Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp.
292 Mich. App. 626
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff was terminated in June 2007 during defendant's development of a regulated equine botulism vaccine facility.
- Plaintiff, as Select Agent Program Alternate Responsible Official, supervised access to restricted Bot suite areas until botulism agent arrival in October 2007.
- Plaintiff alleges retaliation for complying with a state boiler-inspection conducted by a deputy inspector, A1 Ladd, in May 2007.
- Inspector cited an unregistered boiler; Meredith directed plaintiff to defer communications and escorting duties.
- Plaintiff filed May 2009 suit alleging public-policy retaliation; defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7),(8),(10).
- The trial court granted summary disposition, concluding WPA exclusivity and 90-day limitations barred relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WPA provides exclusive remedy and 90-day limit bars relief. | Plaintiff contends WPA may not apply if activity not an investigation. | WPA applies; claim arose from protected activity; 90-day period governs. | WPA exclusive remedy applies; claim barred by 90-day limit. |
| Whether boiler inspection constitutes WPA protected activity (investigation/inquiry). | Inspections are not investigations; not protected. | Inspection qualifies as inquiry/administrative search; protected. | Inspections fall within WPA inquiry; protected activity. |
| Whether summary disposition was properly granted despite discovery status. | Discovery could reveal pretext/motivation. | No genuine issue; timeliness controls; discovery unlikely to change outcome. | Premature discovery concern unresolved; still proper given exclusive WPA remedy. |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly weighed facts in ruling on summary disposition. | Court fact-finding improper on summary motion. | Statement summarized plaintiff's allegations; no improper credibility weighing. | No improper fact-finding; statement considered as summary of pleadings. |
| Whether the cross-appeal challenging the factual finding is reviewable on summary disposition. | Finding of fact about termination motivation should be tested. | Finding was a permissible summary of allegations. | Correct to treat as permissible summary of allegations; no weight given to credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudewicz v Norris Schmid, Inc., 443 Mich 68 (1993) (WPA exclusive remedy and preemption principles)
- Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604 (1997) (Remedial WPA construction; liberal interpretation)
- Messenger v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs, 238 Mich App 524 (1999) (FOIA/PHC discussion shaping interpretation of investigations)
- Liparoto Constr, Inc v Gen Shale Brick, Inc., 284 Mich App 25 (2009) (Prematurity of summary disposition and discovery considerations)
- Adams v Adams (On Reconsideration), 276 Mich App 704 (2007) (How to read pleadings to ascertain true claim nature)
- Driver v Naini, 287 Mich App 339 (2010) (Standards for granting summary disposition)
- Teel v Meredith, 284 Mich App 660 (2009) (Review of MCR 2.116(C)(8) standard)