Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henry v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2024“In other words, . . . type 1 whistleblowers [are] initiators, as opposed to type 2 whistleblowers who participate in a previously initiated investigation or hearing at the behest of a public body.” Id. 2019“Type 2 whistleblowers” are those who “participate in a previously initiated investigation or hearing at the behest of a public body.” Id. | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
West v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2023If a plaintiff falls under either category, then that plaintiff is engaged in a “protected activity” for purposes of presenting a prima facie case. [Id. at 410.] With respect to causation, “[s]omething more than a temporal connection between protected conduct and an adverse employment action is required to show causation[.]” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). 2023If a plaintiff falls under either category, then that plaintiff is engaged in a “protected activity” for purposes of presenting a prima facie case. [Id. at 410.] With respect to causation, “[s]omething more than a temporal connection between protected conduct and an adverse employment action is required to show causation[.]” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan District
green
2 sentences2016If a plaintiff falls under either category, then that plaintiff is engaged in a “protected activity” for purposes of presenting a prima facie case. [Henry v City of Detroit, 234 Mich App 405 , 409–410; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).] -3- Our Supreme Court has identified the elements necessary for a prima facie case under the WPA: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must demonstrate to make out a prima facie case that the defendant employer has violated the WPA: (1) The employee was engaged in one of the protected activities listed in the provisi 2016If a plaintiff falls under either category, then that plaintiff is engaged in a “protected activity” for purposes of presenting a prima facie case. [Henry v City of Detroit, 234 Mich App 405 , 409–410; 594 NW2d 107 (1999).] -3- Our Supreme Court has identified the elements necessary for a prima facie case under the WPA: Drawing from the statutory language, this Court has identified three elements that a plaintiff must demonstrate to make out a prima facie case that the defendant employer has violated the WPA: (1) The employee was engaged in one of the protected activities listed in the provisi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.