Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE WHISTLEBLOWERS' PROTECTION ACT

Act 469 of 1980

15.361 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

(a) "Employee" means a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied. Employee includes a person employed by the state or a political subdivision of the state except state classified civil service.

(b) "Employer" means a person who has 1 or more employees. Employer includes an agent of an employer and the state or a political subdivision of the state.

(d) "Public body" means all of the following:

(i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of state government.

(ii) An agency, board, commission, council, member, or employee of the legislative branch of state government.

(iii) A county, city, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, a council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, agency, or any member or employee thereof.

(iv) Any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority, or any member or employee of that body.

(v) A law enforcement agency or any member or employee of a law enforcement agency.

(vi) The judiciary and any member or employee of the judiciary.

History: 1980, Act 469, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 316 cases (81 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Ernsting v. Ave Maria Coll., 736 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ernsting v. Ave Maria Coll., 736 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 15× “In this action brought under the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WEA), MCL 15.361 et seq., plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.”

Mcneill-marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-gratiot, 891 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “She alleged that her termination violated both the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and Michigan public policy because MMCG terminated her for either reporting Fields’s violation of the PPO to Gay or being about to report that violation to the circuit…”

Lewandowski v. Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC, 724 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “1 Plaintiff filed suit against defendant and Consumers Energy under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., claiming that he was wrongfully discharged.”

Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] MCL 15.361 et seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq.”

Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 10× “§ 15.361 et seq.; M.S.A. § 17.428(1) et seq.”

Manzo v. Petrella & Petrella & Assocs., PC, 683 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff is unable to meet his burden of proving causation in the legal malpractice claim because he cannot show a viable claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq. We reverse and remand.”

West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 665 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 15.361 et seq., and counts of assault and battery, wrongful discharge, race discrimination, retaliation for reporting acts of discrimination, and loss of consortium.”

McNeil v. Charlevoix Cnty., 772 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 6× “2d 645 (1993), Justice Markman argues that if the regulation is enforceable under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., then a public policy *28 claim for its violation is not viable.”

Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 734 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 4× “We granted oral argument on the applications for leave to appeal and leave to file a cross-appeal in this case to determine whether an employee of a public body must report violations or suspected violations to an outside agency or higher authority to be protected by the…”

Phinney v. Perlmutter, 564 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The trial court, sitting as the Court of Claims, found no cause of action against the board of regents with regard to plaintiffs claim under the Whistle- *521 blowers’ Protection Act (wpa), MCL 15.361 el seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq.”

Anthony Henry v. Laborers Local 1191, 495 Mich. 260 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 7× “nry and Keith White brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Laborers’ Local 1191 (a labor union that represents construction workers), Michael Aaron (the union’s business manager), and Bruce Ruedisueli (the union’s president), alleging that their indefinite layoff…”

Garg v. MacOmb Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 696 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 15.361 et seq. ). See also Shallal v. Catholic Social Services of Wayne Co.”

Show all 316 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(1)(d)(iii) — 1 case

Struckel v. Macomb Cnty. (E.D. Mich. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(a) — 11 cases

Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). “§ 15.361 et seq.; M.S.A. § 17.428(1) et seq.”

Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 734 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007). “We granted oral argument on the applications for leave to appeal and leave to file a cross-appeal in this case to determine whether an employee of a public body must report violations or suspected violations to an outside agency or higher authority to be protected by the…”

Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist., 848 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2014).

Chilingirian v. City of Fraser, 504 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist., 825 N.W.2d 651 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(b) — 19 cases

Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).

Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). “§ 15.361 et seq.; M.S.A. § 17.428(1) et seq.”

Phinney v. Perlmutter, 564 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “The trial court, sitting as the Court of Claims, found no cause of action against the board of regents with regard to plaintiffs claim under the Whistle- *521 blowers’ Protection Act (wpa), MCL 15.361 el seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq.”

Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). “NOTES [1] MCL 15.361 et seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq.”

Debano-Griffin v. Lake Cnty., 828 N.W.2d 634 (Mich. 2013).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(c) — 1 case

Chilingirian v. City of Fraser, 486 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d) — 25 cases

Ernsting v. Ave Maria Coll., 736 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “In this action brought under the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WEA), MCL 15.361 et seq., plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.”

Mcneill-marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-gratiot, 891 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “She alleged that her termination violated both the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and Michigan public policy because MMCG terminated her for either reporting Fields’s violation of the PPO to Gay or being about to report that violation to the circuit…”

Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 723 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Lewandowski v. Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC, 724 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “1 Plaintiff filed suit against defendant and Consumers Energy under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., claiming that he was wrongfully discharged.”

Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 808 N.W.2d 804 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(1) — 1 case

Robinson v. Radian, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Mich. 2008).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(c) — 2 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(ci) — 1 case

Shaw v. City of Ecorse, 770 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(i) — 4 cases

Kristin L Bauer v. City of Adrian (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Linda Rivera v. Svrc Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(ic) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(ii) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(iii) — 8 cases

Majchrzak v. Cnty. of Wayne, 838 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D. Mich. 2011).

William Anderson v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Brad Barrett v. City of Flushing (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Paula Dowker v. Richmond Cmty. Schs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(iv) — 11 cases

Manzo v. Petrella & Petrella & Assocs., PC, 683 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “Plaintiff is unable to meet his burden of proving causation in the legal malpractice claim because he cannot show a viable claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq. We reverse and remand.”

Manzo v. Petrella, 683 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Shaundale Davis v. Flint Hous. Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Cheryl Newton v. Mariners Inn (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(m) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(u) — 2 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(v) — 11 cases

Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). “NOTES [1] MCL 15.361 et seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq.”

Henry v. City of Detroit, 594 N.W.2d 107 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 723 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(vi) — 1 case

Patricia Tyler v. Kalamazoo Pub. Schs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(d)(w) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361(e) — 1 case

Tammy McNeill-marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-Gratiot, 912 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.