Whitman v. City of Burton
831 N.W.2d 223, 493 Mich. 303 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's primary motivation for engaging in protected conduct, such as a desire to inform the public on matters of public concern rather than personal financial interest, is not a prerequisite to establishing a claim under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA). The WPA protects employees who report or are about to report a violation of law, irrespective of their subjective intent, as long as a causal connection exists between the protected activity and an adverse employment action.
Facts:
- Bruce Whitman was employed as the chief of police for the city of Burton from March 2002.
- Burton Ordinance 68-25C, § 8(I) allowed administrative officers like Whitman to be compensated for unused sick, personal, and vacation time on an annual basis.
- In March 2003, Mayor Charles Smiley and city department heads made an informal “gentleman’s agreement” to forgo payments for unused leave time due to significant budgetary problems, despite the ordinance remaining in effect.
- On March 20, 2003, Whitman sent a letter to Mayor Smiley objecting to these austerity measures.
- In January 2004, Whitman undertook a series of actions, including sending letters to Mayor Smiley, city administrator Dennis Lowthian, and the city attorney, asserting that the city’s refusal to pay him for his 2003 unused leave days violated Ordinance 68C and threatening to pursue criminal charges or address it as a violation of law.
- On January 29, 2004, on the city attorney's advice, the city authorized payments for all unused days to Whitman and other officers who had requested it.
- In a June 7, 2004, letter, Mayor Smiley stated he was considering removing Whitman, specifically citing Whitman’s actions in pursuing compensation for his unused leave days as a basis for the Mayor’s distrust.
- In November 2007, following his reelection, Mayor Smiley declined to reappoint Whitman as police chief, and several officers later reported the Mayor attributed their "bad start" and ongoing issues to the Ordinance 68C dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce Whitman brought an action in the Genesee Circuit Court (trial court) against the city of Burton and Mayor Charles Smiley, alleging violations of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA).
- A jury in the circuit court returned a verdict in favor of Whitman, finding he engaged in protected conduct that made a difference in the Mayor’s decision not to reappoint him.
- The circuit court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict and subsequently denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial.
- Defendants (City of Burton and Charles Smiley) appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (O’CONNELL, P.J., and SAAD, J., with BECKERING, J., dissenting) reversed the circuit court’s denial of defendants’ motion for JNOV and remanded, concluding that Whitman’s WPA claim was not actionable because he acted to advance his own financial interests, not out of an altruistic motive.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted 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 the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act require an employee engaging in protected conduct to have, as his or her primary motivation for engaging in that conduct, a desire to inform the public on matters of public concern, rather than personal financial vindictiveness, to establish a viable claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Mary Beth Kelly, J.
No, an employee's primary motivation for engaging in protected conduct, such as a desire to inform the public on matters of public concern rather than personal vindictiveness, is not a prerequisite to bringing a claim under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA). The Court held that the plain language of MCL 15.362, which defines protected activity, does not address or imply any requirement regarding an employee's motivation. Imposing such a 'primary motivation' or 'altruistic motive' requirement would constitute impermissible judicial construction of a clear and unambiguous statute. While the prior case of Shallal v Catholic Social Services of Wayne Co. considered an employee's motivation, the Court clarified that Shallal addressed motivation in the context of the causation element (whether the adverse action was because of the protected activity), not in defining what constitutes 'protected activity.' Any language in Shallal suggesting an 'altruistic motive' is required for 'protected activity' is explicitly disavowed as dicta. The WPA aims to protect employees who report violations, thereby removing barriers to such reporting and ultimately safeguarding the public, regardless of the reporter's subjective intent. Whitman's actions in reporting the Mayor's violation of Ordinance 68C to the Mayor, a city administrator, and the city attorney constituted protected activity under the WPA. The case was reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the remaining issues, specifically whether Whitman established the causal connection between his protected conduct and the adverse employment decision.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of protection for employees under Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act by clarifying that an employee's personal motivation is irrelevant to whether their actions constitute 'protected activity.' By disavowing the 'altruistic motive' requirement previously inferred from Shallal, the Supreme Court lowers the barrier for bringing WPA claims, making it easier for employees to report unlawful acts without fear that their personal reasons will undermine their case. This decision reinforces the WPA's purpose of encouraging the reporting of violations to protect the public, even when the employee also benefits, by focusing on the employer's retaliatory conduct rather than the employee's state of mind. It ensures the WPA remains a robust tool for accountability, preventing employers from escaping liability by scrutinizing the whistleblower's subjective intent.
