The Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) provides statutory protection for an employee who reports or is about to report illegal activity to a public body. To be protected, a plaintiff must establish that they engaged in “protected activity,” that they were discharged, threatened or otherwise discriminated against, and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. If a plaintiff establishes these elements, unlawful retaliation is presumed unless the employer offers a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer offers a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its action, the plaintiff must show that a reasonable trier of fact could find the employers articulated reasons to be mere pretext.
The plaintiffs in Tullar v Flint Housing Commission, unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals case 327093, decided October 4, 2016 worked in administrative roles with the Flint Housing Commission and were discharged after it was discovered that a family member of one of the plaintiffs received special treatment to which he was not entitled. The employer conducted an investigation which determined that the plaintiffs had engaged in a series of misconduct regarding the relative’s file. Specifically, the relative was given housing payment reductions for which he did not qualify. However, the plaintiff’s claimed that they were discharged because they engaged in protected activities under the WPA. One such claim of protected activity was their participation in the investigation into their own alleged misconduct.The Court of Appeals disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument and found that even if they may have made out a prima facie claim under the WPA, their employer offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for their discharge and the plaintiffs did not show that reason to be pretextual. As such, the trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed.
WHISTLEBLOWER CASES EMPLOYMENT LAW