Whitman v. City of Burton
293 Mich. App. 220
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff sued under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) after Mayor Smiley declined to reappoint him as Burton police chief in 2007.
- Plaintiff alleged he was disciplined/terminated for reporting that Ordinance 68-C required payment for unused sick/personal/vacation days, which the city allegedly violated.
- March 2003, city administrators, including plaintiff, agreed to forgo payouts to address budget shortfall and preserve city services; the agreement was publicized by the mayor.
- In January 2004 plaintiff demanded payment for unused days under Ordinance 68-C; he sent letters asserting the payout violated the ordinance and notifying the mayor and city attorney.
- The city later paid some officers including plaintiff; the mayor later claimed his non-reappointment decision was for performance-related reasons, not retaliation.
- Jury found in plaintiff’s favor on WPA claim; trial court denied JNOV; on appeal, the majority reversed JNOV denial, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected activity under the WPA | Whitman engaged in protected activity by reporting a potential ordinance violation. | Whitman acted for personal financial gain, not public interest, undermining protected activity. | Whitman engaged in protected activity. |
| Causation between protected activity and non-reappointment | Protected activity contributed to Smiley’s decision not to reappoint Whitman. | Non-reappointment based on performance; protected activity was not a factor. | There was a factual dispute on causation; the protected activity could have influenced the decision. |
| Motivation/public interest vs private gain | Whitman acted in the public interest by enforcing the ordinance and upholding the law. | Whitman acted primarily for personal financial benefit. | Court treated motive as relevant but found record supported protected activity aligned with public interest; not barred by bad faith. |
| Setoff for pension benefits | Pension payments should not offset damages awarded to Whitman. | Pension benefits may be offset against damages. | Setoff issue unresolved in majority; remanded/affirmed judgment to plaintiff with offset implications discussed accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shallal v Catholic Social Servs of Wayne Co, 455 Mich 604 (Mich. 1997) (primary motivation must be to inform the public, not personal vindictiveness)
- West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (Mich. 2003) (prima facie WPA elements: protected activity, adverse action, causal link)
- Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373 (Mich. 1997) (WPA aims to protect public interest by enabling whistleblowing)
- Trepanier v Nat’l Amusements, Inc, 250 Mich App 578 (Mich. App. 2002) (distinguishes Shallal where public-interest motive existed)