Pace v. Edel-Harrelson
309 Mich. App. 256
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Barbara Pace worked 10 years as a transitional housing coordinator at SIREN/Eaton Shelter and was fired in January 2012.
- Pace reported to supervisors that coworker Christy Long had said she would use state grant funds to buy a stove for her daughter; Pace believed a misuse of grant funds (possible embezzlement).
- SIREN's stated reason for termination was that Pace engaged in intimidating, aggressive conduct toward a coworker after receiving a verbal warning. Witnesses gave conflicting accounts.
- Pace sued under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and alternatively for retaliatory discharge against public policy.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding Pace had not engaged in protected activity and rejecting the public-policy claim.
- The Court of Appeals reversed as to the WPA claim (finding triable issues on protected activity and causation) and affirmed dismissal of the public-policy claim as preempted by the WPA unless the WPA did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pace engaged in "protected activity" under the WPA by reporting a suspected violation of law | Pace reported a suspected misappropriation of grant funds (or active steps toward that misuse), which is a report of a suspected violation of an actual law | Pace reported at most a possible future act or unproven suspicion; no protected "violation or suspected violation" occurred | Reversed trial court: Pace’s testimony, viewed favorably, suffices to permit a jury to find she reported a suspected violation of an actual law (protected activity) |
| Whether Pace can show causation between protected activity and termination | The termination was pretextual; witnesses’ accounts conflict and defendants’ asserted reason may be fabricated | Termination arose from legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (intimidating conduct) and temporal proximity alone is insufficient | Reversed trial court: factual disputes about credibility and motive preclude summary disposition; causation is triable |
| Whether Pace’s common-law retaliatory-discharge claim survives if WPA applies | (pled in the alternative) If WPA applies, it provides exclusive remedy; otherwise common-law claim could proceed | WPA preempts the common-law claim if it covers the conduct | Affirmed dismissal of public-policy claim because WPA applies here; plaintiff conceded alternative claim only necessary if WPA did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 292 Mich. App. 626 (Mich. Ct. App.) (WPA’s purpose and liberal construction)
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake County, 486 Mich. 938 (Mich.) (Supreme Court order: reporting a suspected violation of an actual law is protected activity)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (Mich.) (elements for WPA prima facie case; temporal proximity alone insufficient for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)