Legal Opinion

Pace v. Edel-Harrelson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 2016No. Docket No. 151374PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Per curiam

This case requires the Court to consider the application of Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) to an employee who alleges that she was terminated because she reported a coworker’s plan to violate the law. Pursuant to MCL 15.362, the WPA provides protection to an employee who reports “a violation or a suspected violation of a law” to a public body. Because “a violation or a suspected violation” refers to an existing violation of a law, the plain language of MCL 15.362 envisions an act or conduct that has actually occurred or is ongoing. MCL 15.362 contains no language encompassing…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. West v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Johnson v. ReccaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Whitman v. City of BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v. Fieger & Fieger, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. Johnston v. Sterling Mortgage & Investment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. Alisa a Peskin-Shepherd Pllc v. Nicole BlumeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. Anthony Moore v. Huntington National BankMichigan Court of Appeals · 2021
  5. Awham Zoma v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API