Breach of Contract Cases

Robert D. Herrick vs. Essex Regional Retirement Board & another. No. 09-P-1351. Essex. April 13, 2010. September 10, 2010. Present: Kantrowitz, McHugh, & Fecteau, JJ. Retirement. Municipal Corporations, Retirement board. Public Employment, Retirement benefits, Forfeiture of retirement benefits. Administrative Law, Agency’s interpretation of statute. Statute, Construction. Words, “Removal,” “Discharge.” Discussion of the standard of review of an administrative agency’s decision involving interpretation of a statute. [647-648] A Superior Court judge, in reversing a decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board denying the plaintiff employee’s application for a superannuation retirement allowance, correctly concluded that under G. L. c. 32, § 10(1), the qualifying phrase “without moral turpitude” did not apply to the circumstances of the plaintiff’s application, where that phrase applied only to employees removed or discharged from employment [648-652]; moreover, the judge correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s resignation, seen as occurring under the threat of removal, did not amount to constructive removal within the meaning of the words “removed or discharged” in the statute [652-653]; finally, the judge correctly concluded that forfeiture of the plaintiff’s pension was not required under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), where there was no connection shown directly linking the plaintiff’s public position and the offense of which he was convicted [653-655], Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 24, 2005. The case was heard by Maureen B. Hogan, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings. Christopher T. Casey for Essex Regional Retirement Board. H. Ernest Stone for the plaintiff. The Contributory Retirement Appeal Board is a nominal party; it has not participated in this appeal. This matter has been the subject of a prior appeal. See Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 187 (2007). Fecteau, J. The Essex Regional Retirement Board (ERRB) appeals from a Superior Court judgment that reversed the denial of Robert D. Herrick’s application for a superannuation retirement. ERRB denied Herrick’s application on the ground that he had forfeited his right to a pension due to “moral turpitude” as provided in G. L. c. 32, § 10(1). A magistrate in the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) upheld that decision. The Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) affirmed in a divided decision, the majority stating that “the behavior attendant to Herrick’s resignation was moral turpitude,” and finding that the phrase “without moral turpitude” could not have been intended by the Legislature to be confined to “removed or discharged” employees. On cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, a Superior Court judge reversed on the ground that CRAB (and the other entities before it) had committed an error of law in their interpretation of c. 32, § 10(1). The judge also disagreed with the alternative ground argued by ERRB that Herrick’s pension was forfeited by operation of G. L. c. 32, § 15(4). Notwithstanding that this contention was raised for the first time in Superior Court, the judge considered it, nonetheless, for the sake of completeness. Because we agree that the statute in question does not permit the forfeiture of Herrick’s pension, the denial of his application for superannuation retirement benefits was error and must be reversed. Thus, we affirm the judgment. Background. Briefly, at the time of his retirement, Herrick worked as a maintenance mechanic and custodian for the Wen-ham Housing Authority (Authority), and through that employment (and prior employment with the town of Hamilton) was a member of ERRB. On May 1, 2003, Herrick was charged with sexually assaulting his daughter. That same day he resigned his position with the Authority and, on May 6, 2003, submitted an application for voluntary superannuation retirement pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 5. On May 15, 2003, he pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child and was sentenced to two and one-half years in jail, eighteen months of which to serve. On June 27, 2003, ERRB denied Herrick’s application for retirement benefits. Herrick appealed from that decision. A hearing was conducted by a DALA magistrate on July 1, 2004, resulting in a decision affirming ERRB’s decision. Herrick then appealed from that decision to CRAB, which affirmed the denial of Herrick’s pension application, in a two-to-one decision. Herrick then sought timely judicial review in Superior Court, where both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. Discussion. This case presents an issue of statutory construction. The standards of law applicable to the issue before us were recently summarized in Tabroff v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 131, 133-134 (2007), quoting from Retirement Bd. of Taunton v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 915 (2002) (citation omitted): “Massachusetts courts give great deference to decisions of administrative agencies. An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute has long been relied on by Massachusetts courts ‘because of the agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge.’ ” See Nuclear Metals, Inc. v. