Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 15 / Act 469 of 1980
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.362 (2026)

Discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against employee reporting violation of law, regulation, or rule prohibited; exceptions.

✓ 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


15.362 Discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against employee reporting violation of law, regulation, or rule prohibited; exceptions.

Sec. 2.

    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 requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 267 cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 878 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 878 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 17× “Pursuant to MCL 15.362, the WPA provides protection to an employee who reports “a violation or a suspected violation of a law” to a public body.”
Whitman v. City of Burton, 831 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 13× “Rather, the plain language of MCL 15.362 controls, and we clarify that a plaintiffs motivation is not relevant to the issue whether a plaintiff has engaged in protected activity and that proof of primary motivation is not a prerequisite to bringing a claim.”
West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 665 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “362, which 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…”
Shaw v. City of Ecorse, 770 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “362, which states: *8 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,…”
Mcneill-marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-gratiot, 891 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “[MCL 15.362.] 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…”
Ernsting v. Ave Maria Coll., 736 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs whistleblower claim is brought under MCL 15.362, which 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…”
Phinney v. Perlmutter, 564 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “MCL 15.362; MSA 17.428(2); Terzano, supra, p 526 ; Hopkins v Midland, 158 Mich App 361, 378 ; 404 NW2d 744 (1987).”
Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 808 N.W.2d 804 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “MCL 15.362; MCL 15.363; Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604, 610 ; 566 NW2d 571 (1997).”
Joliet v. Pitoniak, 715 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 4× “Where the resignation is not itself an unlawful act perpetrated by the employer, it simply is not a "violation" of the WPA under the plain language of MCL 15.362, which prohibits discharge, threats, or other discrimination by the employer.”
Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 734 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 3× “362 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,…”
Dudewicz v. Norris Schmid, Inc, 503 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “[MCL 15.362; MSA 17.428(2).][ [3] ] A plain reading of this provision reveals that protection is not limited to employee reports of violations by employers.”
Debano-Griffin v. Lake Cnty., 828 N.W.2d 634 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “In January 2005, plaintiff filed a whistleblower claim under MCL 15.362, 1 asserting that she was terminated as result of her complaints regarding the funds transfer and Life EMS’s ambulance service.”
Show all 267 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.362(d) — 1 case
Shaundale Davis v. Flint Hous. Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
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.