*1 West v Gen Motors WEST v GENERALMOTORSCORPORATION July 22, application by defendant, Docket No. 121003.Decided 2003. On a Corporation, appeal, Supreme General Motors for leave to Court, granting leave, part in lieu of affirmed in and reversed in part judgment Appeals, of the Court of and reinstated the cir- summary disposition cuit court order of in favor of the defendant. post, Rehearing denied 1224. West, wife, derivatively, brought Calvin and his an action in the Wayne against Corporation Circuit Court General Motors and sev- employees, alleging eral of relating its numerous counts to his dis- employment. court, missal Neilson, from The circuit Susan Bieke J., granted summary disposition for the defendants and dismissed complaint. Appeals, P.J., The Court of and Meter Griffin, JJ., unpublished opinion per curiam, in an affirmed in K F. Kelly, part, ordering and reversed in a remand for trial on the count under seq., the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act MCL 15.361et (wpa), because the Court could not determine as a matter of law that absolutely there was no causal connection between Calvin West’s police report workplace of a assault him and his dismissal employment (Docket 224408). Corpora- from No. General Motors sought appeal. tion leave to opinion per curiam, signed by In an Chief Justice Corrigan, Supreme Justices Weaver, Taylor, Court Young, Markman, held-. present failed to evidence that would allow reason- jurors able report to find a causal connection between the subsequent employment he made affecting and the decisions him. There is no factual issue for a to decide. prima 1. To establish a facie case under the a must wpa, engaged protected activity act, show that he was in a under the discharged against, that the was or discriminated and that protected activity a causal connection exists between the and the present action. The failed to demonstrating facie case. case, plaintiff reported 2. In alleged an assault to the police, protected activity supervi- under the and then told his wpa, report. supervisors sors of the Because the were not involved in plaintiff, discharge there is no demonstration the decision to report advising supervisors of his of the or the that the employment action. a cause of the adverse relationship plaintiff’s discharge temporal after the of the 3. The *2 alone, police, standing a causal report does not demonstrate to the employ- activity protected and adverse the connection between connecting plaintiff presented no evidence The ment action. discharge to the to his part; part order circuit court Affirmed in and reversed reinstated. joined by Cavanagh, dissenting, stated that Justice Justice Kelly, support plaintiff present under the his claim did evidence
the prevent summary dis- Act sufficient to Whistleblowers’ Protection light in the position If the evidence is viewed for the defendant. nonmoving party, plaintiff plaintiff, the to the the most favorable that, proven, presented allegations allow the if could several infer causation. by relating to time sheet The lack of action General Motors year police report plaintiff
problems in the before he filed a of the problems discharge the time sheet after and his for claimed report brought report support the about the an inference employment actions. gm seeking wages for overtime that The was fired for work, work. A trier but the claims he did claims he did not question, did work the hours of fact could find wrongfully discharged. leading A inference that he was legitimate, wrongful discharge was not a would show that there nondiscriminatory plaintiff’s firing. reason for the they be, light in the most are as must If the facts construed apparent question plaintiff, that a it becomes favorable to Appeals judgment should be fact exists in this case. The Court be remanded to the trial court. affirmed and the case should — — Activity Protection Act Protected Labor Relations Whistleblowers’ — Employment Adverse Action. activity protected between A causal employment action, Act and an adverse Whistleblowers’ Protection act, necessary for a facie case under which connection is merely action the adverse is not established because activity; present protected must followed the jurors to find a causal connection that would allow reasonable activity action and the adverse 15.362). (MCL v West Gen Motors Opinion of the Court Wright (by Associates, O’NealO. & P.C. O’Neal0. plaintiff- Wright Lynette Bledsaw), and M. for the appellee.
Hardy,
Page,
(by
Page
Lewis &
P.C.
V.
Terence
Kay
Butler),
Corporation.
Rivest
for General Motors
granted
circuit court
defendant
Per
Curiam.
summary disposition
General Motors’ motion for
plaintiff’s1complaint,
alleged
dismissed
which
a count
Act,
under the Whistleblowers’ Protection
MCL15.361
seq.,
battery, wrongful
et
counts of assault and
discharge,
report-
discrimination,
race
retaliation for
ing
discrimination,
acts of
and loss of consortium.
The Court of
reversed the dismissal of
tiff’s whistleblower count and affirmed the remainder
ruling.
of the circuit court’s
appeal
Defendant2seeks to
of the Court of
*3
Appeals
reinstating plaintiff’s
decision
plaintiff
cross-appeal
count, while
seeks to
Appeals
the Court of
decision that affirmed the dis-
complaint.
plain-
missal of the balance of his
Because
supporting
tiff failed to come forward with evidence
the causation element of
claim,
his whistleblower
we
aspect
reverse that
of the Court of
decision
summary
and reinstate the circuit court’s
order
dis-
position in favor of defendant. We have also consid-
plaintiff’s application
cross-appeal,
ered
for leave to
application
and that
is denied because we find no
by plaintiff.
merit in the issues raised
Margo
Ann West’s
for
derivative claim is
loss of consortium.
reference,
opinion
plaintiff
singular.
