violation or suspected violation in Michigan

2022The WPA “protects an employee who has reported, or is about to report, a violation or suspected violation of a law to a public body.” Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 6 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016).

2022The WPA “protects an employee who has reported, or is about to report, a violation or suspected violation of a law to a public body.” Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 6 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016).

2023A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under the WPA “by showing that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity as defined by the act, (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under the WPA “by showing that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity as defined by the act, (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 493 Mich 167, 175 ; 828 NW2d 634 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018In Millar v Constr Code Auth, 501 Mich 233, 240 ; 912 NW2d 521 (2018), for example, the plaintiff was not fired; instead, his “employment responsibilities were merely reduced.” Further, “the violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiff’s coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is ‘broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.’ ” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016), quoting Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 .

2016The violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiffs coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is “broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.” Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 ; see also Kimmelman v Heather Downs Mgt Ltd, 278 Mich App 569, 575 ; 753 NW2d 265 (2008) (“There is absolutely nothing, express or implied, in the plain wording of the statute that limits its applicability to violations of law by the employer or to investigations involving the employer”).

2018In Millar v Constr Code Auth, 501 Mich 233, 240 ; 912 NW2d 521 (2018), for example, the plaintiff was not fired; instead, his “employment responsibilities were merely reduced.” Further, “the violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiff’s coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is ‘broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.’ ” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016), quoting Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 .

2018In Millar v Constr Code Auth, 501 Mich 233, 240 ; 912 NW2d 521 (2018), for example, the plaintiff was not fired; instead, his “employment responsibilities were merely reduced.” Further, “the violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiff’s coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is ‘broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.’ ” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016), quoting Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 .

2019Id. at 620 n 9.

2019Shallal, 455 Mich at 610 .

2017To establish a prima facie case under MCL 15.362, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the plaintiff was engaged in protective activity as defined by the act, (2) the plaintiff was discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge or adverse employment action.” [Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 6 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).] In this case, plaintiff raises claims as both a “type 1 whistleblower” and “type 2 whistleblower.” This Court has “interpret[ed] a type 1 whistleblower to be one

2017To establish a prima facie case under MCL 15.362, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the plaintiff was engaged in protective activity as defined by the act, (2) the plaintiff was discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge or adverse employment action.” [Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 6 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).] In this case, plaintiff raises claims as both a “type 1 whistleblower” and “type 2 whistleblower.” This Court has “interpret[ed] a type 1 whistleblower to be one

2024Shaw v Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 11 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009).

2024Shaw v Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 11 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009).

2023As stated in Landin, 305 Mich App at 532 - 533: However, [the] plaintiff did not originate a report or complaint alleging a violation of the [PHC], he accused a coworker of malpractice.

2022The goals of the WPA are “to protect the integrity of the law by removing barriers to employee efforts to report violations of the law,” and “to protect the public by protecting employees who report violations of laws and regulations.” Faulkner v Flowers, 206 Mich App 562, 568 ; 522 NW2d 700 (1994).

2022The goals of the WPA are “to protect the integrity of the law by removing barriers to employee efforts to report violations of the law,” and “to protect the public by protecting employees who report violations of laws and regulations.” Faulkner v Flowers, 206 Mich App 562, 568 ; 522 NW2d 700 (1994).

2020Id. (citation omitted). -5- “The WPA protects an employee who reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of a law or regulation to a public body.” Brown v Mayor of Detroit, 478 Mich 589, 594 ; 734 NW2d 514 (2007).

2019Id. at 62-64 .

2018In Millar v Constr Code Auth, 501 Mich 233, 240 ; 912 NW2d 521 (2018), for example, the plaintiff was not fired; instead, his “employment responsibilities were merely reduced.” Further, “the violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiff’s coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is ‘broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.’ ” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016), quoting Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 .

2018In Millar v Constr Code Auth, 501 Mich 233, 240 ; 912 NW2d 521 (2018), for example, the plaintiff was not fired; instead, his “employment responsibilities were merely reduced.” Further, “the violation or suspected violation at issue need not be one committed by the employer or one of the plaintiff’s coworkers; rather, the scope of the WPA is ‘broad enough to cover violations of the law by a third person.’ ” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016), quoting Chandler, 456 Mich at 404 .

2016Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 309 Mich App 256, 267-269 ; 870 NW2d 745 (2015), rev’d ___ Mich ___ (2016).

2016Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 309 Mich App 256, 267-269 ; 870 NW2d 745 (2015), rev’d ___ Mich ___ (2016).

2014See also 29 USC 401(b) (finding that “there have been a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, disregard of the rights of individual employees, and other failures to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct”). 80 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 312 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013), quoting the title of 1980 PA 469 . 81 Whitman, 493 Mich at 312 , citing Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 378-379 ; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). 22 verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to la

2014See also 29 USC 401(b) (finding that “there have been a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, disregard of the rights of individual employees, and other failures to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct”). 80 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 312 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013), quoting the title of 1980 PA 469 . 81 Whitman, 493 Mich at 312 , citing Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 378-379 ; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). 22 verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to la

1997The Court of Appeals found that the act did not apply, stating that “in order for the wpa to apply, the violation or suspected violation must be committed in the course of doing business.” Id. at 320 .