As we reported earlier, employees looking for job protection
under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA) will have to search elsewhere when
they report a suspected future violation of the law under the
Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Pace v Edel-Harrelson No. 151374. The court
held that such reports were not “protected activity” under the WPA. It remanded
the case back to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiff’s
claim that her termination was a violation of public policy.
The Court of Appeals (COA) affirmed the lower court’s dismissal
of the matter holding that plaintiff’s discharge was not a violation of
public policy.
Barbara Pace, employee of the SIREN Eaton Shelter, Inc,
noticed some discrepancies in grant funding records. Pace was told that the
company’s operations manager, Christy Long, was planning to use some funds to
buy a stove for her personal use. When Pace reported her concerns to
management, she was fired. She brought suit in Eaton County Circuit Court. The
case proceeded as follows:
· - The Eaton County Circuit Court dismissed the
case ruling that Pace had failed to show that a “violation or suspected
violation of law,” as required by the WPA, had occurred.
· - Pace appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
reversed the Circuit Court holding that she had presented enough evidence to
show she was engaged in a “protected activity” when she reported her suspicions
and her reporting led to her firing.
· - The defendants filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court.
· - The Supreme Court, after deciding that the WPA
doesn’t protect the reporting of future, planned or anticipated actions, sent
the matter back to the COA for consideration of Pace’s public policy claim.
In Michigan, most employment situations are presumed to be
at-will, meaning they can be ended by the will of either party. Case law has
recognized an exception if the termination is contrary to public policy. The
Supreme Court said that the boundaries of public policy must be found in
policies adopted by the people through legal processes, found in state and
federal constitutions, statutes or the common law. (Terrien v Zwitt, 467 Mich
56, 66-67).
Courts must find
public policy in objective sources.
Plaintiff Pace only cited the WPA as her source of public
policy. However, according to the COA, under the WPA, “the only public policy
expressed by the legislature was to protect employees who report
already-occurred violations or suspected violations of the law.” Since Pace
didn’t meet this requirement or cite any other source of public policy, the
court reversed its prior decision in the case, affirming the Eaton Circuit
Court decision, dismissing her claim.
Labels: Eaton County, Michigan, michigan court of appeals, michigan supreme court, whistleblowers' protection act