Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist.
| Citation | 848 N.W.2d 121,495 Mich. 242 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Calendar No. 9.,Docket No. 146157. |
| Parties | WURTZ v. BEECHER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles A. Grossmann, Flint, for plaintiff.
Landry, Mazzeo & Dembinski, PC, Farmington Hills (by Nancy Vayda Dembinski), for defendants.
Eardley Law Offices, PC, Cannonsburg (by Eugenie B. Eardley and Nicholas F.X. Gumina), for the Michigan Association for Justice.
This case requires the Court to consider the application of Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) 1 to a contract employee whose contract is not renewed ostensibly because of the employee's whistleblowing activities. A contract employee whose term of employment has expired without being subject to a specific adverse employment action identified in the WPA and who seeks reengagement for a new term of employment occupies the same legal position as a prospective employee. The WPA, by its express language, only applies to current employees; the statute offers no protection to prospective employees. Because the WPA does not apply when an employer decides not to hire a job applicant, it likewise has no application to a contract employee whom the employer declines to rehire for a new term of employment. The plaintiff in this case has no recourse under the WPA because he alleges only that his former employer declined to renew his contract, not that the employer took some adverse action against him during his contractual term of employment. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' contrary decision and remand this case to the circuit court for entry of summary disposition in defendants' favor.
The Beecher Metropolitan District (the District) manages water and sewage for a portion of Genesee County. The District has five elected board members and also employs a part-time district administrator who manages District operations on a day-to-day basis. The District has 11 full-time employees who do various maintenance and clerical jobs. The District's full-time employees operate under a union contract; only the district administrator historically operates under a separate contract with the District.
Plaintiff Richard Wurtz began his tumultuous tenure as the district administrator on February 1, 2000, and served until February 1, 2010. Before becoming district administrator, Wurtz was the District's attorney. In his capacity as attorney, he drafted the contract that would govern his term as district administrator. The contract provided for a 10–year term beginning on February 1, 2000, and ending on February 1, 2010. The board approved the contract and Wurtz became district administrator.
Tension between Wurtz and the board developed in May 2008 when Wurtz reported an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) 2 to the Genesee County Prosecutor. In a letter dated May 22, 2008, Wurtz informed the prosecutor that board members Sheila Thorn, Leo McClain, and Jacquelin Corlew—the three individual defendants in this case—had met with a labor attorney outside of a public meeting to discuss retaining the attorney. The prosecutor, however, declined to prosecute. Several months later, Wurtz demanded a benefits increase commensurate with those given to the District's unionized employees. He told the board that he was the one who filed the OMA complaint and said that he would treat the board's failure to capitulate as retaliation for his reporting the alleged OMA violations. The board granted Wurtz the increase he desired, with two of the defendant board members voting against his benefits increase and one voting in favor.
In early 2009, Wurtz sent a proposal to the board regarding his contract. Wurtz said he could save the District money by reducing his salary and cutting off all of his benefits except life insurance. But the proposal also would have extended Wurtz's already tumultuous term for an additional 2 1/2 years. A motion to accept Wurtz's proposal was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2. Thorn, McClain, and Corlew voted against Wurtz's proposal.
Relations between Wurtz and the board further deteriorated in the spring of 2009. The board had plans to attend the American Water Works Association conference in San Diego. Wurtz told the board that he had concerns about the cost of the trip and the manner of reimbursement. He noted several recreational items that he thought it would be inappropriate to subsidize with taxpayer funds. Wurtz nonetheless reimbursed the board for the expenses.
Despite having issued the reimbursement checks himself, Wurtz contacted the Genesee County Sheriff's Department and the Flint Journal regarding the board's trip to San Diego. This resulted in the sheriff's department raiding the District's office and public outcry about the board members' actions. Wurtz cooperated with the investigation conducted by the sheriff's department. The board members were criminally charged in connection with the trip, but all were acquitted of wrongdoing or had the charges against them dismissed.
Events came to a head in November 2009, several months before Wurtz's contract was set to expire. At the November 11, 2009 meeting, Wurtz warned the board that he would consider the board's failure to extend his contract to be retaliation for the criminal investigation. The board, however, refused to heed Wurtz's warning and voted 3 to 2 not to renew Wurtz's contract and to begin the search for a new district administrator. The majority once again consisted of Thorn, McClain, and Corlew. Wurtz's attorney wrote a letter to the board informing it that Wurtz intended to file a claim under the WPA. But the board replied that it would not change its mind, citing other, legitimate reasons for deciding not to renew Wurtz's contract. The board explained that the tumultuous relationship between Wurtz and the board members far preceded any alleged whistleblowing activities, and furthermore, that it wished to make the administrator job full-time. Wurtz could not hold the position full-time because of his law practice.
