Opinion ID: 2713093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the wpa

Text: The WPA was first enacted by the Michigan Legislature in 1980 to “provide protection to employees who report a violation or suspected violation of state, local, or federal law . . . .”17 The WPA furthers this objective by removing barriers that may interfere with employee efforts to report those violations or suspected violations,18 thus 12 Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236; 596 NW2d 119 (1999). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Baker v Gen Motors Corp, 409 Mich 639, 665; 297 NW2d 387 (1980). 16 Sun Valley, 460 Mich at 236. 17 Preamble, 1980 PA 469. 18 Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 378-379; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). 8 establishing a cause of action for an employee who has suffered an adverse employment action for reporting or being about to report a violation or suspected violation of the law. The relevant portion of the WPA, MCL 15.362, provides as follows: 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 the WPA, a plaintiff need only show that (1) he or she was engaged in protected activity as defined by the act, (2) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.19 Additionally, MCL 15.362 makes plain that protected conduct does not include reports made by an employee that the employee knows are false, or reports given because the employee is requested to participate in an investigation by a public body. Defendants argue that in order to assert an actionable claim under the WPA, an employee’s primary motivation for engaging in protected conduct must be “a desire to inform the public on matters of public concern.” However, MCL 15.362 does not address an employee’s “primary motivation,” nor does the statute’s plain language 19 Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399; 572 NW2d 210 (1998); Shallal, 455 Mich at 610. 9 suggest or imply that any motivation must be proved as a prerequisite for bringing a claim. Further, the WPA does not suggest or imply, let alone mandate, that an employee’s protected conduct must be motivated by “a desire to inform the public on matters of public concern” as a prerequisite for bringing a claim. Therefore, we hold that, with regard to the question whether an employee has engaged in conduct protected by the act, there is no “primary motivation” or “desire to inform the public” requirement contained within the WPA. Because there is no statutory basis for imposing a motivation requirement, we will not judicially impose one. To do so would violate the fundamental rule of statutory construction that precludes judicial construction or interpretation where, as here, the statute is clear and unambiguous.20