Whitman v. City of Burton
493 Mich. 303
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Whitman, Burton police chief, sues under the WPA after not being reappointed in 2007.
- Plaintiff alleges the mayor’s nonreappointment stemmed from Whitman’s 2003–2004 challenges to compensate unused leave under Ordinance 68C.
- There was a 2003 budget-driven agreement to forgo payouts; Whitman challenged this ordinance in 2004.
- Whitman’s reporting of the ordinance violation preceded his 2007 discharge; he asserts the discharge was retaliation for protected activity.
- The Court of Appeals had reversed, holding that Whitman’s threat to report was not for the public but his own financial benefit; the Supreme Court granted leave to review.
- The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying motivation is not required for protected activity and remanded for causation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a primary-motivation requirement under WPA MCL 15.362? | Whitman argues Shallal imposes a public-motivation prerequisite. | Burton argues motivation matters to determine protected conduct. | No primary-motivation requirement; motive not part of protected conduct. |
| Was Whitman's conduct protected activity under WPA? | Whitman’s reporting of Ordinance 68C violation constitutes protected activity. | Defendant contends the conduct may not qualify as protected. | Whitman engaged in protected activity. |
| Can causation between protected activity and adverse employment action be established? | Evidence shows Whitman’s reporting influenced the nonreappointment. | Evidence on causation was disputed. | Causes remanded for determination of whether causation is met under MCL 15.362. |
| What is the status of Shallal’s interpretation in light of WPA text? | Shallal’s emphasis on motive is unwarranted. | Shallal supports a motive-based inquiry. | Shallal disavowed as dicta; not a prerequisite to WPA claim. |
| Remand scope after decision? | Remand for remaining issues, including causation, to Court of Appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604 (1997) (recognized Shallal’s approach but later disavowed motive prerequisite)
- Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 493 Mich 167 (2013) (applies statutory interpretation principles to WPA context)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (statutory construction rules for clear language)
- Wolcott v Champion Int'l Corp, 691 F. Supp. 1052 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (primary motivation concept drawn from federal precedent)
- Whitman v City of Burton, 293 Mich App 220 (2011) (Court of Appeals' analysis of motivation under WPA; relied on Shallal)