21 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc.green2 sentences2025Thus, because the statutory basis for plaintiff’s public policy claim could support a public-policy-based wrongful discharge claim, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motions for summary disposition. [Landin, 305 Mich App at 530-532 (some citations omitted; alteration in original).] Plaintiff asserts that her allegation of unlawful retaliation for reporting purported malpractice by Anderson falls within the ambit of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. 2024“There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Id. (cleaned up). | 1 | 11 |
Lytle v. Maladygreen1 sentence2017See Lytle, 458 Mich at 164 ; Biggs, 194 Mich App at 241-242 . | 1 | 1 |
Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co.green2 sentences2016See Twin City Pipe Line Co v Harding Glass Co, 283 US 353, 357 ; 51 S Ct 476 ; 75 L Ed 1112 (1931). 2016See Twin City Pipe Line Co v Harding Glass Co, 283 US 353, 357 ; 51 S Ct 476 ; 75 L Ed 1112 (1931). | 1 | 1 |
Sandra Humenny v. Genex Corporation, Inc. Carol Valenticgreen2 sentences2009Accord Humenny v. Genex Corp., 390 F.3d 901, 907-908 (C.A.6, 2004) (stating that because Dudewicz limited Suchodolski's public-policy exception "by holding that `as a general rule, the remedies provided by statute for violation of a right having no common-law counterpart are exclusive, not cumulative,'" when applying the public-policy exception, the Court should first determine whether there is "a well-established legislative enactment that addresses the particular conduct at issue," and then, if there is, address whether the statute "provides a remedy to plaintiffs who allege violations of th 2009Accord Humenny v Genex Corp, 390 F3d 901, 907-908 (CA 6, 2004) (stating that because Dudewicz limited Suchodolski’s public-policy exception “by holding that ‘as a general rule, the remedies provided by statute for violation of a right having no common-law counterpart are exclusive, not cumulative,’ ” when applying the public-policy exception, the Court should first determine whether there is “a well-established legislative enactment that addresses the particular conduct at issue,” and then, if there is, address whether the statute “provides a remedy to plaintiffs who allege violations of the s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.
green
2 sentences2023There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine “based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695 ; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). [Landin, 305 Mich App at 523 .] “[P]ublic policy is violated when (a) a statute specifically prohibits the discharge, (b) the employee is discharged for refusing to violate the law, or (c) the employee is discharged for exercising a well-established statutory right.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgmt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 127 ; 7 2023There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine “based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695 ; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). [Landin, 305 Mich App at 523 .] “[P]ublic policy is violated when (a) a statute specifically prohibits the discharge, (b) the employee is discharged for refusing to violate the law, or (c) the employee is discharged for exercising a well-established statutory right.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgmt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 127 ; 7 | 8 | 2003–2023 |
Terrien v. Zwit
green
2 sentences2021As observed in Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56, 66-67 ; 648 NW2d 602 (2002): In defining “public policy,” it is clear to us that this term must be more than a different nomenclature for describing the personal preferences of individual judges, for the proper exercise of the judicial power is to determine from objective legal sources what public policy is, and not to simply assert what such policy ought to be on the basis of the subjective views of individual judges . . . . 2021As observed in Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56, 66-67 ; 648 NW2d 602 (2002): In defining “public policy,” it is clear to us that this term must be more than a different nomenclature for describing the personal preferences of individual judges, for the proper exercise of the judicial power is to determine from objective legal sources what public policy is, and not to simply assert what such policy ought to be on the basis of the subjective views of individual judges . . . . | 3 | 2014–2021 |
McNeil v. Charlevoix County
green
2 sentences2024Read in the proper context, Dudewicz limits the “public-policy exception to the at- will employment rule only where a legislative enactment has not only explicitly prohibited the discharge of an employee acting in accordance with a statutory right or duty, but also provided an exclusive remedy for violation of that explicit prohibition.” McNeil, 484 Mich at 90 n 5 (CAVANAGH, J., concurring). 2024The majority opinion states: Read in the proper context, Dudewicz limits the “public-policy exception to the at-will employment rule only where a legislative enactment has not only explicitly prohibited the discharge of an employee acting in accordance with a statutory right or duty, but also provided an exclusive remedy for violation of that explicit prohibition.” McNeil [v Charlevoix Co, 484 Mich 69 , 90 n 5; 772 NW2d 18 (2009)] (CAVANAGH, J., concurring). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lewandowski v. NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT CO., LLC
green
2 sentences2023There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine “based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695 ; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). [Landin, 305 Mich App at 523 .] “[P]ublic policy is violated when (a) a statute specifically prohibits the discharge, (b) the employee is discharged for refusing to violate the law, or (c) the employee is discharged for exercising a well-established statutory right.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgmt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 127 ; 7 2023There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine “based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Suchodolski v Michigan Consol Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695 ; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). [Landin, 305 Mich App at 523 .] “[P]ublic policy is violated when (a) a statute specifically prohibits the discharge, (b) the employee is discharged for refusing to violate the law, or (c) the employee is discharged for exercising a well-established statutory right.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgmt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 127 ; 7 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kimmelman v. Heather Downs Management Limited
green
1 sentence2021While the Suchodolski Court’s enumeration of public policies that might forbid termination of at-will employees may not have been phrased as if it were an exhaustive list (id. at 573; 753 NW2d 265 ), our courts have yet to find a situation meriting extension beyond the three circumstances detailed in Suchodolski. [Landin, 305 Mich App at 525-526 .] Although the discussion in Landin related to expanding the number of exceptions to the at- will employment doctrine, its reasoning applies with equal force to the decision whether to apply or analogize those exceptions to the independent contractor | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Biggs v. Hilton Hotel Corp.
green
1 sentence2017See Lytle, 458 Mich at 164 ; Biggs, 194 Mich App at 241-242 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Vagts v. Perry Drug Stores, Inc
green
2 sentences2009Finally, he indicates that he would overrule the Court of Appeals opinion in Vagts v Perry Drug Stores, Inc, 204 Mich App 481 ; 516 NW2d 102 (1994), to the extent it holds otherwise. 2009Finally, he indicates that he would overrule the Court of Appeals opinion in Vagts v Perry Drug Stores, Inc, 204 Mich App 481 ; 516 NW2d 102 (1994), to the extent it holds otherwise. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 72, 503 N.W.2d 645 . 2009Dudewicz, 443 Mich at 78-80 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pittsfield Charter Township v. Washtenaw County
green
2 sentences2009Pittsfield Charter Twp v Washtenaw Co, 468 Mich 702, 712 ; 664 NW2d 193 (2003). 2009Pittsfield Charter Twp v Washtenaw Co, 468 Mich 702, 712 ; 664 NW2d 193 (2003). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sventko v. Kroger Co.
green
2 sentences1993The cause of action for retaliatory discharge in contravention of the public policy indicated in the *667 Workers’ Disability Compensation Act was judicially established in Sventko v Kroger, 69 Mich App 644, 647 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976), as an exception to the doctrine of at-will employment. 1993The cause of action for retaliatory discharge in contravention of the public policy indicated in the *667 Workers’ Disability Compensation Act was judicially established in Sventko v Kroger, 69 Mich App 644, 647 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976), as an exception to the doctrine of at-will employment. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.