The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) (MCL 15.361 et seq.); MCL 15.362; Prima facie case under the WPA; Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist.; “Causal connection”; Shaw v. City of Ecorse; Debano-Griffin v. Lake Cnty.; Roulston v. Tendercare (MI), Inc.; Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.; Effect of a “temporal relationship”; West v. General Motors Corp.; Taylor v. Modern Eng’g, Inc.; “Protected activity”; Brown v. Mayor of Detroit; MCL 15.361(d)(v); “Adverse employment action”; Wilcoxon v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.; “Constructive discharge”; Joliet v. Pitoniak; Vagts v. Perry Drug Stores, Inc.; LaPointe v. United Autoworkers Local 600 (6th Cir.); Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Lewis v. LeGrow; False imprisonment; Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley; Moore v. Detroit; Walsh v. Taylor; Conspiracy & concert of action claims; Admiral Ins. Co. v. Columbia Cas. Ins. Co.; Urbain v. Beierling

Holding that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to his WPA, IIED, false arrest, conspiracy, and concert of action claims, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the defendants summary disposition. The court agreed with the plaintiff-former police officer that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he was engaged in a protected activity for purposes of his WPA claim. However, it also agreed with defendants and the trial court that he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered an adverse employment action. “Plaintiff’s reassignments did not comprise a discharge, a threat, or a form of discrimination concerning his compensation or terms or conditions of employment.” He was a patrol officer, and he “admitted that patrol officers are rotated onto front desk duties and that they work in the jail.” Further, he “acknowledged that his pay and benefits were not altered” after he was assigned to the front desk and the jail. The court also rejected his claim that he was constructively discharged, concluding that defendant-Green’s “comments did not create working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Green made the comments after plaintiff had engaged in actions that could reasonably be viewed as concealment efforts or attempts to interfere in the investigation of him for identity theft or fraud,” including removing items “from his locker after learning it would be searched and his telling a neighbor to shred papers or remove a shredder from plaintiff’s home.” He was “told that he would be fired if he left his post and would be arrested if he interfered in the investigation of him for identity theft or fraud.” He “was not denied legitimate options for continued employment” with the police department. “If he remained at his post and did not interfere in the investigation, he could have remained employed.” The court also concluded that he “failed to raise a triable issue that defendants’ proffered legitimate reasons were a mere pretext for unlawful retaliation.”