The plaintiff was discharged by her employer after
she communicated with a supervisor and the company’s attorney about threats
made by another employee. She claimed
retaliation in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL
15.361 et seq., based on her communications
with a supervisor about her desire to report the threats to the police;
retaliation in violation of the WPA because she informed the defendant’s
attorney about the threats and attorneys are considered public bodies; and
retaliation in violation of public policy because she wanted to report unlawful
threats to the police and refused to conceal what amounted to a violation of
the Michigan Anti-Terrorism Act. The
trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary disposition, but the
Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant on
all counts. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether the record supports the plaintiff’s
contention that her communication with the defendant’s chief operating officer
demonstrated that she was “about to report” a violation or a suspected
violation of a law, see MCL 15.362; (2) whether the plaintiff’s communications
with the defendant’s counsel constituted a “report” pursuant to MCL 15.362
where (a) the defendant’s counsel initiated contact with the plaintiff (rather
than the plaintiff contacting him), and (b) the defendant’s counsel was aware
of the plaintiff’s allegations prior to their conversation; (3) whether the WPA
is the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy in this case; and (4) whether the record
supports the plaintiff’s contention that her protected activity caused her
firing, that is, whether the plaintiff has sufficient evidence beyond the
temporal proximity of the events to show causation, see Wurtz v
Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242 (2014).