Shaundale Davis v. Flint Housing Commission
330975
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Davis was a property manager for the Flint Housing Commission (FHC), a public body, and reported two incidents: a maintenance employee (Partridge) allegedly entered a tenant’s unit and stole items, and a tenant’s household member (Jackson’s son) had felony issues that may violate FHC residency rules.
- Davis reported both matters to interim executive director Terrence Clark and other FHC staff; Clark agreed Davis was "doing the right thing." Davis alleges Clark’s attitude toward her changed after the reports.
- Clark suspended Davis in July 2012 and then terminated her employment; written reasons included insubordination and policy violations, later described variably in litigation (including allegations of dishonesty and poor tenant-file management).
- Davis sued under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), claiming retaliation for protected reports to a public body; defendants sought summary disposition and lost at the trial-court stage.
- At trial the jury answered “No” to whether Davis engaged in protected activity; the trial court denied her motion for a new trial as against the great weight of the evidence. Davis appealed; defendants cross-appealed summary-disposition denial.
- The Court of Appeals held that (1) uncontroverted trial evidence established Davis engaged in protected activity, (2) genuine issues of material fact existed on causation and pretext, reversed the denial of Davis’s new-trial motion, affirmed denial of defendants’ summary-disposition motion, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis engaged in WPA "protected activity" | Davis reported violations of law/rules to FHC supervisors (a public body) and thus engaged in protected activity | Jury and defendants claimed evidence did not support protected-activity finding | Court: Evidence uncontroverted that Davis reported to a public body; finding of "no" was against great weight; new trial warranted |
| Whether a new trial should be granted as against the great weight of evidence | The verdict that she did not engage in protected activity was contrary to all evidence | Verdict stands; trial court denied new trial | Court: Trial court abused discretion by failing to analyze evidence on protected-activity question; reverse and remand for new trial |
| Whether summary disposition for defendants was proper on causation/pretext grounds | Davis offered circumstantial evidence (timing, Clark’s change in demeanor, relationships with Partridge/board member) sufficient to create triable issues on causation and pretext | Defendants argued no causal link, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and insufficiency of evidence | Court: Genuine issues of material fact existed on causation and pretext; affirmed denial of summary disposition |
| Whether reports were to a "public body" under the WPA | Davis reported to FHC supervisors; FHC conceded public-body status | Defendants argued HUD is not a public body and thus reports might not qualify | Court: FHC is a public body; defendants waived challenge; WPA protection applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (Mich. 2013) (purpose and scope of WPA)
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co., 493 Mich 167 (Mich. 2013) (elements of a WPA claim)
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich 456 (Mich. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas framework and proof of retaliation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence)
- Garg v. Macomb Co. Community Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich 263 (Mich. 2005) (timing alone insufficient for causation)
- Town v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 455 Mich 688 (Mich. 1997) (discrediting employer’s reasons together with prima facie case may support discrimination/retaliation)
- Dawe v. Bar-Levav & Assocs., PC, 289 Mich App 380 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review of great-weight claims)