Whether the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) claim was barred by the statute of limitations (SOL); MCL 15.363(1); Constructive discharge; Joliet v Pintoniak

The court concluded that because “plaintiff failed to allege a wrongful act occurring within 90 days before she filed her complaint, the trial court did not err by determining that the” SOL barred her claim and thus, defendants were entitled to summary disposition. Plaintiff was employed by defendant-school district as a special education teacher. One of her students became violent. She “alleged that after the incident she repeatedly communicated to [defendant-Principal Cox] that the student should not be returned to the classroom at that time without a further plan to address the student’s behavior. Cox apparently disagreed, and the student was returned to the classroom. Plaintiff thereafter contacted her union representative with her concerns, met repeatedly with Cox regarding the student, and filed an internal complaint alleging that Cox was violating the school’s policy in her discipline of the student.” Plaintiff alleged that on 3/6/20, “she was contacted by Cox’s supervisor to attend a ‘pre-corrective action’ meeting to discuss the school district’s concerns about plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that thereafter defendants harassed and retaliated against her, concluding with a final interaction with defendants on” 5/21/21. On 6/7/21, she submitted her resignation, effective 8/10/21. She argued “that her claim did not accrue until she was constructively discharged on [8/10/21], and that her complaint therefore was timely filed on [8/26/21], within the 90-day period of limitation provided by MCL 15.363(1).” Plaintiff claimed “that after she reported that Cox was failing to follow school policies, defendants retaliated against her with disciplinary and harassing measures that ultimately led her to resign.” Defendants contended, and the trial court found, that her claim was barred by the WPA’s 90-day SOL “because there is no dispute that the alleged adverse employment actions occurred at the latest on [5/21/21], more than 90 days before plaintiff filed her complaint.” Plaintiff argued “that her claim accrued at the time she left her employment with defendant. This argument was rejected by our Supreme Court in Joliet[.]” Thus, the court held that “in this case plaintiff’s claim accrued, if at all, on the date of defendants’ alleged wrongful act and not on the date she resigned from her employment with the school.” Affirmed.