Michigan
Michigan Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 8, 2026. · 14 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361) prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report suspected violations of law, rule, or regulation to a public body. The WPA covers both private and public sector workers and allows employees to sue directly in circuit court within 90 days of a retaliatory act.
Michigan provides strong legal protections for employees who report unlawful activity. The primary state law is the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), enacted in 1980 as Act 469 (MCL 15.361 through 15.369). The WPA covers both private and public sector workers and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report suspected legal violations to a public body.
Beyond the WPA, several other Michigan statutes protect employees from retaliation in specific contexts. Federal whistleblower laws, including the False Claims Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, offer additional layers of protection for Michigan workers.
This is a summary of Michigan whistleblower laws. Make sure to also review the Federal Whistleblower Laws for protections that apply nationwide.
Who Is Protected Under Michigan's Whistleblower Laws
The WPA defines an "employee" as a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire. This includes workers employed by the state of Michigan, its political subdivisions, and private employers. State classified civil service employees are excluded from the WPA but may have protections under separate civil service rules.
The law protects both current employees and those who are "about to report" a violation. This means an employer cannot preemptively retaliate against a worker who has not yet made a report but intends to do so.
What Activities Are Protected
The WPA protects employees who engage in these activities:

-
Reporting violations. An employee who reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of a law, rule, or regulation to a public body is protected. Reports may be made verbally or in writing. MCL 15.362.
-
Participating in investigations. An employee who is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry is also protected. MCL 15.362.
The report must be made to a "public body," which the statute defines broadly. It includes state officers and employees, state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, legislative branch entities, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and federal agencies. A report made only to a private supervisor or coworker, without involving a public body, does not qualify for WPA protection.
The employee does not need to prove that an actual violation occurred. The WPA protects reports of "suspected violations" as long as the employee does not know the report to be false.
The 2025 Stefanski Decision: Common Law Violations Now Covered
In April 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority that significantly expanded the scope of the WPA.
The case involved James Stefanski, a dispatcher who reported that his supervisor miscoded a 911 call as "shots fired" instead of "someone shot." The coding error delayed the emergency medical response, and a woman died. Stefanski reported the gross negligence to his director, who dismissed his concerns. Stefanski later experienced what he alleged was constructive discharge.
Lower courts had dismissed the case, ruling that gross negligence is a common law concept and that the WPA only covers statutory violations. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in a 6-1 decision, holding that the word "law" in the WPA includes common law. The Court emphasized that the WPA should be liberally construed to protect whistleblowers and that excluding common law from its scope would undermine the statute's purpose.
This ruling means Michigan employees are now protected when they report conduct that violates common law principles, such as negligence, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty, in addition to statutory and regulatory violations.
Prohibited Retaliatory Actions
Under MCL 15.362, an employer may not "discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment" because the employee reported or intends to report a violation.
Retaliatory actions that violate the WPA include:
- Termination or constructive discharge
- Demotion or reduction in pay
- Suspension or disciplinary action
- Transfer to a less desirable position
- Denial of training, promotion, or advancement opportunities
- Negative performance reviews issued as retaliation
- Harassment or hostile work environment created in response to reporting
Statute of Limitations and Filing Process
The WPA has a strict 90-day statute of limitations. An employee who believes they have been retaliated against must file a civil action in circuit court within 90 days of the retaliatory act. MCL 15.363. This is one of the shortest filing deadlines among state whistleblower laws, so employees should act quickly.
There is no administrative complaint process required before filing suit under the WPA. The employee files directly in circuit court. The complaint should identify:
- The protected activity (the report or intended report)
- The public body to which the report was made or intended
- The retaliatory action taken by the employer
- The timeline showing the connection between the report and the retaliation
Remedies and Penalties Under the WPA
A court that finds a WPA violation may order any combination of the following remedies under MCL 15.364:
| Remedy | Description |
|---|---|
| Reinstatement | Return to the employee's previous job position |
| Back pay | Compensation for lost wages from the date of retaliation |
| Fringe benefits and seniority | Full restoration of benefits and seniority rights |
| Actual damages | Compensation for injury or loss, including emotional distress |
| Attorney fees and costs | Reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, and litigation costs |
In addition, an employer who violates the WPA may be subject to a civil fine of up to $500 under MCL 15.365.
Michigan courts have confirmed that "actual damages" under the WPA can include compensation for emotional distress caused by the retaliation.
Additional Michigan Whistleblower Protections
Beyond the WPA, several other Michigan statutes provide whistleblower-type protections in specific areas.
Michigan Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2701)
The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against any person who files a complaint, makes a charge, or testifies, assists, or participates in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act. This protects employees who report workplace discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, or marital status (sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were added by 2023 PA 6, effective June 14, 2023).
