public body violation in Michigan

2025A. THE TOWNSHIP The trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to the Township of plaintiff’s WPA claim based on his November 2020 termination. “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Chandler, 456 Mich at 399 .

2025“Protected activity” includes “(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Chandler, 456 Mich at 399 .

2017Three types of protected activity have been identified: “(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body, or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Ernsting v Ave Maria College, 274 Mich App 506, 510 ; 736 NW2d 574 (2007).

2017Three types of protected activity have been identified: “(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body, or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Ernsting v Ave Maria College, 274 Mich App 506, 510 ; 736 NW2d 574 (2007).

2024“To establish a prima facie case under . . . [§ 2 of the WPA, MCL 15.362], a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity as defined by the WPA, (2) the plaintiff was discharged, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge.” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a pub

2024“To establish a prima facie case under . . . [§ 2 of the WPA, MCL 15.362], a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity as defined by the WPA, (2) the plaintiff was discharged, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge.” McNeill-Marks v MidMichigan Med Ctr-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a pub

2024As this Court explained in McNeill-Marks v Midmichigan Med Center-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16-17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016): To establish a prima facie case under the above provision, “a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity as defined by the WPA, (2) the plaintiff was discharged, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being

2013Manzo, 261 Mich App at 712-713 ; see also Ernsting v Ave Maria College, 274 Mich App 506, 510-511 ; 736 NW2d 574 (2007) .

2024To establish the second element, “the plaintiff must demonstrate one of the specific adverse employment actions listed in the WPA.” Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242 , 252 n 14; 848 NW2d 121 (2014).4 The prohibited actions include “discharge[ing], threaten[ing], or otherwise discriminat[ing] against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment.” MCL 15.362.

2022But the scope of prohibited retaliatory conduct under the WPA encompasses threats— 5 Defendant does not contest that Robinson was engaged in protected activity. “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399 ; 572 NW2d 210 (1998). 6 Defendant erroneously relies on caselaw involving the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., in i

2023Id. -12- “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation” or “suspected violation” “of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Debano- Griffin v Lake Co, 486 Mich 938, 938 ; 782 NW2d 502 (2010); Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399 ; 572 NW2d 210 (1998).

2017A cause of action for violation of the WPA contains three elements: Under the WPA, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case 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) (citation omitted).] We are concerned here with only the first element. “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting t

2020Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 102 ; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), mod on other grounds by Herald Co, 475 Mich at 470-472 .

2019Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 102 ; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), mod on other grounds in Herald Co, 475 Mich 463 (2006).

2020Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 102 ; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), mod on other grounds by Herald Co, 475 Mich at 470-472 .

2019Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 102 ; 649 NW2d 383 (2002), mod on other grounds in Herald Co, 475 Mich 463 (2006).

2004A protected activity under the act consists of "(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body, or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation." Chandler, supra at 399 , 572 N.W.2d 210 citing the WPA, MCL 15.362; Roulston v. Tendercare (Michigan), Inc., 239 Mich.App. 270, 279 , 608 N.W.2d 525 (2000).

2004A protected activity under the act consists of "(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body, or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation." Chandler, supra at 399 , 572 N.W.2d 210 citing the WPA, MCL 15.362; Roulston v. Tendercare (Michigan), Inc., 239 Mich.App. 270, 279 , 608 N.W.2d 525 (2000).

2000Wilkins v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 275 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996).

2000Wilkins v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 275 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996).

2025Regardless, under either version of the CBA, plaintiff’s period of absence well exceeded the cap. -5- was discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge or adverse employment action.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183-184 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (citation omitted). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation

2025Regardless, under either version of the CBA, plaintiff’s period of absence well exceeded the cap. -5- was discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge or adverse employment action.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183-184 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (citation omitted). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation

2024Michigan courts have categorized whistleblowers engaging in the first two types of protected activity as “type 1 whistleblowers.” Henry v City of Detroit, 234 Mich App 405, 410 ; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).

2024Michigan courts have categorized whistleblowers engaging in the first two types of protected activity as “type 1 whistleblowers.” Henry v City of Detroit, 234 Mich App 405, 410 ; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).

2024As this Court explained in McNeill-Marks v Midmichigan Med Center-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16-17 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016): To establish a prima facie case under the above provision, “a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity as defined by the WPA, (2) the plaintiff was discharged, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge.” Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705, 712 ; 683 NW2d 699 (2004). “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being

2023Id. -12- “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation” or “suspected violation” “of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Debano- Griffin v Lake Co, 486 Mich 938, 938 ; 782 NW2d 502 (2010); Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399 ; 572 NW2d 210 (1998).

2023Id. -12- “ ‘Protected activity’ under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation” or “suspected violation” “of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” Debano- Griffin v Lake Co, 486 Mich 938, 938 ; 782 NW2d 502 (2010); Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399 ; 572 NW2d 210 (1998).

2022Under the WPA, protected activity consists of “(1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation.” MCL 15.362; Chandler, 456 Mich at 399 .10 “[A] plaintiff need not necessarily report an actual violation of a law to receive protection under this provision, as MCL 15.362 explicitly provides protection for a suspected violation of a law.” Pace, 499 Mich at 7 .

2015This Court affirmed, holding that the public body was in violation of the FOIA, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of the refund, which “would turn on defendants’ incremental cost in complying with plaintiffs requests . . . .” Id. at 745 .