How To Prove A Michigan Retaliation Claim
In Michigan, a claim of Retaliation is defined as:
A Whistleblower’s action is a claim launched by an employee or other person against a government agency or private enterprise for retaliation based on a disclosure of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing by the company or agency.
It simply means:
Someone who reports illegal activities within an organization, agency or company can sue if that organization, agency or company retaliates.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. The plaintiff took part in a legally protected action, such as reporting discrimination or harassment, which is recognized by law as a right that should not lead to punishment or negative consequences from their employer.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff reported instances of workplace harassment to the human resources department in accordance with company policy.
* The plaintiff participated in a union meeting to discuss labor rights and workplace safety concerns.
* The plaintiff filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding discriminatory practices at the workplace.
* The plaintiff provided testimony in a colleague’s discrimination case, highlighting systemic issues within the organization.
* The plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations for a disability, in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act. - Element 2. The defendant knew about the protected activity. In a retaliation claim, this element means that the person being accused (the defendant) was aware that the individual who filed the complaint or took part in a protected activity, like reporting discrimination, was doing so, which is important for proving unfair treatment.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant attended a meeting where the plaintiff explicitly discussed their protected activity and expressed concerns about potential retaliation.
* The defendant received an email from the plaintiff detailing the protected activity and requesting support, which was acknowledged by the defendant.
* Colleagues informed the defendant about the plaintiff’s protected activity during a team discussion, making the defendant aware of the situation.
* The defendant was copied on a memo that outlined the plaintiff’s protected activity and the implications it had for the workplace.
* The defendant had previously expressed discontent with the plaintiff’s protected activity during a performance review, indicating awareness of the situation. - Element 3. The defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff. The defendant made a negative decision about the plaintiff’s job, like firing or demoting them, as a response to the plaintiff’s actions, such as reporting unfair treatment or participating in a complaint, which is a key part of proving retaliation.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment shortly after the plaintiff reported safety violations to management.
* The plaintiff received a negative performance review immediately following their participation in a workplace discrimination investigation.
* The defendant reduced the plaintiff’s work hours after the plaintiff filed a complaint about harassment.
* The plaintiff was demoted to a lower position without justification after expressing concerns about unethical practices.
* The defendant denied the plaintiff a promotion that was previously promised after the plaintiff engaged in protected activity. - Element 4. A causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. A causal connection means that there is a clear link between the employee’s protected action, like reporting discrimination, and the negative action taken against them, such as being fired or demoted, showing that the negative action was a direct result of the employee’s complaint.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The employee filed a formal complaint about workplace discrimination on January 15, 2023.
* Shortly after the complaint was filed, the employee’s supervisor began to give them negative performance reviews.
* The employee was denied a promotion that was awarded to a less qualified colleague shortly after the protected activity.
* Witnesses reported that the supervisor expressed frustration about the employee’s complaint during team meetings.
* The employee was subjected to increased scrutiny and micromanagement immediately following their report of discrimination.
(See DeFlaviis v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 223 Mich. App. 432, 566 N.W.2d 661 (1997).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Retaliation, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively advocate for your rights.
Prove Your MI Retaliation Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only