From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Debano–Griffin v. Lake Cnty.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Mar 23, 2012
809 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 143841.COA No. 282921.

2012-03-23

Cheryl DEBANO–GRIFFIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LAKE COUNTY and Lake County Board of Commissioners, Defendants–Appellees.


Prior report: Mich.App., 2011 WL 3760907.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the plaintiff established a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse employment action under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (MCL 15.362) and, if so, (2) whether a whistleblower may challenge an adverse employment decision, which is claimed to be a matter of business judgment that was based on a fiscal or budgetary reason, as a mere pretext over the defendants' assertion that the separation of powers principle prevents the judiciary from examining the budgetary decisions of a legislative body. See Dubey v. Stroh Brewery Co., 185 Mich.App. 561, 565–566, 462 N.W.2d 758 (1990).

ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel that issued the October 15, 2009 and December 16, 2010 per curiam opinions.


Summaries of

Debano–Griffin v. Lake Cnty.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Mar 23, 2012
809 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 2012)
Case details for

Debano–Griffin v. Lake Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:Cheryl DEBANO–GRIFFIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LAKE COUNTY and Lake County…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Mar 23, 2012

Citations

809 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. 2012)
491 Mich. 874

Citing Cases

Debano-Griffin v. Lake Cnty.

We granted plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to consider “(1) whether the plaintiff established a…