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA)
Under MCL 408.1065, it is illegal to discharge or discriminate against an employee for:
- Filing a safety or health complaint under MIOSHA
- Instituting or testifying in a proceeding under MIOSHA
- Exercising any right provided by the statute
- Refusing to operate equipment tagged by the Department of Labor as a safety risk
- Participating in an investigation, inspection, or conference under MIOSHA
MIOSHA retaliation complaints must be filed with the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity within 30 days of the retaliatory action. Contact MIOSHA at 517-284-7777 or by email at miosha_info@michigan.gov.
Health Care Whistleblower Protections (MCL 333.20180)
Hospital employees who report unsafe practices or conditions that violate Michigan's Public Health Code are protected from discharge, threats, or discrimination. MCL 333.20180 also grants these employees immunity from civil and criminal liability for their reports.
Before reporting an issue to a government agency, the employee must give the hospital 60 days' written notice, unless the employee reasonably believes the hospital will not take timely corrective action.
Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (MCL 408.483)
Employers may not retaliate against employees who file complaints, institute proceedings, testify, or exercise rights under Michigan's Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act. Complaints must be filed with the Michigan Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division within 30 days of retaliation. The Division can be reached at 517-284-7800.
If the Department finds that unlawful retaliation occurred, it may order the employee's reinstatement with back pay.
Minimum Wage Law Protections (MCL 408.395)
Employees who serve or intend to serve on a wage deviation board, or who testify or intend to testify before a wage board, are protected from discharge or discrimination under MCL 408.395. Employers who violate this provision may be charged with a misdemeanor.
Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.1602)
The Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against any person who opposes a violation of the Act, files a complaint or charge, or participates in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act.
Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act
Michigan's Medicaid False Claims Act (MCL 400.610a) allows private citizens to file qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the state to recover funds lost to Medicaid fraud. This includes submitting fraudulent invoices for payment or offering or receiving kickbacks related to Medicaid services.
Whistleblower Awards
| Scenario | Award Range |
|---|---|
| State intervenes in the case | 15% to 25% of the amount recovered |
| State declines to intervene | 25% to 30% of the amount recovered |
Penalties for Violations
A defendant found liable under the Medicaid False Claims Act may face:
- A civil penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 per violation
- Treble damages (three times the actual harm to the state)
Employee Protections
Employers may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate against an employee because the employee initiates, assists in, or participates in a proceeding or court action under the Medicaid False Claims Act or cooperates with an investigation.
Common Law Public Policy Protections
Michigan follows the employment-at-will doctrine, meaning employers can generally terminate employees for any reason or no reason. However, Michigan courts recognize a public policy exception. Employees who are fired for reasons that violate the state's public policy may bring a wrongful discharge claim.
Protected activities under the public policy exception include:
- Exercising a right provided by statute or other law
- Refusing to participate in an illegal activity
- Reporting a violation of a law, rule, or regulation
These common law claims are separate from the WPA and carry a three-year statute of limitations, compared to the WPA's 90-day deadline.
Federal Whistleblower Protections Available to Michigan Employees
Michigan employees also have access to several federal whistleblower laws.
Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733)
The federal False Claims Act allows individuals to file qui tam lawsuits against entities that defraud the federal government. Whistleblowers may receive 15% to 30% of amounts recovered. The Act also prohibits employer retaliation and provides remedies including reinstatement, double back pay, and attorney fees.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)
SOX protects employees of publicly traded companies who report securities fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, or bank fraud. Complaints must be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor within 180 days of the retaliatory action.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Dodd-Frank protects employees who report potential securities law violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Successful whistleblowers may receive 10% to 30% of sanctions exceeding $1 million. Retaliation victims may sue in federal court for double back pay, reinstatement, and attorney fees.
OSHA Whistleblower Protections
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces whistleblower provisions in more than 20 federal statutes. Michigan employees who report federal workplace safety violations or violations of other covered statutes may file retaliation complaints with OSHA.
Michigan's Anti-SLAPP Law (2025)
In 2025, Michigan enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (Public Act 52 of 2025, House Bill 4045). This anti-SLAPP law protects individuals from strategic lawsuits against public participation.
While not a whistleblower statute in the traditional sense, this law benefits whistleblowers who face retaliatory lawsuits for their protected speech. Under the Act, defendants in SLAPP suits can file a "special motion for expedited relief," which stays all other proceedings and shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove the lawsuit has merit. Courts must rule on the special motion within 60 days.
How to File a Whistleblower Complaint in Michigan
The process depends on which statute applies to your situation.
Under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act
- Document everything. Keep records of the violation you reported, the public body you reported to, and any retaliatory actions your employer took.
- Consult an attorney. The 90-day deadline is strict and cannot be extended.
