Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 3, 2010 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
140400 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
CHERYL DEBANO-GRIFFIN, Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v SC: 140400
COA: 282921
Lake CC: 05-006469-CZ
LAKE COUNTY and LAKE COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2009
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issue raised by
the defendants but not addressed by that court during its initial review of the case. The
Court of Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in protected activity
under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. Reporting a
“suspected violation of a law” is protected activity. MCL 15.362. MCL 211.24f(2)(d)
requires the ballot to include “[a] clear statement of the purpose for the millage.” In City
of South Haven v Van Buren Co Bd of Comm’rs, 478 Mich 518, 533 n 23, 534 (2007),
this Court, relying on this statutory language, held that “funds derived from levies must
be used for the purpose stated in the ballot,” and that using such funds for another
purpose would “violate the law.” See also, MCL 750.489; MCL 750.490; MCL
141.439. Accordingly, when the plaintiff reported her concerns that the ambulance
funds were being used for purposes other than those stated in the ballot, the plaintiff was
reporting a “suspected violation of a law,” and, thus, was engaged in protected activity.
Because the plaintiff reported a suspected violation of an actual law, it is unnecessary to
address whether the reporting of a suspected violation of a suspected law constitutes
protected activity.
KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 3, 2010 _________________________________________
s0526 Clerk