Proof of Motivation Is Now Unnecessary in Michigan Whistleblower Cases

Under the Michigan Whistleblower’s Protection Act (“WPA”), an employer is subject to civil liability and penalties for discharging, threatening or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee reports or is about to report, a violation or suspected violation of a law, regulation or rule to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation. This means, a plaintiff in a WPA case is required to prove (1) he or she was engaged in a protected activity as provided under the act, (2) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

While it has been long recognized by the Michigan courts that these are the three prongs required for a successful WPA case, there have been some Michigan casesin the past providing that a plaintiff is also required to prove that he or she engaged in that protected activity primarily for an altruistic purpose: to inform the public on matters of public concern, rather than for any personal vendetta.  Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying that a plaintiff need not prove that his or her primary motivation was for the public good.  Thus, it no longer matters why the plaintiff intended to blow the whistle, and whether it was for a good or bad reason.  This allows more plaintiffs to prove their case without having to defend their intentions.  This also allows more businesses to be subject to potential whistleblower cases.

The WPA has a very short statute of limitations.  If you have been subject to an adverse employment action, or your business has been accused of participating in an adverse employment action, due to a whistleblowing activity, you should seek the advice of legal counsel as soon as you can.

For more information or to speak with us about your whistleblower issue, please contact us in Ann Arbor at 734-665-4441, or in Ypsilanti at 734-483-3626.  To learn more about Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., or any of our attorneys, please visit us at www.psedlaw.com.

Common Landlord-Tenant Disputes Part 1: The Security Deposit

As attorneys who frequently handle disputes arising out of residential leases, the following are the three topics we are asked about most frequently by landlords and tenants:

• Security deposit issues;
• Late fees;
• Repairs that the landlord must make.

Each of these issues will be covered in two separate blog posts, starting with the security deposit.

The Landlord and Tenant Relationships Act governs residential leases and tenancies in Michigan. Sections 2 through 14 of the Act are commonly referred to as the “Security Deposit Statute.” Generally, a security deposit can only be used for damages that result from conduct not reasonably expected during a tenancy, or for unpaid rent.

Two key provisions of the “Security Deposit Statute” are Section 9 and Section 13.  Section 9 requires a landlord to send an itemized list of damages to a tenant within 30 days of the termination of tenancy, which must include specific statutory language informing the tenant that they must respond to the notice within 7 days, otherwise the tenant will forfeit the amount of claimed damages. Failure by a landlord to send an itemized list of damages, with the proper notice, waives any claim by the landlord for the cost of repairs, and the landlord will have to return the security deposit in full.

However, according to Section 13 of the “Security Deposit Statute,” within 45 days after a tenant vacates a property, a landlord is able to file an action for money damages, which could include damage to a rental property. That being said, a landlord cannot retain any of the security deposit unless one of the following requirements is met:

• Landlord has obtained a money judgment for the disputed amount;
• Tenant has failed to provide the landlord with a forwarding address;
• Tenant failed to respond to landlord’s notice of damages within 7 days as required by Section 9;
• The Parties have agreed in writing to the disposition of the balance of the security deposit; or,
• The amount claimed is based on unpaid rent.

If a landlord fails to fully comply with Section 13 of the “Security Deposit Statute,” illegally withholding a portion of a security deposit, the court will view it as a waiver of all claimed damages and the court could require a landlord pay the tenant double the security deposit amount. Needless to say, this is an important law for all tenants and landlords to understand.

The attorneys at Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C. are experienced in handling disputes arising out residential and commercial leases. PSED Law represents both landlords and tenants. If you have questions about your rights under a lease agreement please call PSED Law at our Ypsilanti office at 734-483-3626, or our Ann Arbor location at 734-665-4441.