Where a plaintiff brought suit over the termination of his employment with defendant, a grant of summary disposition in the employer’s favor should be affirmed because there was just cause for terminating the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claims arising from the termination of his employment with defendant. Plaintiff argues that summary disposition of several of his claims was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding (1) whether there was just cause to terminate his employment contract, (2) whether he was terminated in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.369 et seq ., and (3) whether he was terminated on the basis of his age in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq . We affirm.
“This case arises from plaintiff’s termination from his position with defendant in February 2021. Defendant asserted that it had just cause to terminate plaintiff on the basis of plaintiff’s disregard of safety rules and procedures implemented to protect against COVID-19 and plaintiff’s provision of false information to the Oakland County Health Department (health department) during the contact-tracing process and to defendant during its subsequent investigation. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging claims of breach of contract, gross negligence, wrongful discharge in violation of the ELCRA, and retaliation in violation of the WPA.
“Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition on his breach-of-contract claim because there is a question of fact regarding whether there was just cause to terminate his employment contract on the basis that he was untruthful with the health department or defendant or that he violated COVID-19 safety rules. We disagree.
“As plaintiff acknowledges, the board also concluded that plaintiff disregarded COVID-19 safety rules by working in the office on October 12, 2020, despite visible symptoms. The trial court did not address this basis and there appears to be a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff was experiencing symptoms while he was at work on October 12, 2020. Plaintiff expressly denied having any symptoms until after dinner on October 12, 2020, whereas other employees testified that plaintiff was visibly sick at work that day. Nonetheless, because there was no genuine issue of material fact that just cause existed on other grounds, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim.
“Plaintiff next argues that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether he was terminated in violation of the WPA and, in particular, whether he was engaged in a protected activity and whether the existence of a causal connection between the protected activity and the discharge existed. We disagree.
“Plaintiff argues that he engaged in protected activity by raising concerns about defendant’s decision to require in-person work and its improper handling of the COVID-19 outbreak. Plaintiff claims that he expressed concern to his supervisor, Jarrad Grandy, and to others during and after his interviews.
“Plaintiff identified three sources of alleged protected activities (1) his reports of employees with COVID-19 symptoms and positives tests to Grandy, (2) his comments to outside counsel, Gary Reeves, during the investigation, and (3) an e-mail from his attorney and son-in-law, Gregory Yatooma. Regarding plaintiff’s reports to Grandy, plaintiff admitted that he did not know what specific rules were being violated. However, even if plaintiff’s reports to Grandy constituted protected activity, plaintiff cannot establish causation. Grandy was not a decision-maker and there is no evidence that the board knew of plaintiff’s complaints to Grandy.
“With regard to alleged reports during plaintiff’s interviews, plaintiff admitted that he did not say anything during the interviews that could be considered reporting a violation of an order, rule, or regulation. He also admitted that this theory, as well as his theory regarding the e-mail from Yatooma, were ‘[j]ust speculation.’ Plaintiff claimed that the focus of the investigation changed after his statements to Reeves and the e-mail from Yatooma. Assistant Superintendent Dandridge Floyd testified, however, that the focus of the investigation evolved ‘pretty organically’ on the basis of the competing statements obtained. Further, even if the board was in possession of that e-mail, there is no evidence that it based its decision on the e-mail. Thus, even if these actions constituted protected activity, plaintiff failed to establish the requisite causal connection. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s WPA claim.
“Lastly, plaintiff argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was terminated because of his age in violation of the ELCRA. We disagree.”
Locklear v. Oakland Sch.; MiLW 08-108107, 6 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Murray, J., Riordan, J., D. H. Sawyer, J.; on appeal from Oakland Circuit Court; Mark Granzotto for appellant; Elizabeth P. Hardy for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0