- File a civil action. You must file a lawsuit in Michigan circuit court within 90 days of the retaliation. No administrative complaint is required first.
Under MIOSHA
- File within 30 days. Contact MIOSHA at 517-284-7777 or email miosha_info@michigan.gov.
- MIOSHA will investigate. The agency assesses whether the complaint warrants action.
- Anonymous filing is available. You do not need to reveal your identity when filing.
Under the Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act
- File within 30 days. Call the Michigan Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division at 517-284-7800.
- The Department investigates. If retaliation is confirmed, the Department may order reinstatement with back pay.
Under the Medicaid False Claims Act
- File a qui tam lawsuit. Work with an attorney to file a sealed complaint in Michigan circuit court.
- The state investigates. The Michigan Attorney General has the option to intervene in the case.
- Collect your share. If the case succeeds, you receive a percentage of the recovery.
Statute of Limitations Summary
| Statute | Filing Deadline | Where to File |
|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowers' Protection Act | 90 days | Michigan circuit court |
| MIOSHA retaliation | 30 days | MIOSHA (Department of Labor) |
| Payment of Wages Act | 30 days | Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division |
| Common law public policy claim | 3 years | Michigan circuit court |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act | 180 days | U.S. Department of Labor |
| Dodd-Frank Act | 6 years | Federal court |
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Michigan have a whistleblower protection law?
Yes. Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361-15.369), enacted in 1980, prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report violations or suspected violations of law, rules, or regulations to a public body. The law covers both private and public sector employees.
How long do I have to file a whistleblower retaliation claim in Michigan?
Under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, you must file a civil action in circuit court within 90 days of the retaliatory act. This is one of the shortest deadlines among state whistleblower laws. Other statutes have different deadlines: MIOSHA complaints must be filed within 30 days, and common law public policy claims have a three-year statute of limitations.
Do I have to report to a government agency to be protected under Michigan's WPA?
Yes. The WPA only protects reports made to a 'public body,' which includes state agencies, law enforcement, the legislature, the judiciary, and federal agencies. Reporting only to a private supervisor or coworker does not qualify for WPA protection. However, you may still have a common law wrongful discharge claim.
What damages can I recover in a Michigan whistleblower case?
Under the WPA, a court may award reinstatement, back pay, restoration of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages (including emotional distress), and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. The employer may also face a civil fine of up to $500.
Can I file a whistleblower claim anonymously in Michigan?
MIOSHA allows anonymous filing for workplace safety complaints. However, filing a civil action under the WPA requires identifying yourself. Under the Medicaid False Claims Act, qui tam lawsuits are initially filed under seal, keeping the whistleblower's identity confidential during the investigation phase.
Updates
Updated the list of characteristics Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act protects to include sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, added by a 2023 amendment, and removed an inaccurate 'familial status' entry that is not part of the statute's employment-discrimination text.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 15.361DefinitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Employee" means a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied. Employee includes a person employed by the state or a political subdivision of the state except state classified civil service. (b) "Employer" means a person who has 1 or more employees. Employer includes an agent of an employer and the state or a political subdivision of the state. (c) "Person" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, or any other legal entity. (d) "Public body" means all of the following: (i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of state government. (ii) An agency, board, commission, council, member, or employee of the legislative branch of state government. (iii) A county, city, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, a council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, agency, or any member or employee thereof.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 265 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Debano-Griffin v. Lake County (Michigan Supreme Court 2013, 493 Mich. 167)“…olation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., after she raised concerns abou…”
- Phinney v. Perlmutter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 513)“…Whistle- *521 blowers’ Protection Act (wpa), MCL 15.361 el seq.; MSA 17.428(1)…”
- McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1)“…ion violated both the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., and Michigan public policy, be…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
§ 15.362Discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against employee reporting violation of law, regulation, or rule prohibited; exceptionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States 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, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 231 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- West v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 2003, 469 Mich. 177)“…III Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim is brought under MCL 15.362, which states: An employer shall not…”
- Whitman v. City of Burton (Michigan Supreme Court 2013, 493 Mich. 303)“…f matters of public concern. Rather, the plain language of MCL 15.362 controls, and we clarify that a plaint…”
- Phinney v. Perlmutter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 513)“…cted activity and the discharge, threat, or discrimination. MCL 15.362; MSA 17.428(2); Terzano, supra…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
§ 15.363Civil action in circuit court for injunctive relief or actual damages; "damages" defined; clear and convincing evidence requiredIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) A person who alleges a violation of this act may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, or actual damages, or both within 90 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation of this act. (2) An action commenced pursuant to subsection (1) may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, the county where the complainant resides, or the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his or her principal place of business. (3) As used in subsection (1), "damages" means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this act, including reasonable attorney fees. (4) An employee shall show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she or a person acting on his or her behalf was about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 66 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phinney v. Perlmutter (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 513)“…fter the “occurrence of the alleged violation of this act.” MCL 15.363(1); MSA 17.428(3)(1); Covell v S…”