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Mgmt. Bd., 421 Mass. 196, 211 (1995), quoting from Celia, Administrative Law & Practice § 747 (1986) (“A State administrative agency in Massachusetts has considerable leeway in interpreting a statute it is charged with enforcing”). While the court recognizes that reasonable interpretations of statutes by agencies are entitled to deference, “[a]n erroneous interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency is not entitled to deference.” Woods v. Executive Office of Communities & Dev., 411 Mass. 599, 606 (1992). “Deference is not abdication. It does not permit a detectable ‘error of law’ by the agency.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 203, 209 (2009), quoting from Heineken U.S.A., Inc. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 567, 572 (2004). “If an agency interpretation were to collide with the plain meaning of a statute, the agency view would have to give way.” Anheuser-Busch, supra at 209. “We should not disturb an administrative agency’s decision unless we determine ‘that the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced’ based on one of the reasons set forth in G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). The deference normally accorded to an administrative agency’s decision is no longer appropriate when that agency commits an error of law, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(c), or its decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e).” Tabroff, supra at 134 (footnote omitted). G. L. c. 32, § 10(1). We turn first to the scope of the statute’s qualifying phrase “without moral turpitude.” Herrick contends that it applies only to the situation where a member of a public retirement system is “removed or discharged.” The basis on which ERRB denied Herrick’s pension application, a determination with which CRAB agreed, is that the phrase “without moral turpitude” modifies all applications for retirement, including those submitted after a member resigns. In a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision, the Superior Court judge disagreed with this interpretation, applying general principles of statutory construction and grammatical rules; she concluded that the qualifier “without moral turpitude” applied only to those removed or discharged from employment, not to all other antecedent phrases in the statute. As expressed in Collatos v. Boston Retirement Bd., 396 Mass. 684, 686 (1986) (citations omitted), “[a] statute designed to enforce the law by punishing offenders, rather than simply by enforcing restitution to those damaged, is in the nature of a penal statute. Forfeiture of property ... is punitive.” “Penal statutes must be construed strictly ‘and not extended by equity, or by the probable or supposed intention of the legislature as derived from doubtful words; but that in order to charge a party with a penalty, he must be brought within its operation, as manifested by express words or necessary implication.’ ” Id. at 686-687, quoting from Libby v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 273 Mass. 522, 525-526 (1930). “We examine the statute, therefore, particularly mindful that its words are not to be stretched to accomplish a result not expressed.” Collates, supra at 687. “A fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation is that statutory language should be given effect consistent with its plain meaning and in light of the aim of the Legislature unless to do so would achieve an illogical result.” Sullivan v. Brookline, 435 Mass. 353, 360 (2001). Agency expertise or policy preference cannot alter the plain meaning of unambiguous statutory language. See especially M.H. Gordon & Son, Inc. v. Alcoholic Bevs. Control Commn., 371 Mass. 584, 588-590 (1976) (courts cannot acquiesce in expedient enlargement of administrative authority or jurisdiction unsupported by statutory terms). See also Commonwealth v. Vickey, 381 Mass. 762, 767 (1980) (“a basic tenet of statutory construction is to give the words their plain meaning in light of the aim of the Legislature, and when the statute appears not to provide for an eventuality, there is no justification for judicial legislation”). “[W]hen the meaning of a statute is at issue, the initial inquiry focuses on the actual language of that statute. ‘Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to legislative intent.’ ” Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commn. v. Board of Assessors of W. Tisbury, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 27 (2004), quoting from Pyle v. School Comm. of S. Hadley, 423 Mass. 283, 285 (1996). “A statute is plain and unambiguous if ‘virtually anyone competent to understand it, and desiring fairly and impartially to ascertain its signification, would attribute to the expression in its context a meaning such as the one we derive, rather than any other; and would consider any different meaning, by comparison, strained, or far-fetched, or unusual, or unlikely.’ ” Martha’s Vineyard, supra at 28 n.4, quoting from New England Med. Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 381 Mass. 748, 750 (1980). “A fundamental and well-established principle of statutory interpretation ‘is that a statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers may be effectuated.’ ” Fleet Natl. Bank v. Commissioner of Rev., 448 Mass. 441, 448 (2007), quoting from Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). See Sullivan, supra. Turning, then, to the words of the statute, as the judge observed: “[t]he ‘rule of the last antecedent’ holds that, unless there is something in the subject matter, dominant purpose, or language of the statute that requires a different interpretation, ‘qualifying phrases are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding and are not to be construed as extending to others more remote.’ Russell v. Boston Wyman, Inc., 410 Mass. 1005, 1006-1007 (1991), quoting [from] United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741, 751 [(1st Cir. 1985)]. ... ‘It is the general rule of statutory as well as grammatical construction that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless there is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation. . . . According to (this rule) of constmction a proviso or an exception is also presumed to be confined to the last antecedent.’ Moulton v. Brookline Rent Control Bd., 385 Mass. 228, 230-231 (1982) (citations omitted).” Thus, since the antecedent phrases of the statute are separated from the qualifier by commas, the qualifier applies only to the immediate antecedent within the same phrase that was not separated from “without moral turpitude” by a comma. The logic of her interpretation becomes apparent when the use of the phrase “without moral turpitude” is examined in connection with the two means, provided by § 10(1), under which a member may be qualified to retire: (1) “after completing twenty or more years of creditable service,” and (2) “having attained age fifty-five.” In relation to the former, the situation when a member’s “office or position is abolished” is immediately antecedent to the phrase “without moral turpitude,” but abolishment of position is clearly unrelated to moral turpitude. This conclusion is compelled when compared to the latter “age fifty-five” retirement, since the phrase “removed or discharged from his office or position without moral turpitude on his part,” is followed by the phrase “or any such member whose office or position is abolished,” a situation that does not require that it be “without moral turpitude,” as such condition is not included. See note 2, supra. Similarly, the judge’s interpretation that the phrase “without moral turpitude” relates only to “removed or discharged” is supported by her comparison of § 10(1) with § 10(2)(¿ti/2). As she points out, the latter section, which pertains to an application for retirement benefits from a member who resigns after ten years of service, does not contain the phrase “without moral turpitude.” That “without moral turpitude” was intended to modify only “removed or discharged” is also evident from G. L. c. 32, § 10(2)(a), inserted by St. 2002, c. 184, § 46, which states that “[t]he retirement board shall require the employer of any employee applying for a termination retirement allowance to certify in writing, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that one of the following circumstances applies: (1) that the employee has failed of nomination or re-election, (2) that the employee has failed of reappointment, (3) that the employee’s office or position has been abolished, or (4) that the employee has been removed or discharged from his position without moral turpitude on his part.” The Superior Court judge’s decision cited, and was consistent with, the only authority on point, two opinions from the Attorney General which recognized that retirement under the threat of removal is not the equivalent of removal or discharge under c. 32, § 10(1) or § 10(2). See Opinion of the Attorney General, Rep. A.G., Pub. Doc. No. 12, at 134-135 (1963); Opinion of the Attorney General, Rep. A.G., Pub. Doc. No. 12, at 172-174 (1977). Moreover, such an interpretation is consistent with a view supported by decisions of both the Supreme Judicial Court and this court, albeit in dicta. See Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. Retirement Bd., 397 Mass. 734, 739 (1986) (“there are laws of the Commonwealth which preclude the payment of retirement benefits to certain public employees who are discharged or convicted for misconduct in office. See G. L. c. 32, § 10[1] [1984 ed.]”); Brown v. Taunton, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 614, 619 n.6 (1983) (“[w]e note . . . that the ‘moral turpitude’ provisions of G. L. c. 32, § 10(1), do not apply since the plaintiff was not ‘removed or discharged from his office’ ”). Threatened removal. ERRB contends additionally that Herrick’s pension can be forfeited because his resignation, seen as occurring under threat of removal, amounts to constructive removal. Technically, this misapplies the concept of constructive discharge to the facts of this case since Herrick’s motivation to leave his employ was not due to actions of the employer. GTE Prod. Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22, 34-35 (1995). More broadly, however, ERRB seeks to extend the meaning of “removed or discharged” to be able to reach members who retire under a cloud, in the face of possible or likely removal or discharge for reasons of criminal prosecution for offenses of moral turpitude. Addressing a similar question, the Attorney General opined “that the term ‘removal or discharge’ is not so broad that it sweeps within the ambit of G. L. c. 32, § 10(2)(c), a resignation arguably tendered to forestall removal. It is a basic maxim of statutory construction that the words of a statute are to be read in accordance with their common and approved usage and are not to be stretched beyond their fair meaning in order to rationalize a particular result. The words ‘removal’ and ‘discharge’ connote an affirmative act by one’s employer and have a common usage significantly different from the word ‘resignation,’ which implies an act by the employee. Indeed the difference between the terms is apparent in the terms of G. L. c. 32, § 10, in which the words ‘removal or discharge’ and ‘resigns’ are repeatedly used to describe different situations. Since words used in different portions of a statute are ordinarily given the same meaning throughout, it would be an anomaly of statutory construction