Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); MCL 15.362; Retaliation; Causal connection; Temporal proximity; West v General Motors Corp; Circumstantial evidence; Debano-Griffin v Lake Cnty; Civil Rights Act (CRA); MCL 37.2701(a); Retaliation; Significant factor; El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc; Barrett v Kirtland Cmty Coll; Abandoned hostile work environment claim

The court held that plaintiff failed to establish causation for her WPA and CRA retaliation claims and abandoned her CRA hostile-work-environment claim by failing to support her protected-class theory. Plaintiff, a former community-center employee, alleged that after she reported a city council member’s racist comments, he retaliated by voting against her promotions and other community-center funding requests, and that her later suspension and termination were also retaliatory. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant-city, ruling that plaintiff failed to establish causation on her WPA and CRA retaliation claims and could not establish a hostile work environment claim because she was not a member of a protected class. On appeal, the court held that the WPA claim failed because plaintiff relied mainly on temporal proximity, but she had to show “‘something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action.’” It concluded the council member’s opposition to community-center requests did not reasonably support retaliation because the record showed that the center’s financial problems and heightened scrutiny predated plaintiff’s employment, making her theory “mere speculation.” The court also noted the two promotion votes failed three to three, the council member “lacked the authority” on his own to deny the promotion, and plaintiff offered no evidence that the other opposing council members were influenced by improper motive. As to her termination, the court held that no causal link existed because the recreation director who promoted plaintiff later suspended and terminated her after she failed to meet about financial irregularities, and it “would make little sense” for him to promote her if he was motivated to retaliate against her. The court next held that the CRA retaliation claim failed for the same lack of causation, because plaintiff had to show her protected activity was a “significant factor” in the adverse employment action. Finally, the court held that the hostile work environment claim was abandoned because plaintiff cited no authority that a person who engaged in protected activity is a protected class, and “‘where a party fails to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is deemed abandoned.’” Affirmed.