Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich. 1

Barbara Pace reported a coworker (Christy Long) said she intended to use SIREN grant funds to buy a stove for her daughter and suggested documenting it under a client.
Pace told supervisors and then the executive director (Edel-Harrelson); Pace later testified she believed the purchase had already occurred but her report to Edel-Harrelson concerned Long’s stated intention.
SIREN terminated Pace on January 18, 2012, citing harassment/intimidation toward a coworker; Pace sued under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.362.
The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue whether Pace engaged in protected activity and whether that was causally connected to her termination.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted review (in lieu of leave), addressed whether MCL 15.362 protects reports of planned or future unlawful acts, and summarily reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reporting another employee’s stated intention to commit unlawful conduct in the future is "protected activity" under MCL 15.362	Pace argued her report of Long’s statements (and her belief Long may have already acted) is a report of a violation or suspected violation protected by the WPA	Defendants argued the WPA covers only existing or ongoing violations or suspected violations, not future or planned misconduct	Held: WPA protection extends only to existing or ongoing violations or suspected violations; reports of planned/future acts are not protected as a matter of law
Whether the Court of Appeals properly treated Pace’s subjective belief (that the purchase already occurred) as converting the report into a report of an existing violation	Pace relied on her deposition that she believed Long already had purchased the stove to show she reported a suspected existing violation	Defendants argued the record shows Pace reported Long’s intention, not that an actual violation had occurred, so her subjective belief is irrelevant under the statutory text	Held: The statute protects reports of a violation or suspected violation "reports or is about to report"; unexpressed subjective belief is irrelevant when the communicated report concerned future intent, so Pace did not engage in protected activity

Pace v. Edel-Harrelson, 309 Mich. App. 256 (Mich. Ct. App.) (underlying Court of Appeals decision discussed)
Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co., 486 Mich. 938 (Mich.) (distinguishing case where plaintiff reported a suspected existing violation)
Brackett v. Focus Hope, Inc., 482 Mich. 269 (Mich.) (statutory interpretation principles)
Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 292 Mich. App. 626 (Mich. Ct. App.) (framework for WPA and public-policy claim interaction)
Grundtner v. Univ. of Minnesota, 730 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. Ct. App.) (analogous interpretation holding whistleblower statute did not cover contemplated but uncommitted conduct)