In 2021, the Detroit Police Lieutenants & Sergeants Association filed four separate grievances on behalf of Sherell Stanley against the Detroit Police Department. One, Grievance 21-014, sought six hours of overtime pay she claimed she was owed. Two others, Grievance 21-006 for a back injury and Grievance 21-024 for stress-related injuries, challenged the Department’s determination that her on-duty injuries were not compensable. The fourth, Grievance 21-021, alleged a retaliatory transfer.
For the medical grievances, the collective bargaining agreement required a specific process: unresolved medical issues were to be sent to a neutral physician for an Independent Medical Examination (IME). The Association and Department agreed to send Stanley for IMEs and placed the grievances in abeyance pending the results.
The overtime grievance, however, hit a roadblock. The Department claimed it closed the grievance in May 2021 because Stanley never provided requested supporting documentation. In early 2023, the Association succeeded in getting the grievance reopened. But after a February 28, 2023, meeting, the Department again denied the claim, stating Stanley had “failed to provide the documents necessary to support her claim” despite multiple requests.
On April 18, 2023, the Association’s attorney, Peter Sudnick, sent Stanley a letter informing her that the Association would not advance Grievance 21-014 to arbitration. He explained that waiting nearly two years to clarify her overtime claim was “patently unreasonable” and that an arbitrator would likely deny the grievance. Stanley, dissatisfied, spent the following months sending a “deluge” of emails to Association officials demanding they reverse this decision.
Meanwhile, the medical grievances stalled over Stanley’s refusal to sign the medical release forms required for the IMEs. She had signed releases in late 2021 but revoked them via email on December 19, 2022, demanding a new form. What followed was a months-long email exchange where the Association repeatedly requested she sign new authorizations and Stanley repeatedly demurred, citing being out of town, having doctor’s appointments, and waking up with COVID-19 symptoms on the day of one deadline.
More significantly, Stanley objected to the process itself. She argued that providing “carte blanche access” to her medical files to Association and labor relations staff was an “egregious invasion of privacy.” She proposed an alternative: that a neutral physician be selected first, and the medical file be sent directly to that doctor. The Association insisted the established practice was non-negotiable and that her signature was essential to proceed. On May 1, 2023, an Association representative emailed Stanley to “consider medical grievances 21-006 and 21-024 closed” due to her failure to provide the releases. However, by August 28, 2023, an Association email listed both grievances as still open.
On May 19, 2023, Stanley was involuntarily transferred again. She believed this violated a previous arbitration award that had found her prior transfer retaliatory. The Association promptly filed Grievance 23-015 and, leveraging the original arbitrator’s retained jurisdiction, scheduled an expedited arbitration for July 12, 2023.
By then, Stanley was on FMLA leave. She refused to participate in the July 12 hearing, requesting it be rescheduled. The Association initially resisted, with the Association president stating, “Your Arbitration date stands for July 12th… If we delay another Arbitrator will be assigned.” But on June 26, 2023, the Association relented and cancelled the hearing, emailing Stanley it would “reschedule when [she came] back from FML.” Stanley never returned. She retired from the Department on September 11, 2023. The Association subsequently closed the grievance, arguing the requested relief was moot upon her retirement.
Stanley filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Association on December 4, 2023, alleging it breached its duty of fair representation.
An ALJ of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission found the claim regarding the overtime grievance (21-014) was untimely. The six-month statute of limitations began when Stanley received the Association’s April 18, 2023, letter clearly stating it would not arbitrate. Her belief that a later, vague email from the Association president might have resurrected the grievance “defies logic,” the ALJ wrote.
Regarding the two stalled medical grievances, the ALJ found no duty of fair representation violation. He concluded the delay was “entirely reasonable given Charging Party’s continued and consistent refusal to work within the IME process.” The Association was not required to abandon its long-agreed practice with the employer to accommodate Stanley’s objections. Critically, the ALJ noted that “a union does not breach its duty of fair representation merely by a delay in processing grievances, if the delay does not result in the denial of the grievances.” Stanley could not show the delay had caused actual harm to her rights, as the grievances remained open and could theoretically proceed if she provided the releases.
Finally, the ALJ found the claim on the transfer grievance (23-015) was moot. The Association had acted promptly to file and schedule the grievance. Stanley’s own refusal to participate in the scheduled arbitration and her subsequent retirement rendered the grievance’s primary goal impossible. Her new argument that she should be paid for lost “bank time” was not the relief sought in the original grievance.
Detroit Police Lieutenants & Sergeants Association, 39 MPER ¶ 9 (MERC 2025).