For
ease of
we refer to
in the
only
Defendant General Motors is the
defendant
involved in this
appeal.
I as a maintenance West worked Plaintiff Calvin supervisor was a Motors. He for defendant General complet- responsible employee for and was salaried ing was warned several time sheet. Plaintiff his own February misrepre- about and in times in 1996 actually senting Nevertheless, worked. the time he reported plaintiff overtime on his four extra hours of May supervisors learned 22, 1997. His time sheet for investigation, and, after an of this overstatement disciplined 4, 1997.Plaintiff was was on June prohibited working overtime, and he was from salaried-employee required entrance and to to use “swipe” badge at the entrance each his identification plant. addition, In time he entered or left the orally writing, reporting time advised, was actually not worked constituted fraudulent that was in termination of his and could result conduct employment. August Effective was transferred 11, 1997, morning to the afternoon shift.3 Plain- from the shift supervisors. accordingly In tiff worked different September again allowed to work 1997, plaintiff reported two 16, 1997, overtime. On October investiga- he did not work. An hours of overtime that this incident led to the termination of tion of January 1998, because of tiffs plaintiffs repeated employer’s poli- violations of reporting cies for time worked.4 defendant, plaintiff According afternoon was transferred to the *4 required supervisor morning a maintenance who shift shift because overtime. could work initially acknowledged that he had not worked the overtime Plaintiff day. Later, it the next he asserted on but said he had worked October West v Gen Motors Court plaintiff working
While was still on the morning shift, May an incident 4, 1997, involving occurred person union committee named Jim Reeves. Plaintiff entered a room where Reeves and others were in con- plaintiff ference. When did not leave the room as ordered, physical Reeves there was contact between plaintiff and Plaintiff Reeves. claims that he was by Reeves; shoved Reeves claims that when he stood up from his desk plaintiff. his stomach brushed reported plant security to that Reeves had addition, plaintiff assaulted him. In claims he tele phoned reported police Romulus the assault. Plaintiff also asserts that he advised his immediate supervisor, Koyal, supervisor, Randall and his area Tate, reported John that he had the assault to the police. Royal’s Plaintiff characterized response being report police told about the to the as “nonchal ant.”6 Plaintiff said that he could not discern Tate’s response upon plaintiff learning had contacted police, but upset Tate seemed to be that the inci dent and Reeves had occurred.7
In his complaint, plaintiff claimed that his rights under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act were vio- lated because he was retaliated and discrimi- actually reported that he worked the overtime hours that he on October However, supervisor 16 on that date. stated that left after completing eight addition, an hour shift and did not return. In no one else plaintiff during saw the two hours at issue. 5 According plaintiff, police complaint. told him to file a written complaint, up Plaintiff never filed such a nor did he otherwise follow with police. 6 Koyal deposition testified at his that he did not learn that called until he received notice of this lawsuit. deposition, plaintiff being upset At his incident Tate recalled about the Reeves, anything with but Tate was not asked about whether said making about *5 Opinion of the Court reporting the Reeves assault to the nated complaint alleged that after the Plaintiffs Koyal differently report, him both Tate and treated unfairly things, by, among other accus- and retaliated transferring ing him to a violations, him of time-sheet employment. terminating his shift, different summary disposition granted circuit court defendant regarding reasoning that did not count, prima pres- establish a facie case because he failed to between his ent evidence of causal connection police any to the Romulus adverse employment action.8 The circuit court also concluded that, even if had established a facie employer legitimate case, the had shown a reason for actions. its Appeals a factual
The Court of found that issue regarding was a existed whether there causal connec- plaintiffs telephone call to the Romulus tion between subsequent and the summary- accordingly actions. The Court reversed the disposition order and remanded the case for further proceedings plaintiffs whistleblower count. The Court of did not address the circuit court’s finding legitimate that there were reasons for the employment actions.
II summary-disposition regarding Defendants’ motion brought the whistleblower claim was under MCR specifically The adverse actions discussed the circuit (1) imposed (2) court were the “overtime restriction” in June shift, (3) transfer to the afternoon the decision to terminate employment. vWest Gen Motors
Opinion of the Court
2.116(C)(10)
(no genuine issue of material
fact).
