James Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Auth
166663
Mich.Apr 14, 2025Background
- James Stefanski, a 911 dispatcher in Saginaw County, raised concerns that a supervisor's improper coding of a 911 call (categorizing a shooting as just "shots fired") delayed emergency services, contributing to a woman's death.
- Stefanski reported this as gross negligence to his employer's director, arguing it constituted a violation of law.
- After reporting, Stefanski received disciplinary action for work absences. He claimed the discipline was retaliation for his whistleblowing and alleged the absences were related to stress from the incident.
- Stefanski resigned after being suspended and sued under Michigan's Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), claiming constructive discharge for reporting gross negligence.
- Lower courts ruled against Stefanski, holding that reporting common law violations (like gross negligence) was not protected by the WPA. He appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the WPA protect reports of common law violations? | Reporting gross negligence (a common law violation) is protected by "law" in the WPA. | The WPA only protects reports of statutory, regulatory, or rule violations, not common law. | Yes; "law" includes common law under WPA. |
| Must a violation of common law be a specific, discrete law? | Reporting gross negligence itself suffices to trigger protection. | Common law is not a singular, discrete "law"; reporting must identify a specific law violated. | Unresolved; remanded for Court of Appeals to decide if gross negligence is itself "a" law. |
| Did Stefanski's actions constitute a report under the WPA? | His verbal and written communications reporting supervisor's conduct qualify as a report. | He merely discussed concerns; did not formally report a legal violation. | Unresolved; remanded for determination by Court of Appeals. |
| Should the Court of Appeals’ summary dismissal stand? | Lower courts misinterpreted WPA's scope regarding "law." | Dismissal was correct as common law is not protected under WPA. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. Continental Airlines, 454 Mich 373 (WPA's remedial purpose is public protection; statutes should be liberally construed)
- Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 456 Mich 395 (describes protected activity under WPA)
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (outlines elements of a prima facie WPA case)
- People v. Couzens, 480 Mich 240 (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich 95 (summary disposition standard)
- Price v. High Pointe Oil Co., 493 Mich 238 (on evolving nature of common law)