Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; The Real Estate Brokers Act; An independent contractor in the real estate profession; MCL 339.2501(h); Whether an independent contractor is prohibited from asserting a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim; Landin v Healthsource Saginaw Inc; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

Concluding that plaintiff’s relationship with defendant-real estate company met MCL 339.2501(h)’s definition of an “independent contractor relationship” where he entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with defendant as an associate broker, the court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his employment status. It further held that as an independent contractor, he could not assert a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant. In count I of his complaint, plaintiff asserted a claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy based “on his purported refusal—presumably as an employee—to violate RESPA” by exclusively using a particular title company in real estate transactions as required by defendant, rather than allowing buyers and sellers to select their settlement services provider. Count II asserted “a claim of retaliatory termination of employment contract in violation of public policy premised on his purported refusal—presumably as an independent contractor—to violate RESPA.” As to Count I, “MCL 339.2501(a) plainly distinguishes between an associate broker who provides real estate brokerage services as an ‘employee’ of a real estate broker and an associate broker who provides real estate brokerage services as an ‘independent contractor’ of a real estate broker.” Given that plaintiff was an associate broker who entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with defendant, his employment status “was definitive—he was an independent contractor and not an employee.” As to Count II, the court declined to extend “the public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine—which have historically only applied to employees—” to independent contractors. It noted that doing so “would clearly be an expansion of the current doctrine,” and that the courts in several other “states have ruled that public policy exceptions to at-will employment doctrines do not protect independent contractors.” Plaintiff failed to refer the court “to any persuasive authority that supports the extension of the public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine outside the context of the employer-employee relationship.”