Whitman v. City of Burton

Michigan Supreme Court

Whitman v. City of Burton

873 N.W.2d 593, 499 Mich. 861

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket152138

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 873 N.W.2d 593 (Whitman v. City of Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitman v. City of Burton, 873 N.W.2d 593, 499 Mich. 861 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate those parts of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that a plaintiff’s actions or conduct, as an objective matter, must advance the public interest to entitle a plaintiff to the protection of the Whistleblow-ers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and that the plaintiff here failed to establish sufficient evidence of the necessary causal connection between his claimed protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action to avoid a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In light of the Court of Appeals’ holding that, pursuant to Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242 (2014), the plaintiff is not an “employee” placed to bring a claim under the WPA, resolution of these other issues was unnecessary. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to expedite proceedings is denied as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate those parts of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that a plaintiff’s actions or conduct, as an objective matter, must advance the public interest to entitle a plaintiff to the protection of the Whistleblow-ers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and that the plaintiff here failed to establish sufficient evidence of the necessary causal connection between his claimed protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action to avoid a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In light of the Court of Appeals’ holding that, pursuant to Wurtz v Beecher Metro Dist, 495 Mich 242 (2014), the plaintiff is not an “employee” placed to bring a claim under the WPA, resolution of these other issues was unnecessary. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to expedite proceedings is denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 N.W.2d 593, 499 Mich. 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitman-v-city-of-burton-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack