Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan District
495 Mich. 242
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Richard Wurtz served as Beecher Metropolitan District administrator under a self-drafted 10-year contract (Feb 1, 2000–Feb 1, 2010). He received full salary and benefits and worked the entire term.
- Beginning in 2008–2009 Wurtz reported alleged Open Meetings Act violations and questioned board reimbursements for an out-of-state conference; those events led to tension and a criminal investigation of board members (charges later dismissed or resulted in acquittal).
- On November 11, 2009 the board voted 3–2 not to renew Wurtz’s contract and to seek a new administrator; the board permitted Wurtz to remain through the contract’s expiration.
- Wurtz sued under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, claiming nonrenewal was retaliation for protected whistleblowing.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, holding WPA was exclusive remedy and Wurtz was not discharged during his contract; Court of Appeals reversed; Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and considered whether nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract is covered by the WPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WPA applies to nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract | Nonrenewal is an adverse employment action and constitutionally equivalent to discharge for WPA purposes | WPA protects only current employees; nonrenewal is a hiring decision and not covered | WPA does not apply to nonrenewal; plaintiff lacks a WPA claim |
| Whether a contract employee seeking reengagement is treated as a prospective employee | Wurtz: having been an employee who engaged in protected activity, he should be entitled to renewal protections | Defendants: a contract employee seeking a new term is legally like a job applicant and excluded from WPA protections | Court: contract employee seeking a new term is equivalent to a prospective employee and excluded from WPA |
| Whether plaintiff suffered an enumerated adverse action under MCL 15.362 | Nonrenewal constitutes being "discharged, threatened, or otherwise discriminated against regarding...terms, conditions...of employment" | The WPA’s enumerated actions apply only to current employees; nonrenewal is outside those enumerated actions | Nonrenewal is not one of the statute’s enumerated adverse employment actions for WPA relief |
| Whether summary disposition was premature pending discovery | Wurtz argued additional discovery (e.g., past renewals) could show a pattern converting nonrenewal into actionable conduct | Defendants argued no discovery could change that WPA does not cover nonrenewal when plaintiff served full term with no adverse acts during employment | Summary disposition was proper; additional discovery could not bring plaintiff within WPA protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (statutory interpretation and de novo review of WPA issues)
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (standard for de novo review of C(10) summary disposition)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (contract employee has no expectancy of renewed employment absent an express obligation)
- Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 456 Mich 395 (elements of a WPA claim; protected activity and adverse action analysis)
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake Co., 493 Mich 167 (WPA jurisprudence and requirement to show employer action “because” of protected activity)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (Second Circuit holding that nonrenewal can be an adverse action under Title VII/ADEA; distinguished because those statutes reach hiring decisions)