West v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 2003
• Docket Number: Docket No. 121003.
• Citation: 469 Mich. 177,665 N.W.2d 468
• Parties: Calvin WEST and Margo Ann West, Jointly and Severally, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Randy Koyal, Kevin Sparks and John Tate, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, and Jim Reeves, Defendant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

665 N.W.2d 468

469 Mich. 177

Calvin WEST and Margo Ann West, Jointly and Severally, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Randy Koyal, Kevin Sparks and John Tate, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, and Jim Reeves, Defendant.

Docket No. 121003.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 22, 2003.

O'Neal O Wright & Associates, P.C. by O'Neal O. Wright and Lynette M. Bledsaw, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hardy, Lewis & Page, P.C. by Terence V. Page and Kay Rivest Butler, Birmingham, for General Motors Corporation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The circuit court granted defendant General Motors' motion for summary disposition and dismissed plaintiff's¹ complaint, which alleged a count under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, M.C.L. § 15.361 et seq., and counts of assault and battery, wrongful discharge, race discrimination, retaliation for reporting acts of discrimination, and loss of consortium. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's whistleblower count and affirmed the remainder of the circuit court's ruling.

Defendant² seeks to appeal the part of the Court of Appeals decision reinstating plaintiff's whistleblower count, while plaintiff seeks to cross-appeal the part of the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the dismissal of the balance of his complaint. Because plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence supporting the causation element of his whistleblower claim, we reverse that aspect of the Court of Appeals decision and reinstate the circuit court's order of summary disposition in favor of defendant. We have also considered plaintiff's application for leave to cross-appeal, and that application is denied because we find no merit in the issues raised by plaintiff.

I

Plaintiff Calvin West worked as a maintenance supervisor for defendant General Motors. He was a salaried employee and was responsible for completing his own time sheet. Plaintiff was warned several times in 1996 and in February 1997 about misrepresenting the time he actually worked. Nevertheless, plaintiff reported four extra hours of overtime on his time sheet for May 22, 1997. His supervisors learned of this overstatement and, after an investigation, plaintiff was disciplined on June 4, 1997. Plaintiff was prohibited from working any overtime, and he was required to use the salaried-employee entrance and to "swipe" his identification badge at the entrance each time he entered or left the plant. In addition, plaintiff was advised, orally and in writing, that reporting time that was not actually worked constituted fraudulent conduct and could result in termination of his employment.

Effective August 11, 1997, plaintiff was transferred from the morning shift to the afternoon shift.³ Plaintiff accordingly worked for different supervisors. In September 1997, plaintiff was again allowed to work overtime. On October 16, 1997, plaintiff reported two hours of overtime that he did not work. An investigation of this incident led to the termination of plaintiff's employment on January 8, 1998, because of plaintiff's repeated violations of the employer's policies for reporting time worked.⁴

While plaintiff was still working on the morning shift, an incident occurred on May 4, 1997, involving a union committee person named Jim Reeves. Plaintiff entered a room where Reeves and others were in conference. When plaintiff did not leave the room as Reeves ordered, there was physical contact between plaintiff and Reeves. Plaintiff claims that he was shoved by Reeves; Reeves claims that when he stood up from his desk his stomach brushed plaintiff.

Plaintiff reported to plant security that Reeves had assaulted him. In addition, plaintiff claims he telephoned the Romulus police and reported the assault.⁵ Plaintiff also asserts that he advised his immediate supervisor, Randall Koyal, and his area supervisor, John Tate, that he had reported the assault to the police. Plaintiff characterized Koyal's response to being told about the report to the police as "nonchalant." ⁶ Plaintiff said that he could not discern Tate's response upon learning that plaintiff had contacted the police, but Tate seemed to be upset that the incident between plaintiff and Reeves had occurred.⁷

In his complaint, plaintiff claimed that his rights under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act were violated because he was retaliated against and discriminated against for reporting the Reeves assault to the police. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that after the report, both Tate and Koyal treated him differently and retaliated by, among other things, unfairly accusing him of time-sheet violations, transferring him to a different shift, and terminating his employment. The circuit court granted defendant summary disposition regarding this count, reasoning that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case because he failed to present evidence of a causal connection between his report to the Romulus police and any adverse employment action.⁸ The circuit court also concluded that, even if plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the employer had shown a legitimate reason for its actions.

The Court of Appeals found that a factual issue existed regarding whether there was a causal connection between plaintiff's telephone call to the Romulus police and the subsequent adverse employment actions. The Court accordingly reversed the summary-disposition order and remanded the case for further proceedings on plaintiff's whistleblower count. The Court of Appeals did not address the circuit court's finding that there were legitimate reasons for the employment actions.

II

Defendants' summary-disposition motion regarding the whistleblower claim was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). Appellate review of the grant or denial of a summary-disposition motion is de novo, and the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 118, 120, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. Shallal v. Catholic Social Services of Wayne Co., 455 Mich. 604, 609, 566 N.W.2d 571 (1997); Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358, 369, 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996).

III

Plaintiff's whistleblower claim is brought under M.C.L. § 15.362, which states:

An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.

To establish a prima facie case under this statute, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity as defined by the act,⁹ (2) the plaintiff was discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the discharge or adverse employment action. Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc., 456 Mich. 395, 399, 572 N.W.2d 210 (1998); Shallal, supra at 610, 566 N.W.2d 571.

Plaintiff claims that, because of his report to the police, he was disciplined when he was barred from overtime, required to swipe his identification badge, transferred to the afternoon shift, and discharged. However, our review of the record reveals no evidentiary support from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between plaintiff's report to the police and these employment actions.

Plaintiff's case rests on the factual point that he advised supervisors Koyal and Tate that he had reported the assault to the police. That assertion, by itself, is not enough to raise a reasonable inference that plaintiff was retaliated against or discriminated against on the basis of the report. It does nothing to establish a causal nexus between plaintiff's contacts with his supervisors and any subsequent employment action.

Summary disposition for the defendant is appropriate when a plaintiff cannot factually demonstrate a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. For example, in Shallal, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary causal connection because she knew her discharge was imminent before the protected activity on which she based her whistleblower claim, and in Roberson v. Occupational Health Centers of America, Inc., 220 Mich.App. 322, 559 N.W.2d 86 (1996), the plaintiff failed to show a causal connection because the evidence did not show that the employer knew about the plaintiff's filing of a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration until after she was discharged.

The most that plaintiff demonstrates here is that he was disciplined, and eventually discharged, after he reported to the police that Reeves had assaulted him. To prevail, plaintiff had to show that his employer took adverse employment action because of plaintiff's protected activity, but plaintiff has merely shown that his employer disciplined him after the protected activity occurred. Plaintiff had to demonstrate that the adverse employment action was in some manner influenced by the protected activity, but has failed to make such a demonstration. The evidence does not show that either of...