Appellate review of the
grant
summary-
denial of a
disposition motion is de novo, and the court views
the evidence in the light most favorable
party
Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich
the motion.
opposing
109, 118, 120; 597
Summary
NW2d 817 (1999).
disposi-
appropriate
tion is
under MCR
if there is
2.116(C)(10)
no genuine
issue regarding
material fact and the
party
moving
is entitled to
as a
judgment
matter of
law.
genuine
A
issue of material fact exists when the
*6
record,
giving
benefit of reasonable doubt to the
opposing party,
open
leaves
an
upon
issue
which rea-
sonable minds
Shallal v Catholic Social
differ.
might
Wayne
Services
Co,
III Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim is brought under 15.362, MCL which states: employer An discharge, threaten, shall not or otherwise against employee discriminate an regarding employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, privileges or employment employee, person because the acting or a on employee, reports behalf of the report, or is about to ver- bally writing, or in suspected a violation or a violation of a regulation law or promulgated pursuant or rule to law of state, political a state, subdivision of this or the United public body, employee States to a unless the knows that the report false, employee requested by is or because an is public body participate investigation, hearing, to in an inquiry by public body, held or a court action. To establish a facie case under this statute, a plaintiff must show that (1) plaintiff was engaged the Court by (2) activity protected act,9 as defined against, discharged and or discriminated (3) between the exists a causal activity discharge or adverse and the Schlumberger, Inc, 456 Dowell v action. Chandler supra (1998); at Shallal, NW2d210 395, 399; 572 610. report his to the that, claims because disciplined
police, from he was barred when he was badge, swipe required his identification to overtime, discharged. shift, afternoon and transferred no eviden- of the record reveals However, our review tiary support find could from which a reasonable plaintiffs causal connection actions. these point that he the factual case rests on Plaintiff’s Koyal supervisors he had Tate that advised reported assertion, That the assault to enough a reasonable inference to raise itself, is not against or discriminated was retaliated report. nothing It does the basis of the plaintiff’s contacts a causal nexus between establish subsequent employment supervisors with *7 appropri- Summary disposition is for the defendant factually plaintiff a demonstrate when a cannot ate activity protected the and link between the causal example, employment Shallal, in For adverse necessary plaintiff causal the failed to establish the discharge was knew her because she 9 deciding opinion, purpose without that we assume For the of protected doing plaintiff police, activ and that so is a the Romulus called 68; ity. Schmid, Inc, NW2d 645 443 Mich v Norris See Dudewicz West v Motors Gen the Court of activity protected
imminent before the on which she Roberson v claim, based her America, Health Occupational Inc, Centers 322; App plaintiff 559 NW2d failed (1996), to show a causal connection because the evidence did not show that the knew about the employer Occupational tiff’s of a with filing complaint Safety Health Administration until after she was discharged.
The most that here is demonstrates that he eventually was disciplined, discharged, after he reported the police to that Reeves had assaulted him. To prevail, had to show that his employer because took adverse action protected activity, merely but plaintiff has shown that him employer disciplined after activity occurred. Plaintiff had to demonstrate action was in some manner protected activity, influenced has but failed to make such demonstration. The does not show that either of the whom supervisors, allegedly informed about the call to the police, any consequence. viewed the call as a matter Nor supervisor was either involved the decision to dis- charge plaintiff.10 Koyal There is no evidence that Tate gave thought plaintiff’s report even second to any- Plaintiff did not recall saying Tate he thing when learned about report, he did seem the incident although upset with transferred, reported After the time he was and at he the unworked leading discharge, working overtime to his under a different supervisor. Thus, Koyal it cannot be assumed that and Tate were involved plaintiff’s employment. in the decision terminate *8 177 469 186 Opinion of the Court Royal’s testified occurred, Reeves was “nonchalant.” reaction about which actions employment
Although
after
complains occurred
alone,
standing
temporal
relationship,
police, such
between
causal connection
does not demonstrate
employment
activity and
protected
temporal
than a
more
Something
employ-
and an adverse
protected conduct
between
where dis-
to show causation
required
action is
ment
v
Nguyen
is claimed.11
retaliation
crimination-based
6,
(retalia-
Cleveland,
(CA 2000)
A case
which
234
Henry
Detroit,
is
v
claim
ported
But unlike
App
(1999).
