The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); MCL 15.362; Statute of limitations; MCL 15.363(1); Wrongful discharge under public policy; WPA preemption; Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (LARA)

Holding that plaintiffs’ WPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that their wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims were preempted by the WPA, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-former employer. Plaintiffs previously worked at defendant’s nursing home and rehabilitation facility as direct care workers. After they contacted the state and the LARA department about “concerns with the facility’s conditions,” state officials investigated the facility. Plaintiffs stopped working at the facility about a month after their “reports and the state investigation because of an alleged suspension or layoff.” They contended “that defendant’s violation of the WPA occurred in [8/24] when they were informed by their former managers that the facility had been sold and defendant was no longer hiring. For a violation of the WPA, defendant as an employer must have committed a discriminatory, adverse employment action against one of their employees. To be employees, plaintiffs needed to be performing services for wages under an express or implied contract of hire.” They asserted the adverse action here “was a constructive discharge that occurred in [8/24] when plaintiffs were still employees.” They contended that their layoffs in 3/24 “were not terminations and instead compared them to temporary suspensions. Accepting plaintiffs’ unrebutted allegations in their complaint as true, [they] were informed in [3/24] that they were laid off and could seek ‘re-employment’ at a later date. The term ‘re-employment’ logically implies that the layoff was not a temporary condition, but rather an actual termination of employment. Had plaintiffs understood the [3/24] layoff as merely temporary, there would be no reason to have to seek employment again, i.e., ‘re-employment,’ at a later date. Thus, the 90-day clock for [their] WPA claims began sometime in” 3/24, meaning it expired well before they filed their complaint.