Retaliatory discharge; The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); Debano-Griffin v Lake Cnty; Causation; Hearsay; Applicability of MRE 801(d)(2) (party-opponent admission); Pretext; Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Harmless error; Motion for remittitur; The Michigan Occupational Safety & Health Administration (MIOSHA)

The court held that defendant-former employer in this WPA action for retaliatory discharge was properly denied summary disposition because plaintiff-former employee established a prima facie case. While it concluded that some statements were inadmissible under MRE 801(d)(2), another statement qualified as a party admission and supported a finding of causation. Plaintiff also presented evidence of pretext sufficient to survive summary disposition. Finally, while the court upheld the denial of defendant’s motion for JNOV, it determined the jury’s finding of economic damages was inconsistent with the evidence and defendant was entitled to remittitur. Plaintiff’s suit alleged that defendant terminated his employment in retaliation for making a MIOSHA complaint. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, awarding him $50,000 in economic damages and $50,000 in noneconomic damages. On appeal, defendant first argued that the trial court erred in denying its summary disposition motion. It contended that plaintiff did not establish a causal connection between his MIOSHA report and his termination, only a temporal one. The court disagreed, finding he offered evidence supporting “that in the brief period between [his] MIOSHA report on [6/5/21], and the termination of [his] employment on [7/8/21], plaintiff was downgraded from a reliable employee to a disloyal and disgruntled employee.” Defendant next argued that he relied on inadmissible hearsay to support the causation element. The court held that statements by two of defendant’s employees were inadmissible under MRE 801(d)(2) and could not support plaintiff’s prima facie case. But a statement by a third employee (K) qualified “as a party admission because [K] was plaintiff’s supervisor, and plaintiff’s standing with” defendant’s president/CEO and one of its vice presidents “was a matter within the scope of [K’s] employment. [K’s] statements thus were admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(D).” But the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in “denying its motion for remittitur because plaintiff did not offer proof of economic damages in excess of $25,000.” Thus, it vacated the judgment as to the award of economic damages, affirmed it in all other respects, and remanded “for entry of an amended judgment for $25,000 in economic damages, and $50,000 in noneconomic damages.”