that his clear with the *9 protected activity by plaintiff. engaged in the In con- Henry, plaintiff any trast to has not shown reaction supervisors his conduct that reason- the ably they suggests upset by that were the fact that plaintiff reported police. an to Moreover, assault the contrary Appeals, to view of the Court of the evi- plaintiffs dence does not show that record was “impeccable” or “unblemished” before Reeves discipline imposed seemingly incident or that the Henry.13 as in undeserved it was The fact that a “protected activity” engages tiff in a under the Whistleblowers’ Act not Protection does immunize legitimate, him from an or unrelated, otherwise job adverse only
The evidence has shown other than temporal sequence of events is that one of the supervisors two he notified was nonchalant. This does not amount to evidence from which reason- juror employ- able could conclude that adverse ment action directed at was related to the police report lodged by plaintiff. regard employment-discharge
With decision particular, plaintiff presented has no evidence con- necting discharge police. his to persons conducting There is no investigation plaintiff’s discharge that led to or the persons discharge who made the were decision even supervisors aware that called the The (Koyal Tate), whom claims he told about 13Unpublished opinion curiam, per January (Docket issued No. 224408), pp 1, 4. Mich 177 Opinion of the Court discharge report, police involved in the not were decision. finding con- Court of erred present permissible a fac- inferences facts
tested nothing case.14There is issue for a in this tual speculation pure conjecture to link than more any subsequent plaintiffs call to the employment action.15
IV present would allow did not evidence that Plaintiff juror to find causal a reasonable police report plaintiff and the made between the plaintiff. affecting subsequent decisions prima facie therefore failed to establish a *10 Act. We the Protection case under Whistleblowers’ Appeals judgment of the of in the Court reverse granting court order defen- and reinstate circuit summary disposition dant Appeals respects Court deci- In all other
claim. 7.302(G)(1). is affirmed. MCR sion C.J., Young, Weaver, Taylor, Corrigan, Markman, JJ., concurred. standard, analysis clear, applicable preceding under As the makes requires light in the favorable to us to view the evidence most which
plaintiff, plaintiff he has failed to establish facie claim because of a demonstrated a causal connection—an essential element has not Protection Act—between the claim under Whistleblowers’ activity and the adverse its that its decision on To the extent the Court rested liberally principle interpretation be of the that “remedial statutes are to simply persons benefitted,” in favor of intended to be we construed accurately according obligation construe a to its note that our is to statute “liberally construing” a transform mere and that statute does not terms speculation genuine fact. into a issue of material vWest Gen Motors Dissenting Opinion by J. Kelly, majority J. The (dissenting). holds that
Kelly, plaintiff presented support insufficient evidence to claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (wpa), my view, contrary MCL In quite 15.362. is true. presented entirely sufficient evidence to I Therefore, reach the on this claim. dissent. I reviewing ruling When on a defendant’s motion for summary disposition, view the we must evidence in the light plaintiff, most favorable to the the non- moving party. Maiden v Rozwood, 109; NW2d 817 The majority articulates, but neglects follow, mandate ruling defendant. satisfy
To claim, plaintiff the elements of his must present (1) he was engaged pro- activity tected act, as defined (2) he was dis- charged discriminated against, (3) a causal link exists the protected activity and the dis- charge or adverse majority action. The concedes that plaintiff established the first two ele- ments, but holds that he has not established the third, causation. at 184. Ante
One method of
whether an
determining
element
has
party
been established is to ask if a
has raised a
question
material
of fact
it.
majority
about
acknowledges
genuine issue material fact
“[a]
*11
record,
exists when the
the benefit of
giving
reason-
able
party,
doubt
leaves
opposing
open an
upon
issue
which
differ.”
reasonable minds might
183,
Ante at
citing Shallal v Catholic Social Services
Wayne
455 Mich
Co,
604, 609;
Dissenting by J. Kelly, (1997); Quinto Co, & Peters v Cross 369; 547 NW2d allegations the record reveals several case,
In this they proven, a which, if were to be factfinder from did not dis- First, infer defendant could causation. charge after the whistle” until he “blew reporting shoving Defen- incident to premised plaintiff’s termination of dant nearly per- problems. had a his time sheet history thirty-year employment with defendant. fect year preceding during However, the whistleblow- ing, grown had concerned about defendant sheet it took no action. time errors. Nonetheless whistleblowing, time, Then, after for the first allegedly defendant acted because preceding problems. of action the time sheet The lack police report supports an inference that actions taken caused the afterward. time led
Second, denied that the sheet that firing that he did work. to his contained overtime not work If the trier of fact should that did find question, plaintiff was the two hours in it follows that validly wrongfully discharged. It be could inferred retaliatory wrongful discharge that the constituted against plaintiff whistleblowing. Also, action wrongful discharge shows there not the nondiscriminatory legitimate, firing reason for tiff that defendant asserts existed.
II majority sidesteps the evidence consti- by construing of fact the facts in the tutes issues *12 v Gen Motors West Dissenting Opinion Kelly, J. Construing light them to defendant. most favorable correctly, evident that it becomes favor, question in this case. exists fact about causation Accordingly, decision the unanimous I would affirm summary dis- reverse of the Court position count remand on the court. case the trial Kelly, J. J., concurred
Cavanagh, with