to extend the scope of G. L. c. 32, § 10(2)(c), to include resignations as well as removals, when they are made distinct by the immediately preceding language of § 10.” Opinion of the Attorney General, Rep. A.G., Pub. Doc. No. 12, at 173-174 (1977) (citations omitted). The same rationale can be applied to § 10(1). To hold otherwise, and to permit “removed or discharged” to be stretched to accommodate the kind of “constructive” removal suggested by ERRB, would permit it to inquire into, evaluate, and weigh reasons that motivated the retirement of a member. Such an interpretation would invite decisions based not upon an identifiable record of proceedings that lead an employer to an objectively discernible removal of its employee, but instead upon subjective criteria that are prone to a range of ills that objective criteria are designed to prevent. As suggested by the judge, ERRB’s reliance on DeLeire v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (1993), is misplaced. There, the member was suspended from his position and sentenced to prison prior to his attempted resignation. Accordingly, the position was considered vacant by operation of G. L. c. 279, § 30, and such “removal” or “discharge” was plainly with “moral turpitude.” Here, however, Herrick, resigned and applied for retirement prior to his conviction. Moreover, significant to the holding in DeLeire, but distinguishable from the case at bar, was the operation of G. L. c. 268A, § 25, which precludes payment of retirement benefits to certain suspended employees, and the court’s holding that the letter of resignation submitted in that case was not sufficient to end the employee’s suspension. G. L. c. 32, § 15(4). ERRB also argues that forfeiture of Herrick’s pension is required pursuant to the provision of G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), which prohibits a member, “after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position,” from receiving a pension. Herrick contends that his conviction was for an offense that did not apply to his position. In consideration of the cases that have interpreted § 15(4), we decide that this subsection does not apply to the circumstances of the instant case. Similar to c. 32, § 10(1), § 15(4) has been held as penal in nature, thus strictly construed. Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1, 3 n.3 (1996). In Gaffney, supra at 4-5, the court stated that “[t]he substantive touchstone intended by the General Court [when it enacted G. L. c. 32, § 15(4),] is criminal activity connected with the office or position. Yet it is also apparent that the General Court did not intend pension forfeiture to follow as a sequelae of any and all criminal convictions. Only those violations related to the member’s official capacity were targeted. Looking to the facts of each case for a direct link between the criminal offense and the member’s office o

LANSING SCHOOLS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION Docket No. 138401. Argued April 13,2010 (Calendar No. 3). Decided July 31, 2010. The Lansing Schools Education Association, MEA/NEA and four of its member teachers who alleged that they were physically assaulted by students in grade six or above brought an action in the Ingham Circuit Court against the Lansing Board of Education and the Lansing School District. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding the parties’ rights and legal relations under MCL 380.1311a, which concerns physical assaults by students in grade six or above against a person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a school board. Plaintiffs also sought a writ of mandamus ordering defendants to expel, rather than suspend, the students and a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from violating the statute in the future. The court, Thomas L. Brown, J., granted summary disposition for defendants, ruling that the school board has the discretion to determine whether a physical assault occurred within the meaning of the statute and concluding that the court should not oversee the individual disciplinary decisions of a local school hoard. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Saad, C.J., and Fitzgerald and Beckering, JJ., affirmed, holding that plaintiffs had not established the elements of constitutional standing required under Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726 (2001). 282 Mich App 165 (2009). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal. 485 Mich 966 (2009). In an opinion by Justice Cavanagh, joined by Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Weaver (in part) and Hathaway, the Supreme Court held'. The standing doctrine adopted in Lee lacks a basis in the Michigan Constitution and is inconsistent with Michigan’s historical approach to standing. Therefore, Lee and its progeny are overruled and Michigan standing jurisprudence is restored to its historical limited, prudential approach. In this case, plaintiffs have standing because they have a substantial interest in the enforcement of MCL 380.1311a that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large if the statute is not enforced. 1. Standing developed in Michigan as a limited, prudential doctrine that was intended to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy by litigants. Where a cause of action was not provided at law, the Court, in its discretion, would consider whether a litigant had standing based on a special injury or right or substantial interest that would be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large, or because, in the context of a statutory scheme, the Legislature had intended to confer standing on the litigant. It was not necessary to address the merits of the case in order to address standing. 