Opinion
Docket No. 152138. COA No. 294703.
02-03-2016
Bruce WHITMAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF BURTON and Charles Smiley, Defendants–Appellees.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE those parts of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that a plaintiff's actions or conduct, as an objective matter, must advance the public interest to entitle a plaintiff to the protection of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. and that the plaintiff here failed to establish sufficient evidence of the necessary causal connection between his claimed protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action to avoid a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In light of the Court of Appeals' holding that, pursuant to Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan District, 495 Mich. 242, 848 N.W.2d 121 (2014), the plaintiff is not an “employee” placed to bring a claim under the WPA, resolution of these other issues was unnecessary. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to expedite proceedings is DENIED as moot.