Termination of employment; Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); Henry v Detroit; “Public body” (MCL 15.361(d)); Causal link; Shaw v City of Ecorse; Public policy violation claim; Kimmelman v Heather Down Mgmt Ltd

In this case that arose from the termination of plaintiff’s employment as an investigator with defendant-public defender’s office, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendants. He first argued that his termination was the result of improper retaliation under the WPA. But the court concluded he failed to present “evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that he was engaged in protected activity or that there was causal connection between his participation in such activity and [the county administrator’s] decision to terminate his employment.” Thus, he did not “establish a prima facie case that his termination was the result of improper retaliation under the WPA.” Plaintiff next argued that his termination violated public policy. The parties did not dispute that he “was an at-will employee at the public defender’s office.” He contended “that his termination violated public policy because his employment with the public defender’s office was conditioned on his concealment of unlawful activity. Assuming that the refusal to conceal unlawful activity is a situation in which the public-policy exception to at-will employment applies,” there was no evidence that he “was terminated for refusing to conceal unlawful activity.” The court noted that his discharge “would not conceal any alleged wrongdoing by the sheriff’s office. As a result, even if plaintiff’s claims were not preempted by the WPA, his termination did not violate public policy.”