2. There is no support in either the text of the Michigan Constitution or in Michigan jurisprudence for the adoption by Lee and its progeny of standing as a constitutional requirement, or for adopting the federal standing doctrine. Unlike the Michigan Constitution, the federal constitution enumerates the cases and controversies to which the judicial power extends, and the federal standing doctrine is largely derived from this case-or-controversy requirement. The Michigan Constitution lacks an express basis for importing this requirement into Michigan law. Further, strictly interpreting the judicial power of Michigan courts to be identical to the federal court’s judicial power does not reflect the fact that state courts hold broader power than their federal counterparts. 3. A litigant has standing whenever there is a legal cause of action. Meeting the requirements of MCR 2.605 is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment. Where a cause of action is not provided at law, a court should, in its discretion, determine whether a litigant has standing. A litigant may have standing in this context if the litigant has a special injury or right, or a substantial interest, that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large or if the statutory scheme implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the litigant. Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals. Justice Weaver concurred in all of the majority opinion except the part pertaining to stare decisis. She wrote separately to state that Lee and its progeny defied common sense and fairness by ignoring the Michigan Constitution and imposing unprecedented judge-made restrictions on access to the courts. With regard to stare decisis, she stated that past precedent should generally be followed, but when deciding to overrule wrongly decided precedent, to serve the rule of law, each case should be looked at individually on its own facts and merits through the lens of judicial restraint, common sense, and fairness. Justice Hathaway fully concurred with the majority opinion and agreed with Justice Weaver’s criticisms of Lee. She wrote separately to state her view that stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a rule or law subject to a particularized test in all circumstances. The approach taken will depend on the facts and circumstances presented. The special and compelling justifications for overruling Lee are overwhelming in this case. Justice Corrigan, joined by Justices Young and Maekman, dissenting, would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the majority’s decision granting standing to the plaintiffs to seek court-ordered expulsion of students from their schools is untenable because MCL 380.1311a(l) does not create an enforceable right in teachers and because the students’ constitutional due process rights cannot be protected since the students are not parties to this collateral suit. The majority’s decision to overrule Lee — thereby also overruling at least eight other significant cases — ignores that standing requirements define the judicial power and thus are constitutionally based and integral to the separation of powers inherent in a tripartite system of government. Lee acknowledged the constitutional restraints on judicial power and adopted the following practical, workable test that has been used successfully in Michigan and many other jurisdictions: the plaintiff must have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent; there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court. The majority’s amorphous new approach to standing, in contrast, is unprincipled, is opportunistic, and aggregates limitless power in the courts. In overruling Lee, the majority further damages the rule of law because it disregards the doctrine of stare decisis by failing to analyze its decision under any consistent standard for overruling precedent. The majority’s positions with regard to standing and stare decisis are also directly contrary to its own views in the past, when members of the current majority advocated against overruling precedent and adopted the Lee test as correct and binding. The majority’s decision will create instability throughout Michigan law and encourage spurious lawsuits. 1. Actions — Standing. A litigant has standing whenever there is a legal cause of action. 2. Actions - Standing - Declaratory Judgments. Meeting the requirements of MCR 2.605 is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment. 3. Actions — Standing. Where a cause of action is not provided at law, a court should, in its discretion, establish whether a litigant has standing by determining whether the litigant has a special injury or right, or a substantial interest, that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large or whether the statutory scheme implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the litigant. White, Schneider, Young & Chiodini, P.C. (by Michael M. Shoudy and Dena Lampinen Lorenz), for plaintiffs. Thrun Law Firm, PC. (by Margaret M. Hackett), for defendants. Amici Curiae: Neil S. Kagan for the National Wildlife Federation. Clark Hill PLC (by David D. Grande-Cassell and Kristin B. Bellar) for the Michigan Manufacturers Association. Brad A. Banasik for the Michigan Association of School Boards. CAVANAGH, J. The issue in this case is whether teachers have standing to sue the school board for failing to comply with its statutory duty to expel students who have allegedly physically assaulted those teachers. We hold that the standing doctrine adopted in Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726; 629 NW2d 900 (2001), and extended in later cases, such as Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608; 684 NW2d 800 (2004), lacks a basis in the Michigan Constitution and is inconsistent with Michigan’s historical approach to standing. Therefore, we overrule Lee and its progeny and hold that Michigan standing jurisprudence should be restored to a limited, prudential approach that is consistent with Michigan’s longstanding historical approach to standing. Under the proper standing doctrine, we further hold that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that plaintiffs lacked standing. