The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); MCL 15.362; Legitimate reasons for an adverse employment action; Debano-Griffin v Lake Cnty; Pretext; Operative date for determining whether an electronically filed complaint complied with the statute of limitations (SOL); MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b); Jones v Kreis Enderle Hudgins & Borsos PC (Unpub)

Noting the absence of any published cases interpreting MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b), the court adopted the reasoning in an unpublished case (Jones) and held that “the operative filing date is the date a document is electronically submitted so long as the document is accepted by the clerk of the court.” And because plaintiff’s defect-free complaint was filed and accepted after the limitations period expired, his WPA claim against defendant-McAllister was time-barred. It also held that his WPA claims against the other defendants failed because he offered nothing beyond a temporal connection as evidence of pretext. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for all defendants. Plaintiff alleged retaliation under the WPA. As to his claim against McAllister, plaintiff did “not challenge the clerk of the court’s decision to reject his” initial nonconforming complaint (the 9/6/22 complaint) for filing. Rather, relying on MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b), he argued that 9/6/22 should “be considered the operative filing date for determining whether he timely filed his complaint.” He essentially claimed that the court rule’s language allowed “his untimely, defect-free complaint” (filed and accepted on 9/7/22) “to relate back to the date that he filed his initial, defective complaint.” The court noted that it rejected this argument in Jones, where it “held that the clerk’s acceptance of a complaint established the operative date for determining whether an electronically filed complaint complied with the” SOL. It further held in Jones that because the defective complaint was rejected, “plaintiff’s subsequent defect-free complaint could not relate back to [the] filing date of the rejected complaint.” The court here adopted “this persuasive reasoning given the plain language of the court rule.” As a result, McAllister was properly granted summary disposition based on the SOL. As to plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants, because they “provided legitimate reasons for their adverse actions, the burden shifted to” him to show those “reasons were pretextual.” But his only argument on appeal was that they must be “given the time line of events in this case. Nowhere does plaintiff even claim that defendants’ proffered reasons had no basis in fact or that his report was a motivating factor for the decisions he challenges.” Further, he did not “offer any evidence demonstrating pretext before the trial court.”