a residency requirement. Moreover, while the Legislature could certainly have excepted police or other emergency personnel from the general residency requirement prohibition, MCL 15.602(4) indicates that only on-call firefighters, elected officials, and unpaid appointed officials are excluded from the prohibition stated in MCL 15.602(1). We therefore hold that, where a public employer requires an employee to reside 20 miles from the employer's nearest boundary as permitted by MCL 15.602(2), this distance is properly measured in a straight line between the employee's place of residence and the nearest boundary of the public employer. Because defendant's residency requirement obligated plaintiff to reside within 15 radial miles or 20 road miles from defendant's limit, its residency requirement is violative of the statute. [16]