The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); MCL 15.362; Protected activity; Report of a violation or suspected violation of a law, regulation, or rule; Stefanski v Saginaw Cnty 911 Commc’ns Ctr Auth; About to report; Rivera v SVRC Indus, Inc; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Holding that “generally discussing suspicious behavior with an attorney is not a protected activity,” the court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie WPA retaliation claim. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant-former employer. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment after he informed an attorney (nonparty-S) “about his concerns regarding the safety of defendant’s new product.” The court found that, even if S qualified “as a public body, plaintiff’s WPA claim fails as a matter of law because he did not report to [S] a violation or suspected violation of a law, regulation, or rule. Plaintiff had significant safety concerns about defendant’s approach to the development of [the product], but he did not make a charge of illegality against defendant when he spoke with” S. The evidence suggested that he “was unsure whether defendant’s conduct was illegal—he went to [S] for general ‘guidance[.]’” Further, he did not identify “the specific law, regulation, or rule that he believes defendant to have violated. Even if plaintiff believed that defendant’s conduct was illegal and made that conduct known to [S], such a general assertion of illegality is not protected activity under the WPA.” In addition, there was no evidence that he “was about to report a violation.” He did not testify “that he told defendant that he would report his concerns to NHTSA, and” his supervisor stated that they “never discussed filing such a report. Plaintiff’s conversations with [S] also did not establish that he was about to report. They discussed the benefits and risks of reporting, and [S] suggested that they wait to report until defendant moved forward without fixing the defect and failed to self-report. Mere ‘inquiries about potential consequences [do] not indicate an affirmative intent to actually report,’ even if pertinent information is communicated to a public body. And simply wanting or hoping that someone else will report is not the same as being ‘about to report.’”