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals to address the parties’ remaining issues, including whether plaintiffs meet the requirements to bring an action for a declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs are the Lansing School Education Association (LSEA), the Michigan and National Education Associations (MEA/NEA), and four teachers who are employed by defendants, the Lansing School District and the Lansing Board of Education. Each of the four teachers alleges that they were physically assaulted in the classroom by a student who was in grade six or higher, and each of the incidents was reported to a school administrator. The students were suspended but not expelled. Plaintiff Penny Filonczuk alleges that the assaultive student was returned to her building, but not to her classroom, and none of the other teachers alleges that the student was returned to the same classroom or school. Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that defendants failed to comply with their mandatory duty under MCL 380.1311a(l) to expel students who physically assault a teacher. They sought a writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief. In support of the action, three of the teachers filed affidavits stating that they believe that failing to expel students who physically assault a teacher increases the likelihood of other assaults and threatens the safety of the school environment. Plaintiff Filonczuk further stated that she felt discomfort due to the student’s return to her building, and the other two teachers stated that they would have felt unsafe if the students who assaulted them had returned to their buildings. Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs lack standing, the statute does not create a private cause of action, and plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because the school district did not abuse its discretionary authority in determining that none of the students had committed an “assault.” .The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that the court lacked the authority to supervise the school district’s exercise of its discretion. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on different grounds. Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n, MEA/NEA v Lansing Bd of Ed, 282 Mich App 165; 772 NW2d 784 (2009). The Court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing under Lee and did not reach the case’s merits. This Court granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal. 485 Mich 966 (2009). II. ANALYSIS The issue in this case is whether the Lee/Cleveland Cliffs majority erred in adopting a standing doctrine that departed dramatically from Michigan’s historical approach to standing. We hold that they did and that Michigan’s standing doctrine should be restored to an approach that is consistent with the limited, prudential approach used historically. Under this approach, plaintiffs do not lack standing. A. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MICHIGAN’S STANDING DOCTRINE The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to “ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n v Detroit, 449 Mich 629, 633; 537 NW2d 436 (1995). Thus, the standing inquiry focuses on whether a litigant “is a proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable.” Allstate Ins Co v Hayes, 442 Mich 56, 68; 499 NW2d 743 (1993) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This doctrine has deep roots in Michigan law, and, although it has been used with increasing frequency in modern jurisprudence, before Lee it remained a limited, prudential doctrine. Historically, the standing doctrine grew out of cases where parties were seeking writs of mandamus to compel a public officer to perform a statutory duty. See, e.g., People ex rel Ayres v Bd of State Auditors, 42 Mich 422, 429-430; 4 NW 274 (1880); People ex rel Drake v Univ of Mich Regents, 4 Mich 98, 101-102 (1856). Standing was a prudential limit, which is to say that the court’s decision to invoke it was “one of discretion and not of law.” Ayres, 42 Mich at 429. See, also, Toan v McGinn, 271 Mich 28, 33-34; 260 NW 108 (1935); Thompson v Secretary of State, 192 Mich 512, 522; 159 NW 65 (1916); Drake, 4 Mich at 103. The general rule was that a court would not hear a case where “an individual citizen, who is only interested in common with all other citizens of the state in the subject matter of [the] complaint,” was suing a public entity to force compliance with a legal duty. Drake, 4 Mich at 101-102. Generally, the court exercised its discretion to hear a case if the citizen had “some individual interest in the subject matter of [the] complaint which is not common to all the citizens of the state ....” Id. at 103. This was sometimes articulated as a special or specific injury or interest. Inglis v Pub Sch Employees Retirement Bd, 374 Mich 10, 13; 131 NW2d 54 (1964); Hastings Bd of Ed v Gilleland, 191 Mich 276, 278; 157 NW 609 (1916); Brophy v Schindler, 126 