The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act does not Protect a “Perceived Whistleblower”

The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) does not protect an employee who is erroneously perceived by his employer to be a whistleblower. In Chandler v Dowell Schlumberger (January 21, 1998) an employee was terminated by his employer for the sole reason that his employer believed that he had reported a violation of law by the employer to a public body. The employee, in fact, had not.

The Court expressly declined "to extend coverage to one who is perceived to be a whistleblower, but who does not otherwise engage in protected activity as defined by the act." The Court ruled that the WPA protected only employees who had engaged in protected activity, that is, those who reported a violation or violations of law, were "about to report" such violation or who were asked to participate in an investigation by a public body. The Court also ruled that it is the employee's burden to prove he engaged in protected activity. Since the employee in Chandler has not engaged in protected activity, his discharge did not violate the WPA.