A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article in The Arab American News, regarding the legal fragility of employment, given the at-will employment relationship in Michigan.  In short, from a legal perspective, an employee has no expectation of continued employment, unless the employee has an expressed or implied contract, stating otherwise.  An employer can lawfully discharge an employee for any reason or no reason, unless the reason for discharge violates a statute, or is contrary to public policy.

One such statute prohibiting an employer from firing an employee is the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.  Section 2 of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act provides in part that:

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…. 

To establish a prima facie case, it must be shown that (1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity, as defined by the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, (2) the plaintiff was discharged, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge. 

In layman’s terms, an employer cannot fire an employee because the employee reported, or was about to report a crime to a public body.  The simplest form of protected activity under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act is an employee calling the police because the employee witnesses his coworkers murder a customer.  If the employer fires the employee for making the report, the employer has violated the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.

In practice, few WPA cases are that simple.  Usually, one or more of the required elements are unclear.  For instance, an employer may argue that there is no causal connection between the report of the crime and the employee’s discharge, because the real reason the employee was fired was poor attendance, for instance.  Or the employer may challenge the notion that the employee actually reported a violation of the law – either because the report was not actually made, or because the activity reported was not a crime at all.

With that said, recent studies have shown an explosion of WPA case filings over the past few years.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that this is because more employees now know their rights and seek counsel to protect them when their rights are violated.  Defense attorneys argue that, in a poor economy, it is no surprise that a laid off employee would look to lawsuits to score quick money.  As an attorney who has been on the plaintiff’s side and the defense side of WPA cases, I can attest that both sides are right and wrong.  

A poor economy has contributed to an uptick in new business owners.  They may not always know what the law requires of them in the employer-employee relationship.  Also, some employees are opportunistic.  I defended a small business that was sued by a former employee under the WPA.  Discovery uncovered that the employee quit after an argument with the owner’s brother.  Nobody fired her.  In addition, she sent damning text messages to her employer shortly after quitting that stated, “When I am done with you, you will not have a company anymore.”  Needless to say, the employee is now working somewhere else for a living and did not obtain anything from her lawsuit.  

Whatever the cause, WPA cases are more prevalent than ever.  Good WPA cases are still rare, however.  Employers and employees should be aware of their rights and obligations when it comes to the WPA.  It is a good idea to consult with an attorney that is knowledgeable about the WPA when in doubt.  

— Kassem Dakhlallah is a partner with Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, P.C.  His practice focuses on complex litigation including class actions, representative actions, commercial litigation, civil forfeiture and personal injury. He can be reached at 

313. 846.6400 and kassem@jaafarandmahdi.com.