Retaliation under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); MCL 15.362; Debano-Griffin v Lake Cnty; “Direct evidence”; Causal connection; Whether an employer offered a legitimate reason for terminating an employee; Pretext; Retaliation under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); MCL 37.2701(a); White v Department of Transp; Disparate treatment; Municipal liability under 42 USC § 1983; Johnson v Vanderkooi; Municipal custom; Office of Inspector General (OIG)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting defendants-city and supervisors summary disposition of plaintiff-former employee’s WPA claim, but did not err by granting them summary disposition of her ELCRA and municipal liability claims. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging she was terminated without just cause as a result of her OIG complaint. She asserted claims of retaliation under the WPA and the ELCRA, and municipal liability under § 1983. The trial court concluded there was inadequate evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that plaintiff’s OIG complaint was causally connected to her disciplinary action and termination. It also found there was no evidence that the defendants who were involved in making the adverse employment decision were aware that she had filed the OIG complaint. On appeal, the court first found that the trial court erred by granting defendants summary disposition of plaintiff’s WPA claim. She “presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow a reasonable fact-finder to find a causal connection between her protected activity, i.e., her OIG complaint, and her subsequent” termination, and “infer that the legitimate business reasons provided by defendants for [her] termination were pretextual.” However, the court found summary disposition for defendants was proper as to her other claims. “Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff’s OIG complaint was not a protected activity, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ELCRA . . . .” As to municipal liability, her “assertion that the city ‘failed to investigate the complaint filed by [plaintiff] with the OIG,’ does not rise to the level of showing a permanent and well-settled practice of failing to conduct OIG investigations.” And the evidence did “not establish a causal link between the denial of plaintiff’s OIG complaint and her termination.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.