Termination; Just cause; Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA); Age discrimination in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA)

The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he made false statements that led to his termination. Further, the trial court properly dismissed his WPA claim where even if the “actions constituted protected activity, plaintiff failed to establish the requisite causal connection.” Finally, it held that because he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to “pretext and causation, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim.” He argued there was a question of fact as to “whether there was just cause to terminate his employment contract on the basis that he was untruthful with the health department or defendant or that he violated COVID-19 safety rules.” Plaintiff contended “that the trial court incorrectly found that he told a contact tracer that ‘he was in his office all day alone on’” 10/12/20. There was “no dispute that, if plaintiff made this statement, it was false.” He asserted there was a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether he made this statement given that the contact-tracing report” did not include it. The report included a comment that plaintiff had confirmed “‘symptom onset 10/12, last day of work 10/12. No close contacts other than wife within 48 hours before symptom onset.’” The report did “not establish that plaintiff did not say that he was alone his office all day, and, as defendant contends, does not address plaintiff’s activities on” 10/12/20. Rather, it appeared “to be a bottom-line conclusion, which is not inconsistent with the e-mail.” Further, there was “additional evidence indicating that plaintiff did in fact say that he was in his office all day alone.” A witness (T) testified that she was told by another witness, S, “that plaintiff ‘says that he was in his office the whole entire day and that he had talked to the epidemiologist and the epidemiologist said there was no need for anybody to quarantine.’” T clarified that plaintiff told S “‘he was in his office the entire day.’” The court determined that plaintiff did not “establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he made the false statement to the epidemiologist that he was alone in his office all day on” 10/12/20. Affirmed.