Michael Ramsey v. Laborers Local 1191
329920
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Laborers’ Local 1191 (the union) employed business agents including plaintiffs Michael Ramsey and Glenn Dowdy; Michael Aaron was appointed business manager in May 2009 and conducted rolling layoffs and required resignation letters.
- Secret member meetings occurred in Aug–Sep 2009 discussing ousting Aaron; a September anonymous letter accused Aaron of criminal conduct related to work at the Trade Union Labor Council (TULC).
- Ramsey reported suspected illegal activity at the TULC job to the U.S. Department of Labor in Oct 2009; Dowdy was interviewed by the Department in late Dec 2009/Jan 2010.
- Aaron learned in March 2010 that Ramsey and Dowdy had been involved with the Department of Labor and within weeks (April 9, 2010) terminated both business agents; others who attended the meetings but did not have Department contact were not fired.
- Plaintiffs sued under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); Ramsey also asserted a public-policy wrongful discharge claim for refusing to testify falsely. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie WPA claim (protected activity, adverse action, causation) | Ramsey/Dowdy: reported/supported investigation of alleged illegal conduct to a public body; termination closely followed employer learning of the reports, showing causation | Aaron/Local 1191: plaintiffs admitted they lacked direct proof Aaron fired them for the reports; temporal gap between reports and firing undermines causation | Court: Reversed trial court — viewed in plaintiffs’ favor, evidence (timing of Aaron learning, Aaron’s aggravation about allegations, only those who contacted DOL were fired) creates a jury question on causation |
| Whether defendants offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing | Ramsey/Dowdy: asserted reason (disloyalty/deceit re: secret meetings) was pretextual because others who joined meetings were not fired and only those tied to DOL were terminated | Aaron: asserted discharge for disloyalty and deceit (employees lied about loyalty; at-will employment permits discharge for that reason) | Court: Although defendant offered a fact-based reason, plaintiffs produced evidence from which a jury could infer pretext; summary disposition improper |
| Whether plaintiffs carried burden to rebut defendant’s reason (pretext) | Plaintiffs: pointed to selective discipline (only those who contacted DOL were fired), Aaron’s anger at the TULC accusations, and short interval after Aaron learned of DOL contacts | Defendants: argued meetings predated TULC allegations and provided a legitimate basis independent of whistleblowing | Held: Plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of pretext to survive summary disposition |
| Ramsey’s separate public-policy wrongful-discharge claim (refusal to lie) | Ramsey: was asked by Ruedisueli to give false deposition testimony and was fired for refusing, which violates public policy against perjury | Defendants: Aaron did not request false testimony; any request came from Ruedisueli and there’s no factual basis Aaron fired Ramsey for refusing to perjure himself | Held: Affirmed summary disposition for defendants on this claim — no factual basis to infer Aaron fired Ramsey for refusing to lie; claim was speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (establishes summary-judgment standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co, 493 Mich. 167 (WPA prima facie framework and inferences on causation)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (temporal proximity alone insufficient; employer’s knowledge strengthens causal inference)
- Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 456 Mich. 395 (elements of WPA prima facie case)
- Roulston v. Tendercare (Mich), Inc., 239 Mich. App. 270 (standards for rebutting employer’s proffered reason and proving pretext)
- Dubey v. Stroh Brewery Co., 185 Mich. App. 561 (methods for proving employer’s stated reasons are pretextual)
- Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692 (public-policy exception to at-will employment)
- Henry v. Laborers' Local 1191, 495 Mich. 260 (Michigan Supreme Court ruling limiting state-court WPA claims to allegations of criminal misconduct reports and resolving federal-preemption issues)