Despite the total breakdown of the working relationship, the board allowed Wurtz to finish out his contract. Wurtz's employment with the District expired on February 1, 2010, by the terms of the contract. One essential and undisputed fact bears emphasis: Wurtz suffered no adverse consequences in the context of his self-drafted 10–year contract. He received all of the salary and benefits to which he was entitled, and he was employed as district administrator for each and every day of the agreed-to term.
After his employment ended, Wurtz brought suit in Genesee Circuit Court against the District and the three board members who voted not to renew his contract, alleging a violation of the WPA and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that Wurtz had not been fired because his contract expired by its own terms. Wurtz argued that his employment was terminated and, further, that summary disposition was premature because discovery was incomplete. But the court agreed with defendants. First, the court dismissed the public policy claim, holding that the WPA provided the exclusive avenue of relief to Wurtz. Then the court concluded that Wurtz could not satisfy all of the WPA's elements because he had worked through the entirety of his contract and was not discharged.
Wurtz appealed the circuit court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed in a split opinion.3 The majority concluded that summary disposition was inappropriate because, in its view, an employer's failure to renew a contract employee's fixed-term contract satisfied the WPA's requirement that the employee suffer an adverse employment action.4 The dissent, on the other hand, would have held as a matter of law that Wurtz could not satisfy the WPA's elements based on the nonrenewal of a fixed-term contract.5 Defendants sought leave to appeal in this Court, which we granted.6 We asked the parties to address “(1) whether the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action under the [WPA] when the defendants declined to renew or extend the plaintiff's employment contract, which did not contain a renewal clause beyond the expiration of its ten-year term; and (2) whether there was a fair likelihood that additional discovery would have produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, MCR 2.116(C)(10), if the defendants' motion for summary disposition had not been granted prior to the completion of discovery.” 7
The interpretation of the WPA presents a statutory question that this Court reviews de novo.8 The Court also reviews de novo decisions on motions for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10).9
This case invites the Court to decide whether the WPA applies when an employer declines to renew an employee's fixed-term contract following alleged whistleblowing by the employee. To answer this question, we first conclude that a contract employee seeking a new term of employment should be treated the same as a prospective employee for purposes of the WPA. The question then becomes whether a spurned job applicant can bring a claim under the WPA. We hold that the WPA, by its express language, has no application in the hiring context. Thus, the WPA does not apply when an employer declines to renew a contract employee's contract.
Absent some express obligation stating otherwise, a contract employee has absolutely no claim to continued employment after his or her contract expires.10 Rather, the employer must weigh the pros and cons of engaging the applicant for a new employment term, just as an employer must weigh the pros and cons of hiring a person in the first place. And as with any employment decision, the employer can make its decision for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all, as long as the reasons are not unlawful, such as those based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velasquez v. Regents of N. N.M. Coll.
...of its argument, Defendant relies not on the language of our WPA but instead on one out-of-jurisdiction case, Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan. District , 848 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 2014), which we find unpersuasive. There, the Supreme Court of Michigan held that that state's whistleblower statute ......
-
Whitman v. City of Burton
...for a third time. Once again, I must disagree with the majority opinion. In addition to my conclusion that Wurtz v. Beecher Metro Dist., 495 Mich. 242, 848 N.W.2d 121 (2014), does not impact the outcome of this case, I disagree with the majority's analysis regarding the requirements of the ......
-
McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-Gratiot
...and the employer's act of discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against the employee. [Wurtz v. Beecher Metro Dist , 495 Mich. 242, 251-252, 848 N.W.2d 121 (2014).]12 Emphasis added.13 Defendant also argues that the SBM is not a "public body" under MCL 15.361(d)(iv ). The de......
-
McNeill-Marks v. Midmichigan Med. Ctr.-Gratiot, Docket No. 326606.
...N.W.2d 69 (citation omitted). We also review de novo, as legal questions, the proper interpretation of the WPA, Wurtz v. Beecher Metro Dist., 495 Mich. 242, 249, 848 N.W.2d 121 (2014), and issues regarding preemption, Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1, 8, 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014).B. WHI......