Nick Cirenese v. Torsion Control Products Inc
331208
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Nick Cirenese) appealed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Torsion Control Products, its owner/manager Thane, and supervisor Walker on his claim of retaliatory discharge under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA).
- Plaintiff reported to police that a coworker (Henry Green) threatened him with a knife and later did not return to work after reporting the incident; defendants treated his absence as a voluntary resignation and terminated employment.
- Defendants relied on a police report (investigation closed without charges) and evidence of plaintiff’s workplace conflicts to justify treating the failure to return as voluntary resignation.
- Plaintiff argued temporal proximity, Thane’s deposition hypotheticals, and his previously positive employment record supported a prima facie WPA claim and showed pretext.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a police report was protected activity under the WPA | Cirenese: his police report qualified as protected activity (report of suspected law violation) | Defendants: report was false; not protected if plaintiff knew it false; investigation found no charges | Court: did not need to decide admissibility but found causation lacking; WPA protection issue not dispositive |
| Causation between protected activity and discharge | Cirenese: temporal proximity and Thane’s deposition hypotheticals show retaliatory motive | Torsion: plaintiff voluntarily failed to return to work; no evidence filing harmed employer or motivated termination | Court: timing alone insufficient; record lacks evidence that filing adversely affected employer or motivated discharge |
| Whether Thane’s deposition statement is direct evidence of retaliation | Cirenese: Thane’s hypothetical admission (would reinstate plaintiff if police found knife) is direct evidence | Defendants: Thane also testified plaintiff could return regardless; the hypothetical does not compel discriminatory intent | Court: statement did not constitute direct evidence; at best speculative and insufficient to avoid summary disposition |
| Whether defendants’ reasons were pretext (shifting justifications) | Cirenese: defendants shifted reasons (voluntary resignation vs misconduct), showing pretext | Torsion: consistent primary reason—failure to return to work; other misconduct evidence was responsive context | Court: reasons did not materially shift; no genuine dispute of pretext; plaintiff failed to show employer’s reasons were false or a cover for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 317 Mich App 395 (discussing de novo review of summary disposition)
- Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dells, 301 Mich App 368 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) and admissible evidence)
- Hays v. Lutheran Social Servs. of Mich., 300 Mich App 54 (WPA prima facie elements reviewed de novo)
- McNeill-Marks v. MidMichigan Med. Ctr.-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1 (prima facie and burden-shifting framework under WPA)
- West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (timing alone insufficient for causation)
- Garg v. Macomb Co. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich 263 (causation cannot be established solely by timing)
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co., 493 Mich 167 (plaintiff must show pretext for unlawful discrimination)
- Cuddington v. United Health Servs., 298 Mich App 264 (causation element often difficult to prove)
- Libralter Plastics, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 199 Mich App 482 (opposing party must present evidentiary proof beyond speculation to avoid summary disposition)
- Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., 749 F.3d 530 (federal discussion on shifting justifications and inference of pretext)