violation or a suspected violation in Michigan

2025Turning to the WPA claim, MCL 15.362 provides that an “employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false,

2025Turning to the WPA claim, MCL 15.362 provides that an “employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false,

2023With respect to an about-to-report WPA claim, MCL 15.363(4) provides that “[a]n employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.” (Emphasis added.) -11- In Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242, 251-252 ; 848 NW2d 121 (2014), our Supreme Court explained: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must

2023With respect to an about-to-report WPA claim, MCL 15.363(4) provides that “[a]n employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.” (Emphasis added.) -11- In Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242, 251-252 ; 848 NW2d 121 (2014), our Supreme Court explained: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must

2024This Court explained that the “WPA is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed in favor of the persons it was intended to benefit.” Henry v Detroit, 234 Mich App 405, 409 ; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).

2024This Court explained that the “WPA is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed in favor of the persons it was intended to benefit.” Henry v Detroit, 234 Mich App 405, 409 ; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).

2017The relevant provision of the WPA provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or beca

2017The relevant provision of the WPA provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or beca

2017WHISTLEBLOWERS’ PROTECTION ACT Plaintiff next alleges that her employment was terminated in violation of section 2 of the WPA, which provides in relevant part: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivisi

2017WHISTLEBLOWERS’ PROTECTION ACT Plaintiff next alleges that her employment was terminated in violation of section 2 of the WPA, which provides in relevant part: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivisi

2024The WPA provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is request

2021Stated differently, “[t]he WPA provides a remedy for an employee who suffers retaliation for reporting or planning to report a suspected violation of a law, regulation, or rule to a public body.” Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626, 630 ; 808 NW2d 804 (2011).

2017“The elements of a cause of action under the WPA are (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected 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.” Truel v City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125, 138 ; 804 NW2d 744 (2010) (citation omitted).

2017“The elements of a cause of action under the WPA are (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected 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.” Truel v City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125, 138 ; 804 NW2d 744 (2010) (citation omitted).

2013Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 486 Mich 938 (2010).

2013MCCORMACK, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 1 MCL 15.362 states: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee know

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

2016WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM Section 2 of the WPA provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false,

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

2016WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM Section 2 of the WPA provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false,

2007Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239 Mich App 270, 279 ; 608 NW2d 525 (2000), citing MCL 15.362.

2007Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239 Mich App 270, 279 ; 608 NW2d 525 (2000), citing MCL 15.362.

2007As noted in Clonlara, Inc v State Bd of Ed, 442 Mich 230, 239 ; 501 NW2d 88 (1993), the version of MCL 24.207 of the Administrative Procedures Act at issue in that case provided: “ ‘Rule’ means an agency regulation, statement, standard, policy, ruling, or instruction of general applicability that implements or applies law enforced or administered by the agency, or that prescribes the organization, procedure, or practice of the agency, including the amendment, suspension, or rescission thereof....” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, administrative “[ajgencies have the authority to interpret the statut

2007As noted in Clonlara, Inc v State Bd of Ed, 442 Mich 230, 239 ; 501 NW2d 88 (1993), the version of MCL 24.207 of the Administrative Procedures Act at issue in that case provided: “ ‘Rule’ means an agency regulation, statement, standard, policy, ruling, or instruction of general applicability that implements or applies law enforced or administered by the agency, or that prescribes the organization, procedure, or practice of the agency, including the amendment, suspension, or rescission thereof....” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, administrative “[ajgencies have the authority to interpret the statut

2005MCL 15.362 provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requ

2005MCL 15.362 provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requ

1997Adelman’s argument would have this Court hold that larceny, among other applicable regulations and statutes, is not “a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.” Id.

1997Terzano v. Wayne Co., 216 Mich.App. 522, 526 , 549 N.W.2d 606 (1996).

2025A proper application of these canons requires that the word “law” be interpreted in context and in conjunction with the text “a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States” 6 as used in the 4 Sprietsma v Mercury Marine, 537 US 51, 63 ; 123 S Ct 518 ; 154 L Ed 2d 466 (2002). 5 Id. 6 MCL 15.362 (emphasis added).

2025A proper application of these canons requires that the word “law” be interpreted in context and in conjunction with the text “a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States” 6 as used in the 4 Sprietsma v Mercury Marine, 537 US 51, 63 ; 123 S Ct 518 ; 154 L Ed 2d 466 (2002). 5 Id. 6 MCL 15.362 (emphasis added).

2024PNC Nat’l Bank Ass’n v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 504, 506 ; 778 NW2d 282 (2009), quoting Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001) (“If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning, and we enforce the statute as written.”) MCL 15.362 of the WPA states: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employ

2024PNC Nat’l Bank Ass’n v Dep’t of Treasury, 285 Mich App 504, 506 ; 778 NW2d 282 (2009), quoting Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60 ; 631 NW2d 686 (2001) (“If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning, and we enforce the statute as written.”) MCL 15.362 of the WPA states: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employ

2023A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. [Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139-140 ; 832 NW2d 266 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] An action for retaliatory discharge in violation of the WPA is governed by MCL 15.362 as follows: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee . . . r

2023A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. [Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132, 139-140 ; 832 NW2d 266 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] An action for retaliatory discharge in violation of the WPA is governed by MCL 15.362 as follows: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee . . . r

2023With respect to an about-to-report WPA claim, MCL 15.363(4) provides that “[a]n employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.” (Emphasis added.) -11- In Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242, 251-252 ; 848 NW2d 121 (2014), our Supreme Court explained: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must

2023With respect to an about-to-report WPA claim, MCL 15.363(4) provides that “[a]n employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.” (Emphasis added.) -11- In Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242, 251-252 ; 848 NW2d 121 (2014), our Supreme Court explained: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must

2022In re Casey Estate, 306 Mich App 252 , 260 n 3; 856 NW2d 556 (2014).

2022In re Casey Estate, 306 Mich App 252 , 260 n 3; 856 NW2d 556 (2014).

2020“It is the general rule in this state that when a statute creates a new right or imposes a new duty having no counterpart in the common law, the remedies provided in the statute for its violation are exclusive and not cumulative.” Shuttleworth v Riverside Osteopathic Hosp, 191 Mich App 25, 27 ; 477 NW2d 453 (1991). “[N]o common-law counterpart existed before passage of the WPA and . . . , therefore, the act is the exclusive remedy for an employee whose employment is terminated in retaliation for reporting an employer’s violation of the law.

2020“It is the general rule in this state that when a statute creates a new right or imposes a new duty having no counterpart in the common law, the remedies provided in the statute for its violation are exclusive and not cumulative.” Shuttleworth v Riverside Osteopathic Hosp, 191 Mich App 25, 27 ; 477 NW2d 453 (1991). “[N]o common-law counterpart existed before passage of the WPA and . . . , therefore, the act is the exclusive remedy for an employee whose employment is terminated in retaliation for reporting an employer’s violation of the law.

2016If statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written, and we “may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.” Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 63 ; 642 NW2d 663 (2002).

2016If statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be enforced as written, and we “may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.” Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 63 ; 642 NW2d 663 (2002).

2016Heaton v Benton Constr Co, 286 Mich App 528, 532 ; 780 NW2d 618 (2009). -2- behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.

2016Heaton v Benton Constr Co, 286 Mich App 528, 532 ; 780 NW2d 618 (2009). -2- behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.

2016The Court remanded the case to us for “consideration of the merits of plaintiff’s claim of discharge against public policy.” Id. at ___; slip op p 10.

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