Debano-Griffin v. Lake County
493 Mich. 167, 828 N.W.2d 634 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), a public employer's adverse employment action can be challenged as retaliatory pretext, even if framed as an economic decision, and such challenges do not inherently violate the business-judgment rule or the separation of powers when they question the factual basis or true motive behind the decision.
Facts:
- Cheryl Debano-Griffin began working as the director of Lake County’s 911 department in 1998.
- In 2002, Debano-Griffin discovered that Life EMS, contracted by Lake County for ambulance services, was using one of two dedicated ambulances to transport residents of other counties in nonemergency circumstances, which she reported to the county board of commissioners (the board) and other county officials as a breach of contract posing a threat to public safety.
- On September 28, 2004, the board authorized a transfer of $50,000 from the ambulance account to a 911 account for a “mapping project.”
- On November 1, 2004, Debano-Griffin objected to the fund transfer, claiming it violated the millage proposal for ambulance services and explained she had already secured a grant to cover the mapping project's cost, having previously raised similar objections.
- The board subsequently voted to return the funds to the ambulance account, which occurred on November 12, 2004.
- On November 10, 2004, the board voted to merge two county employment positions, resulting in the elimination of Debano-Griffin’s position.
- Debano-Griffin received official notice of her termination on December 22, 2004, stating her position was eliminated due to “budget problems” and “cost cutting measures,” despite the proposed county budget as of October 29, 2004, showing her position as fully funded.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Debano-Griffin (plaintiff) filed a whistleblower claim under MCL 15.362 in Lake Circuit Court against Lake County and the Lake County Board of Commissioners (defendants), asserting she was terminated for her complaints.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the WPA.
- The Lake Circuit Court, Peter J. Wadel, J., denied defendants' motion, and a jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor.
- Defendants appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals (ZAHRA, P.J., WHITBECK, J., concurring and M. J. KELLY, J., dissenting), which reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendants, holding plaintiff was not engaged in protected activity.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that Court for consideration of an additional argument raised by defendants.
- On remand, the Michigan Court of Appeals (MURRAY, P.J., and HOEKSTRA, J., STEPHENS, J., dissenting) held that plaintiff had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the causation element of her claim and again reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a whistleblower's claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) violate the business-judgment rule or the separation of powers when challenging a public employer's economic justification for an adverse employment action as pretext for retaliation, and did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence beyond temporal proximity to establish a causal connection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cavanagh
Yes, a whistleblower's claim challenging a public employer's economic justification for an adverse employment action as pretext for retaliation does not violate the business-judgment rule or the separation of powers, and the plaintiff here presented sufficient evidence beyond temporal proximity to establish a causal connection. The Court found that Debano-Griffin provided sufficient evidence beyond a mere temporal relationship to establish a causal connection. Her position went from fully funded to nonexistent within a 12-day period during which she made complaints directly to the board that ultimately eliminated her position. The board was also the direct recipient of her complaints and subsequently remedied a potentially unlawful action after her complaints, which strengthened the inference of an impermissible retaliatory motivation. This evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, sufficiently established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The Court further held that challenging the county's economic justification did not violate the business-judgment rule because Debano-Griffin did not question whether the decision was 'wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent,' but rather asserted that the justification had no basis in fact or was not the actual motivating factor. She presented evidence suggesting the county was not facing a budget crisis, and that it hired additional full-time employees and gave raises to 911 dispatchers after her termination, creating a genuine issue of material fact for a jury. Finally, the Court concluded that the claim did not violate the separation of powers because the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) expressly waives legislative immunity, making it fully applicable to public employers. Judicial review of whether the board lawfully exercised its authority by eliminating a position under the WPA does not interfere with legitimate legislative discretion; instead, it examines whether the board acted outside its constitutionally and legislatively granted powers by engaging in unlawful retaliation. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, reinstated the trial court's denial of summary disposition, and reinstated the trial court's order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) in Michigan, particularly against public employers. It firmly establishes that public entities cannot use 'business judgment' or 'separation of powers' defenses to shield retaliatory actions disguised as economic decisions from judicial scrutiny under the WPA. The ruling provides a robust framework for employees to challenge seemingly legitimate reasons for termination if they can demonstrate the reasons are pretextual, even with circumstantial evidence beyond mere timing. This strengthens whistleblower protections and ensures accountability for government bodies, potentially leading to more successful WPA claims against public employers who attempt to cloak retaliation in budgetary or policy decisions.
