Marc McCrumb v. Jamie McAloon-lampman, 333357

McCrumb was hired by Ingham County Animal Control as a probationary, temporary, at‑will officer who later became a permanent, full‑time officer while still treated as probationary.
Approximately a year after hire, he was terminated six weeks before his extended probationary period would expire.
McCrumb alleged termination was retaliatory for refusing three unlawful orders from Burns and McAloon‑Lampman to violate the law in dog/cat seizure matters and incident reporting.
Defendants denied the orders were unlawful, asserted legitimate nonretaliatory reasons based on work performance, and asserted governmental immunity.
The trial court granted summary disposition on the unlicensed‑animal orders but held questions remained regarding the other two orders and retaliation, and suggested potential factual disputes; the court did not grant summary disposition to defendants on those issues.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding insufficient causation evidence and that governmental immunity applied to bar the claims, and remanded for judgment in favor of defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Causation between refused orders and termination	McCrumb: refusal to follow unlawful orders caused termination.	McAloon-Lampman/Burns: nonretaliatory work‑performance reasons justified termination; no causal link shown.	No genuine issue of causation; termination not shown to be caused by refusal to violate the law.
Whether the orders were unlawful acts under retaliation framework	Orders were unlawful; termination retaliatory for resisting them.	Orders, including the key ones, were not unlawfully retaliatory; evidence supports legitimate reasons.	Court found no triable issue establishing unlawfulness of the orders for retaliation purposes.
Govermental immunity applicability	Immunity does not shield retaliatory termination based on unlawful orders.	Ross test supports immunity if acts were in course of employment, in good faith, and discretionary.	Defendants entitled to governmental immunity under the Ross test; no malice shown.

Trombetta v Detroit, Toledo & Ironton R Co, 81 Mich App 489 (1978) (public policy/retaliation framework related to wrongful termination claims)
West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (2003) (causation requires more than mere temporal proximity)
Barrett v Kirtland Community College, 245 Mich App 306 (2001) (causation in retaliation cases requires significant factor, not sole cause)
Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 430 (2008) (pretext/causation considerations in retaliation analyses)
Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406 (2010) (summary disposition framework and immunity discussion)
Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm’n, 463 Mich 143 (2000) (governmental immunity foundations and framework)
Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (2008) (Ross test for immunity—scope, good faith, discretion)
Ross v Consumers Power Co, 420 Mich 567 (1984) (three-part test for discretionary acts and immunity)
Burnett v Adrian, 414 Mich 448 (1982) (willful/malicious conduct required to defeat good faith)
Debano-Griffin v Lake County, 493 Mich 167 (2013) (clarifies standards for intentional torts and immunity analyses)