Rose Mary Schuessler v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids
331985
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Schuessler worked as a family service counselor for diocesan cemeteries from 2006 until her 2014 termination after a new Director, James Arsulowicz, was hired.
- In 2014 she reported suspected embezzlement by co-worker Michael Wawee to supervisors and police and assisted the prosecutor; Wawee pleaded no contest and was prosecuted.
- Shortly after Wawee’s conviction, the diocese hired Wawee’s uncle Arsulowicz as Director; Arsulowicz terminated Schuessler after learning she called coworkers derogatory names during a work-time conversation.
- The diocese then eliminated the family service counselor position and terminated the other counselors weeks later.
- Schuessler sued alleging violations of Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of implied contract, IIED, and civil conspiracy; several claims were dismissed or abandoned, leaving WPA, public policy, and conspiracy claims.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Schuessler appeals only the WPA and public-policy dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schuessler established a prima facie WPA claim (causation) | Temporal proximity to hiring of Arsulowicz plus familial tie to Wawee and differential treatment of others infer retaliation | No direct evidence; timing alone insufficient; family tie and alleged comparators don’t show Arsulowicz knew or retaliated | Court: No prima facie showing of causation; summary disposition proper |
| Whether the public-policy claim survives alongside the WPA | Public-policy wrongful termination distinct from WPA and should proceed | WPA is exclusive remedy for retaliatory discharge for reporting unlawful conduct | Court: WPA preempts public-policy claim arising from same protected reporting; public-policy claim dismissed |
| Whether defendant’s asserted legitimate reason was pretext | Schuessler argues termination was actually retaliation, not a legitimate reorganization | Defendants: planned elimination of position; unprofessional conduct accelerated discharge; legitimate non-retaliatory reason | Court: Even if prima facie established, defendants offered legitimate reason and Schuessler offered no evidence of pretext |
| Whether alleged comparator evidence (Rothenthaler, Van Maastricht, Anthony Smith) supports inference of retaliation | Comparators show inconsistent discipline/protection indicating retaliatory motive | No evidence comparators committed misconduct or that Arsulowicz knew of their misconduct; speculation insufficient | Court: Comparator evidence insufficient to infer causation or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373 (1997) (WPA purpose and exclusivity for retaliatory-discharge claims)
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake County, 493 Mich 167 (2013) (McDonnell Douglas framework and plaintiff’s burdens in WPA retaliation claims)
- Whitman v. Burton, 493 Mich 303 (2013) (elements of a WPA prima facie case)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp., 292 Mich App 626 (2011) (WPA preempts common-law public-policy claims based on same activity)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (2003) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove causation)
- Hays v. Lutheran Social Servs. of Mich., 300 Mich App 54 (2013) (standard of review for WPA claims on appeal)
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich 105 (2008) (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition)
- Libralter Plastics, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 199 Mich App 482 (1993) (speculation and conjecture insufficient to create triable issue)