Linda Rivera v. Svrc Industries Inc
341516
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 2, 2021Background
- Rivera was director of industrial operations at SVRC; in Sept 2016 she disciplined employee “LS” who made statements Rivera perceived as violent/threatening.
- Rivera reported the incident to COO Debra Snyder and discussed whether to contact police; SVRC’s CEO consulted company counsel (Mair) who advised against filing a police report on the employer’s behalf.
- Rivera nevertheless told others (a friend and board chair Sylvester Payne) and discussed the matter with company counsel; she did not file a police report or a PPO through the employer.
- SVRC investigated, terminated LS, and then permanently laid Rivera off for stated budgetary reasons in October 2016.
- Rivera sued under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and for unlawful termination in violation of Michigan public policy (claiming she refused to conceal criminal conduct and sought to report it).
- On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals held SVRC entitled to summary disposition on Rivera’s public-policy claim because Rivera failed to show SVRC instructed her not to report or conditioned employment on concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera’s termination violated Michigan public policy because she refused to conceal LS’s alleged criminal conduct / attempted to report it | Rivera says public policy forbids employers from conditioning employment on an employee’s agreement to conceal or stifle prosecution; her refusal to conceal and efforts to report are protected | SVRC says there is no evidence it instructed Rivera not to report, conditioned employment on concealment, or otherwise retaliated for protected conduct | Held for defendant: Rivera failed to create a genuine factual dispute that SVRC instructed her not to report or conditioned employment on concealment |
| Whether Rivera produced admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact (text messages, affidavit, deposition) | Rivera relies on text messages and a later affidavit asserting counsel told her not to file a police report | SVRC contends the affidavit contradicts earlier deposition testimony and the texts do not show an instruction or condition to conceal; deposition shows Snyder never told Rivera she could not file a police report | Held for defendant: affidavit contradicted deposition (cannot create issue); texts show counsel advised employer against filing on employer’s behalf but did not prohibit Rivera from filing a personal report or PPO, so no factual dispute on instruction/conditioning |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. Charlevoix Co., 484 Mich 69 (Mich. 2009) (explains at-will employment and public-policy exception)
- Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich 692 (Mich. 1982) (three categories when public policy bars discharge)
- Kimmelman v. Heather Downs Mgt. Ltd., 278 Mich App 569 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (applies Suchodolski categories and limits expansion)
- Terrien v. Zwit, 467 Mich 56 (Mich. 2002) (public policy must be grounded in objective legal sources)
- Pratt v. Brown Machine Co., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1988) (employer cannot condition employment on agreement to conceal a crime)
- Case v. Smith, 107 Mich 416 (Mich. 1895) (contracts to conceal crimes are void as contrary to public policy)
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich App 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition)
- Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc., 305 Mich App 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (refuses to extend public-policy exception beyond Suchodolski categories)