Mich 341, 347; 85 NW 1114 (1901). This rule was eventually applied in other cases where a party sought enforcement of a public right without a clear cause of action under the law, including where a plaintiff was seeking an injunction against a state agency on the basis that the agency’s actions were unconstitutional. Home Tel Co v Michigan R Comm, 174 Mich 219, 223-226; 140 NW 496 (1913). See, also, Gilleland, 191 Mich at 278, listing remedies to which the rule had been extended. Notably, these cases only discussed the doctrine when no cause of action was clearly provided under law and the Court was deciding whether, within its discretion, to allow the party to bring the claim despite the lack of an express cause of action. Further, the standing inquiry was distinct from the merits of the case. Thus, although the Court sometimes reached the merits of a case despite concluding that a party lacked standing, the Court did not find it necessary to determine whether a party’s claim had merit in order to determine whether a party had standing. References to standing became more frequent in Michigan’s modern jurisprudence, and the doctrine was developed more extensively but remained a prudential limit that could, within the Court’s discretion, be ignored. Further, the fact that there was a cause of action under law, or the Legislature expressly conferred standing, was sufficient to establish standing. Where a party was seeking declaratory relief, the Court repeatedly held that meeting the requirements of the court rule governing declaratory actions was sufficient to establish standing. House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560, 572-573; 506 NW2d 190 (1993); Allstate, 442 Mich at 69-70; Sloan v Madison Hts, 425 Mich 288, 294-295; 389 NW2d 418 (1986). See, also, East Grand Rapids Sch Dist v Kent Co Tax Allocation Bd, 415 Mich 381, 392-395; 330 NW2d 7 (1982); Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477, 492 n 1; 274 NW2d 373 (1979); Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 588-592; 267 NW2d 72 (1978). The Court also reaffirmed that “[standing does not address the ultimate merits of the substantive claims of the parties.” Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, 449 Mich at 633 (opinion by Weaver, J.). See also Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 50 n 16; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (opinion by Griffin, J.) (treating standing as an inquiry that was distinct from whether the plaintiffs requested remedy was available). While the doctrine continued to serve the purpose of ensuring “sincere and vigorous advocacy” by litigants, over time the test for satisfying this requirement was further developed. In cases involving public rights, the Court held that a litigant established standing by demonstrating a “substantial interest [that] will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large.” House Speaker, 443 Mich at 572 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Additionally, however, the Court recognized that even if a statute did not expressly grant standing, it could be implied from duties created by law. See Romulus City Treasurer v Wayne Co Drain Comm’r, 413 Mich 728, 741; 322 NW2d 152 (1982) (stating that there were cases in which “standing was not expressly granted by statute [but] standing was implied by the duties and obligations that were expressly stated)”. Thus, where a statute did not expressly grant standing, this Court would consider whether the Legislature nonetheless intended to confer standing on the plaintiffs. Bradley v Saranac Bd of Ed, 455 Mich 285, 296; 565 NW2d 650 (1997); Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 42; 490 NW2d 568 (1992); Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231, 235; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Shavers, 402 Mich at 587. In a case involving private rights, the Court explained that the litigant should have “some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.” Bowie, 441 Mich at 42 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In summary, standing historically developed in Michigan as a limited, prudential doctrine that was intended to “ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy” by litigants. If a party had a cause of action under law, then standing was not an issue. But where a cause of action was not provided at law, the Court, in its discretion, would consider whether a litigant had standing based on a special injury or right or substantial interest that would be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large, or because, in the context of a statutory scheme, the Legislature had intended to confer standing on the litigant. It was not necessary to address the merits of the case in order to address standing. B. THE LEE/CLEVELAND CLIFFS STANDING DOCTRINE Despite the consistency of the historical development of the standing doctrine in Michigan, Lee and its progeny abruptly departed from precedent and radically changed the standing doctrine. This doctrine’s flaws are many. 1. OVERVIEW OF THE LEE/CLEVELAND CLIFFS MAJORITY’S APPROACH TO STANDING In Lee, a majority of the Court determined, for the first time in Michigan jurisprudence, that standing was required by the Michigan Constitution, and, further, that Michigan’s standing doctrine should be abandoned in favor of the standing doctrine adopted by the United States Supreme Court in the context of the federal constitution. The reasoning presented in Lee, and expanded in Cleveland Cliffs, is that standing is essential to Michigan’s separation of powers doctrine. See Lee, 464 Mich at 735. The Lee/Cleveland Cliffs majori