Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20151105_C320437_67_320437.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Smith v. City of Flint</em>, No. 320437</a>, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, in concluding whether a retaliatory action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”) was committed, an adverse employment action must be shown to be more than a mere inconvenience.  Moreover, it must be shown that there is some objective basis for proving that the action is adverse.  The Court further held that a plaintiff’s subjective impressions regarding the adverse change are not controlling in its analysis.

contentpilot/introduction

Plaintiff, a police officer with the Flint Police Department, was the president of the City of Flint Police Officers Union.&nbsp; In 2012, his position as president was eliminated by Flint’s emergency manager, but plaintiff remained in his position as a police officer with the city.&nbsp; Later that year, Flint voters passed a millage to collect funds for public safety; plaintiff publically criticized the use of the funds collected from the millage.&nbsp; In 2013, Plaintiff was placed on road patrol in Flint’s north end.&nbsp; Plaintiff claimed that defendant assigned him to road patrol in a particularly bad section of Flint in retaliation against him for publicly criticizing the use of funds from the millage; he filed suit against defendant for retaliation under the WPA.&nbsp; Defendant moved for summary disposition, which was granted by the trial court.

core/paragraph

On order from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for retaliation under the WPA with respect to the second element; namely, whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the defendant took an adverse employment action against him.&nbsp; The Court held that the plaintiff must demonstrate one of the specific adverse employment actions listed in the WPA, in this case a change of “location.”&nbsp; Furthermore, the Court concluded that an adverse employment action, regarding plaintiff’s location must be more than a mere inconvenience and there must be some objective basis for demonstrating the adverse change.&nbsp; The Court found that the plaintiff’s assignment to road patrol in a particular section of the city fell within the discretion of the police department and was part of plaintiff’s job duties.&nbsp; Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Additionally, the Court addressed the first prong of the prima facie case for retaliation under WPA, particularly, whether plaintiff was engaged in “protected activity.” &nbsp;The Court found that plaintiff did not establish that he was engaged in protected activity because his mere disagreement with the use of funds from the millage does not mean that the city engaged in wrongful conduct.&nbsp; Therefore, plaintiff was not considered a “whistleblower” under the WPA and was not engaged in protected activity.

Judge Fort Hood <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20151105_C320437_68_320437D.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">dissented</a> from the majority opinion.  She focused in particular on the fact that plaintiff alleged that he was the only patrol officer assigned exclusively to the north section of Flint, a particularly dangerous section, and she would have found that a question of fact existed as to whether defendant discriminated against plaintiff regarding terms of his employment.

Labor and Employment

COA:  Under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, an adverse employment action must be more than an a mere inconvenience

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 