Hays v. Lutheran Social Services
300 Mich. App. 54
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff was a home-healthcare provider for Lutheran Social Services of Michigan and brought WPA retaliation claims after termination.
- Plaintiff learned Client A smoked marijuana at the client’s home, and she discussed it with a supervisor and coworkers.
- Plaintiff called BAYANET to inquire about potential consequences of reporting, not to report any specific wrongdoing.
- Plaintiff signed a client confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment, and she was questioned about her BAYANET call.
- After termination, plaintiff sought WPA relief; the trial court granted summary disposition only on the ‘about to report’ claim; a jury awarded plaintiff damages and fees.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding plaintiff failed to establish a report or an ‘about to report’ intent, and declined to decide attorney-fee issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAYANET call was a WPA report | Plaintiff argues she reported information to a public body. | Defendant contends the call did not provide a detailed account to enable investigation. | Not a report; no prima facie case |
| Whether plaintiff’s conduct satisfied the WPA 'about to report' standard | Plaintiff asserts she was about to report the violation with intent. | Defendant argues there was no explicit threat or notice to report. | No clear and convincing evidence of intent to report |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary disposition on the WPA claims | Plaintiff contends genuine issues of material fact remained about reporting. | Defendant contends there was no report or about-to-report evidence as a matter of law. | Defendant entitled to summary disposition on both claims |
| Whether the attorney-fee rulings should stand | Plaintiff challenges the fee award as prevailing-party relief. | Defendant maintains the fee issues are moot if WPA claims fail. | Court did not address fees; remand on underlying issues; no prevailing-party entitlement |
| Remedy on appeal | Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of judgment with fees if appropriate. | Defendant seeks reversal and remand for consistent proceedings. | Reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anzaldua v Neogen Corp, 292 Mich App 626 (2011) (WPA protection and protected activity defined; burden on employee)
- Manzo v Petrella, 261 Mich App 705 (2004) (elements of prima facie WPA claim)
- Roulston v Tendercare (Mich), Inc, 239 Mich App 270 (2000) (practical test for WPA prima facie showing)
- Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604 (1997) (protective scope of 'about to report' and evidentiary standard)
- Garrie v James L Gray, Inc, 912 F2d 808 (5th Cir. 1990) (inquiry without factual report does not constitute report)
- People v Holley, 480 Mich 222 (2008) (defining 'report' using dictionary-style interpretation)