Topics
- Age Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- Class Actions
- Discrimination
- Disparate Impact
- EEOC Regulations
- Employee Benefits
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Harassment
- Immigration
- Independent Contractors
- Labor Law
- Michigan Employment Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- OFCCP
- Privacy
- Religion In The Workplace
- Retaliation
- Right To Work
- State Employment Regulation
- Trade Secrets
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wage and Hour
- Whistleblower
Contributors
Recent Posts
- Whistle While You Work: Congress Strengthens Protections for Employees Reporting Antitrust Violations
- California Employment Law Alert: New Employment Laws Effective On or Before January 1, 2021
- EEOC Issues Technical Assistance Regarding Vaccination and Anti-Discrimination Laws
- The CDC’s New Definition of “Close Contact”: What You Need To Know
- Election Day Obligations: What Employers Need to Know
- Michigan Employers and Employees Enjoy New Protections After Governor Whitmer Signs New Laws
- Michigan Issues Emergency COVID-19 Workplace Safety Rules With Immediate Effect
- California Expands Workplace Protections Related to COVID-19 by Enacting Two Statutes Regarding Notice Requirements and Workers’ Compensation Coverage
- To Be or Not to Be (An Independent Contractor): DOL Seeks to Clarify Independent Contractor Test in Landmark Proposed Rule
- 10 Things You Should Know About the EEOC’s COVID-19 Guidance
Showing 1 post in Whistleblower.
Michigan Supreme Court Disavows And Clarifies Whistleblower Motivation
On May 1, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court held that whistleblower motivation is irrelevant to the issue of whether a whistleblower engaged in protected activity and proof of the whistleblower’s specific motivation is not a prerequisite to a Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) claim. Through that holding in the decision of Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303, 321 (2013), the Supreme Court clarified and disavowed Shallal v. Catholic Social Services, 455 Mich. 604 (1997). “To the extent that Shallal has been interpreted to mandate a specific motive, any language to that effect is disavowed as dicta unrelated to the essential holding of the case regarding the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.” Id. Read More ›