Tyrna v. Adamo, Inc
407 N.W.2d 47, 159 Mich. App. 592 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who is discharged for reporting a public health or safety violation may bring a civil action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), even if the employer's conduct also violates the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), as the remedies provided by the two statutes are overlapping and not mutually exclusive.
Facts:
- In October 1984, plaintiff Tyrna was hired by defendant Adamo, Inc.
- Shortly after starting work, Tyrna and her sister, a co-worker, suffered health problems from carbon monoxide fumes emitted by a faulty furnace in their office.
- Tyrna complained about the dangerous furnace to her boss, defendant John Adamo, Sr., but he refused to shut it off or replace it.
- In late February and early March 1985, Tyrna reported the hazardous furnace to the Dearborn Health Department.
- City officials inspected the premises, confirmed the furnace was unsafe, and had it shut down until it was replaced.
- On March 18, 1985, Tyrna returned to work and submitted documentation for her medical expenses to John Adamo.
- On the back of one document, Tyrna had written the names and contact information for the city health and fire officials she had contacted.
- Three days later, on March 21, 1985, John Adamo fired Tyrna.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Tyrna filed a complaint in the trial court against defendants Adamo, Inc. and John Adamo, Sr., alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Tyrna's exclusive remedy was an administrative action under the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Tyrna’s claim.
- Plaintiff Tyrna, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA) provide the exclusive remedy for an employee discharged in retaliation for reporting a workplace safety violation, thereby precluding a separate civil action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, P.J.
No, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA) does not provide the exclusive remedy for an employee discharged for reporting a workplace safety violation; a separate civil action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) is permitted. The court reasoned that while the plaintiff's situation is covered by MIOSHA's anti-retaliation provision, it is also covered by the broader WPA, which protects employees who report any violation of law to any public body. The court distinguished a prior case, Ohlsen v. D S T Industries, Inc., which held MIOSHA's remedy to be exclusive, by noting that Ohlsen was decided before the WPA was enacted and involved a common-law claim, not a separate, co-existing statutory right. The court concluded that the Legislature provided overlapping, not mutually exclusive, remedies because the statutes have different scopes and purposes—MIOSHA focuses narrowly on workplace safety, while the WPA aims broadly to protect the public by encouraging reporting of all legal violations. Furthermore, the remedies differ, as the WPA creates a full civil action with a wider range of damages than the administrative relief offered by MIOSHA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens protections for employees in Michigan by clarifying that they may have multiple statutory avenues for relief against retaliatory discharge. By holding that the specific remedies in MIOSHA do not preclude a claim under the more general WPA, the court prevents employers from using a narrow statute to shield themselves from the broader liability and more extensive remedies available in a WPA civil action. This precedent empowers whistleblowers by allowing them to choose the legal path that offers the most favorable forum and potential recovery, thereby encouraging the reporting of violations that affect both workplace and public safety. It establishes a principle that remedial statutes should be read concurrently to maximize employee protection unless the legislature explicitly designates one as the exclusive remedy.
