 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Henry v. City of Detroit3/5/1999
FOR PUBLICATION
9:30 a.m.
Defendants appeal by right the verdict in favor of plaintiff following a jury trial in this action brought under the Whistleblower's Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq.; MSA 17.427(1) et seq. The jury awarded plaintiff damages totaling $1,080,000. We affirm.
Plaintiff was a police commander for the City of Detroit Police Department. After Malice Green's death, the Detroit Police Department formed a department board of review whose function included overseeing the investigation of the death of Malice Green and recommending whether any involved officers should be criminally charged. Plaintiff was the chair of the board of review. It is undisputed that there are departmental rules that define the role and duties of the board of review, and that defendant Detroit Police Chief gave orders effectively precluding the Malice Green board of review from performing its obligations. As a result of the board of review's inability to perform its duties, some officers innocent of any wrongdoing in the death of Malice Green were falsely accused and denied important rights by the police department. In a subsequent civil lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the "Lessnau suit") filed by one of the officers acquitted of killing Malice Green, plaintiff gave a deposition wherein he testified that the department rules concerning the board of review were violated, and the board of review was not allowed to perform its duties. In an unrelated matter, plaintiff also testified before the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) regarding the formation of a union by police inspectors and commanders.
Less than four months after plaintiff's deposition in the Lessnau suit and less than one month following his testimony before MERC, plaintiff was given the choice of taking an early retirement or a demotion. Plaintiff claims that his forced retirement was in retaliation for his Lessnau deposition testimony and his MERC testimony. Defendants claim plaintiff was being demoted due to poor job performance and rely on surveillance of plaintiff, conducted by both the police department and a local news organization, that shows plaintiff out of his precinct during the middle of several work days.
Plaintiff filed the instant suit alleging several counts in his complaint. Most of the counts were dismissed prior to trial, but trial proceeded on plaintiff's WPA claim. The jury found that defendants City of Detroit and police chief Isaiah McKinnon retaliated against plaintiff for his deposition testimony in the Lessnau suit. The jury awarded damages totaling $1,080,000.
I.
First, defendants claim that the trial court incorrectly ruled that plaintiff presented a prima facie violation of the WPA. We disagree.
The WPA provides:
"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." [MCL 15.362: MSA 17.427(2)].
The WPA is a remedial statute and must be liberally construed in favor of the persons it was intended to benefit. Phinney v Perlmutter, 222 Mich A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|