Driver v. Hanley
207 Mich. App. 13, 523 N.W.2d 815 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) provides the exclusive statutory remedy for an employee terminated for reporting an employer's violation of the law, thereby preempting common law claims like breach of contract that are based on the same retaliatory conduct. Furthermore, the WPA's specific grant of jurisdiction to circuit courts supersedes general statutes that assign jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
Facts:
- In 1985, defendants, the Hanleys, hired plaintiff to work the night shift at their foster care facility.
- Plaintiff alleged that during her interview, Mrs. Hanley stated she would only be discharged for just cause, such as an inability to perform her duties or follow work rules.
- Plaintiff was paid $2.11 an hour, which was below the minimum wage.
- Concerned about the facility's procedure for dispensing medication, plaintiff first reported her concerns to Mrs. Hanley, who took no action.
- Plaintiff then reported her concerns to the Mental Health Licensing Bureau, which investigated and required the defendants to change their medication procedure.
- Separately, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Labor regarding her sub-minimum wage pay.
- After receiving the Department of Labor complaint, Mrs. Hanley telephoned plaintiff and terminated her employment, stating that she could not tolerate employees 'going to the authorities'.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court alleging a WPA violation, retaliatory discharge, and breach of employment contract.
- The circuit court, believing the damages would be under $10,000, removed the case to the district court.
- A district court jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all three counts.
- Defendants, the appellants, appealed the jury verdict to the circuit court.
- The circuit court affirmed the WPA verdict but reversed the verdicts on the retaliatory discharge and breach of contract claims, holding they were preempted by the WPA.
- Defendants appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and plaintiff, the cross-appellant, cross-appealed the reversal of her breach of contract claim.
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 the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) provide the exclusive remedy for an employee terminated for reporting an employer's violation of the law, thereby preempting a separate common-law claim for breach of a just-cause employment contract based on the same retaliatory conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, P.J.
Yes, the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) provides the exclusive remedy for this type of retaliatory discharge, preempting the breach of contract claim. The court reasoned that when a statute creates a new right with no counterpart in the common law, the remedies provided within that statute are exclusive. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was based solely on the fact that she was terminated for reporting defendants' violations of the law, which is the precise conduct protected by the WPA. Therefore, her exclusive remedy is under the WPA. The court also held that the WPA's specific provision granting jurisdiction to the circuit court takes precedence over the general jurisdictional statute that grants district courts jurisdiction over cases with a low amount in controversy, establishing exclusive circuit court jurisdiction for all WPA claims.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the preemptive power of the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act, establishing it as the sole legal path for employees discharged for reporting legal violations. It prevents plaintiffs from bringing multiple common law claims, such as breach of contract or public policy torts, alongside a WPA claim when all claims arise from the same retaliatory act. By doing so, the court channels these disputes exclusively into the specific statutory framework created by the legislature, limiting the available remedies to those prescribed by the WPA and simplifying the litigation landscape for retaliatory discharge cases.
Unlock the full brief for Driver v. Hanley