By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Saginaw County was the employer of an assistant prosecutor attempting to bring claims under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, the Supreme Court ruled in a case before it for the second time.
In a decision written by Justice Kimberly Thomas for Janetsky v. Saginaw County (MSC Docket Nos. 166477-8), the Supreme Court again reversed multiple facets of a Court of Appeals decision and instructed the trial court, in an issue of first instance, to consider a new set of requirements for stating a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on an action to prevent or remedy a violation of law.
The decision was mostly 5-1 with Justice Brian Zahra dissenting but also agreeing with the finding that Saginaw County was the employer.
The case centers around Jennifer Janetsky, former Saginaw assistant prosecuting attorney, who claimed that her immediate supervisor, current Saginaw County commissioner and former chief assistant prosecuting attorney Christopher Boyd, brokered an alleged unlawful plea agreement.
She reported the violation to the county's prosecutor and her supervisor went on to create a hostile work environment, she alleged. She went on paid leave and later resigned, filing a lawsuit under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act and under various intentional torts. She made claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, claiming Boyd put his hand on his office door handle during a disagreement when she attempted to leave.
As for the new set of rules to consider in the public policy claim, the court said a plaintiff may raise a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on an attempt to prevent or remedy a violation of law if they can show that the law was or would have been violated, that they reasonably and in good faith believed they were remedying or preventing a violation of law, and that their actions regarding the alleged violation were the basis for an adverse employment action.
Specifically in this case, the trial court should consider if MCL 771.1(1) was or would have been violated by the proposed plea deal, if Janetsky reasonably and in good faith believed she was remedying or preventing a violation of law and if Janetsky's actions regarding the alleged violation were the basis for an adverse employment action.
The justices also ruled there were facts sufficient to defeat defendants' motion for summary disposition as to the tort claims because the length of time Janetsky was detained is immaterial to liability for false imprisonment and Boyd lacked lawful authority to detain Janetsky and Janetsky has established genuine issues of material fact regarding her claim of assault and battery.
Justice Noah Hood did not participate in the case.
Gongwer News Service
Saginaw County was the employer of an assistant prosecutor attempting to bring claims under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, the Supreme Court ruled in a case before it for the second time.
In a decision written by Justice Kimberly Thomas for Janetsky v. Saginaw County (MSC Docket Nos. 166477-8), the Supreme Court again reversed multiple facets of a Court of Appeals decision and instructed the trial court, in an issue of first instance, to consider a new set of requirements for stating a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on an action to prevent or remedy a violation of law.
The decision was mostly 5-1 with Justice Brian Zahra dissenting but also agreeing with the finding that Saginaw County was the employer.
The case centers around Jennifer Janetsky, former Saginaw assistant prosecuting attorney, who claimed that her immediate supervisor, current Saginaw County commissioner and former chief assistant prosecuting attorney Christopher Boyd, brokered an alleged unlawful plea agreement.
She reported the violation to the county's prosecutor and her supervisor went on to create a hostile work environment, she alleged. She went on paid leave and later resigned, filing a lawsuit under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act and under various intentional torts. She made claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, claiming Boyd put his hand on his office door handle during a disagreement when she attempted to leave.
As for the new set of rules to consider in the public policy claim, the court said a plaintiff may raise a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on an attempt to prevent or remedy a violation of law if they can show that the law was or would have been violated, that they reasonably and in good faith believed they were remedying or preventing a violation of law, and that their actions regarding the alleged violation were the basis for an adverse employment action.
Specifically in this case, the trial court should consider if MCL 771.1(1) was or would have been violated by the proposed plea deal, if Janetsky reasonably and in good faith believed she was remedying or preventing a violation of law and if Janetsky's actions regarding the alleged violation were the basis for an adverse employment action.
The justices also ruled there were facts sufficient to defeat defendants' motion for summary disposition as to the tort claims because the length of time Janetsky was detained is immaterial to liability for false imprisonment and Boyd lacked lawful authority to detain Janetsky and Janetsky has established genuine issues of material fact regarding her claim of assault and battery.
Justice Noah Hood did not participate in the case.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
