A former Leland Township employee, Ken Hagstrom, filed a complaint in Leelanau County Circuit Court this month against the township and its supervisor, Clint Mitchell.
Hagstrom, who is represented by the Acker Law Firm, states in the complaint that he was wrongfully terminated by the township from his full-time maintenance position of 29 years. The settlement demand must be over $25k to be considered for circuit court.
The lawsuit comes after the township board approved 4-1 in January to eliminate the maintenance position due to budgeting and cost effective saving measures.
In the complaint synopsis, it describes Hagstrom having reasonable expectation, “based on communication, policies, and 29 years of faithful service to Leland Township, that his employment and his salary would continue up to and inclusive of the day he opted to retire within customary retirement age expectations.” It cites that as a consequence of recent changes in township administration that Hagstrom has been “singled out,” and through “claimed budgetary concerns,” his position as the primary maintenance employee was terminated.
The litigation includes claims of wrongful termination for numerous reasons, with the first being because of “retaliatory termination for having suffered an injury on the job (February 2023) and having incurred workers’ compensation benefits and medical treatment, which is being cited against his interests.” The second claim is age discrimination “by virtue of the fact that he is age 63, and is among the oldest, if not the oldest, of the salaried employees on the payroll of Leland Township.”
The complaint continues, stating that there was a disregard for normal procedures customarily followed when potential termination from employment is considered, claiming misconduct by supervisor Mitchell and accusing him of “acting unilaterally and without formal board approval, approaching Mr. Hagstrom with representations regarding how his termination would be determined, when his termination would take place, and whether his termination was voluntary before the issue of employment termination had been placed before the board of trustees for evaluation, public proceedings, and board action.” The document further claims that misrepresentations were made to the board regarding the expenses of employment (benefits and payroll funding) and created a false narrative as to the costs of Hagstrom’s township employment.
Hagstrom’s legal counsel have cited that to date, he was ultimately terminated from the job and has not been offered a mutually acceptable severance proposal, or been provided with: a formal letter of termination, a description of his remaining term at work, a description of a proposed severance package, the management of his benefits going forward, and his rights under COBRA.
Contrary to the complaint’s claims, Mitchell said Hagstrom was offered a severance that provided a lump sum payment upon a Feb. 1 separation date, adding that he was given the calculation in writing. Mitchell said Hagstrom opted instead to remain on the township payroll with full salary and benefits, including pension and healthcare through the end of the fiscal year on March 31. In text correspondence from Jan. 30 shared by Mitchell, Hagstrom confirmed that he was going to stay on as an employee until the start of the new fiscal year.
In addition, Hagstrom’s legal counsel claims that he received a text message from the supervisor instructing him to “consider himself on vacation for the remainder of your tenure (March 31),” explaining that he did not request vacation time.
“Placing Mr. Hagstrom on ‘vacation’ is an unauthorized method to exclude him from his customary maintenance contacts with other Leland Township personnel, and to reflect poorly on his work ethic,” the complaint read. “This is particularly true since prior to the termination announcement at a recent public meeting, Mr. Hagstrom has never taken a vacation, let alone an unauthorized vacation, in his 29-year tenure.”
Although Hagstrom’s legal counsel cites just part of the text message about vacation from Mitchell, which was provided to his attorney via FOIA request, the full message gives more context into the conversation following Hagstrom stating he would stay on as an employee until the end of the fiscal year.
“Sounds good. For now, hang on to the truck and phone. If you get any maintenance calls, refer them to me,” Mitchell wrote to Hagstrom. “In the meantime, any help you need with paperwork, don’t hesitate to ask. Feel free to attend the P/R meeting, but don’t feel obligated — consider yourself on vacation for the remainder of your tenure. Also, let me know if you’d like to pick up some hours this summer. I know there’s a certain amount you can do without reducing unemployment benefits. I’ll check on that if you’re interested. Thank you.”
Furthermore, Hagstrom’s attorney states that in the personnel file they received via FOIA that it contained evidence that the rationale for Hagstrom’s termination is “a continuing consequence of a petty dispute that existed between the former Supervisor and the recentlyelected Supervisor over trivial lawn mower maintenance expenses, a dispute in which Mr. Hagstrom played no role. Mr. Hagstrom’s termination was retributive.”
At the township’s regular meeting in January, the board discussed how they looked at other companies during the budgeting process that could assume some of the jobs associated with the maintenance position. While working through the budget process, the board weighed what the cost comparisons would be to outsource the workload of all parks and maintenance projects.
According to the projected maintenance cost comparison that Leland Township provided in January for the fiscal year 2024, the salary of the maintenance job was listed as being $43,680, but with other add-ons such as healthcare, gas, diesel fuel, and supplies, a phone, and pension, the total estimate to fund the position was $73,760. The projected cost comparisons also looked at outsourced mowing estimates from various businesses at different township locations. It was determined if the position was eliminated and maintenance work was outsourced that the township’s estimated savings would be $40,310.
Leland Township held a special meeting on Tuesday that included a brief conversation regarding the 2025-26 budget and upcoming maintenance projections. Cost estimates from Schaub Outdoor Services for lawn care and maintenance at various township properties was also provided at the special meeting, which noted the rough total as being approximately $37,913.