- Anzaldua v. Neogen Corp. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2011, 292 Mich. App. 626)“…aim was untimely under the WPA’s 90-day limitations period, MCL 15.363. Plaintiff denied that she was engaged…”
- Bruce Millar v. Construction Code Authority (Michigan Supreme Court 2018, 501 Mich. 233)“…ed his claim one day after the 90-day limitations period in MCL 15.363(1) had run. The court also concl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15.364Court judgment; order; remedies; awarding costs of litigationIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought pursuant to this act, shall order, as the court considers appropriate, reinstatement of the employee, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages, or any combination of these remedies. A court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…es, if the court determines that the award is appropriate. [MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(4).] B The foremost rul…”
- Covell v. Spengler (Michigan Court of Appeals 1985, 141 Mich. App. 76)“…does not bar an action for the other remedies enumerated in MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(4). MCL 15.364; MSA 17.428(…”
- Theodore Cadwell v. City of Highland Park (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018)“…5.361 et seq., may recover postjudgment attorney fees under MCL 15.364. However, because the trial court faile…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15.365Violation; civil fineIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person who violates this act shall be liable for a civil fine of not more than $500.00. (2) A civil fine which is ordered pursuant to this act shall be submitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1987
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hopkins v. City of Midland (Michigan Court of Appeals 1987, 158 Mich. App. 361)“…The act also creates a civil fine for violators of the act. MCL 15.365; MSA 17.428(5). These provisions exceed…”
- Tyrna v. Adamo, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 1987, 159 Mich. App. 592)“…rs’ act also creates a civil fine for violators of the act. MCL 15.365; MSA 17.428(5). Hopkins no…”
- Tuttle v. Bloomfield Hills School District (Michigan Court of Appeals 1986, 156 Mich. App. 527)“…fine of not more than $500, payable to the state treasurer. MCL 15.365; MSA 17.428(5). Defendant’s posi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 15.369Short titleIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
This act shall be known and may be cited as "the whistleblowers' protection act".
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Thomas D Esordi v. MacOmb Township (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…ff’s claims under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.369 et seq., in favor of defendants, Townsh…”
- Dan Martin v. City of Flat Rock Fire Department (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…ing violations of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.369 et seq. Plaintiff was not named in the…”
- William Kelly v. Graphic Packaging International LLC (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…ging claims under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.369 et seq.; PWDCRA; and common law wrongfu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 333.20180Health facility or agency; person making or assisting in originating, investigating, or preparing report or complaint; immunity and protection from civil or criminal liability; disclosure of identity; notice; "hospital" definedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person employed by or under contract to a health facility or agency or any other person acting in good faith who makes a report or complaint including, but not limited to, a report or complaint of a violation of this article or a rule promulgated under this article; who assists in originating, investigating, or preparing a report or complaint; or who assists the department in carrying out its duties under this article is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred and is protected under the whistleblowers' protection act, 1980 PA 469, MCL 15.361 to 15.369. A person described in this subsection who makes or assists in making a report or complaint, or who assists the department as described in this subsection, is presumed to have acted in good faith. The immunity from civil or criminal liability granted under this subsection extends only to acts done pursuant to this article.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 15.361
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Manzo v. Petrella & Petrella & Associates, PC (Michigan Court of Appeals 2004, 261 Mich. App. 705)“…te a separate cause of action under the Public Health Code, MCL 333.20180, was likewise time-barred. The trial co…”
- Landin v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 305 Mich. App. 519)“…s favor. We disagree. The Public Health Code provides, at MCL 333.20180(1): A person employed by or under con…”
- James Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Auth (Michigan Supreme Court 2025)“…licy claim and instead fell squarely within the WPA because MCL 333.20180(1) of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.1…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 37.1602Prohibited conductIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A person or 2 or more persons shall not do the following: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act. (b) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act. (c) Attempt directly or indirectly to commit an act prohibited by this act. (d) Willfully interfere with the performance of a duty or the exercise of a power by the commission or any of its authorized representatives. (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a person from complying with this act or an order issued. (f) Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by article 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 46 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. Butterball Farms Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1995, 448 Mich. 239)“…statutes: MCL 37.2701; MSA 3.548(701) (Civil Rights Act); MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602) (Handicappers’ Civil Ri…”
- Bachman v. Swan Harbour Associates (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002, 252 Mich. App. 400)“…asserting his *413 rights under the pwdcra, MCL 37.1602. We will first discuss both plaintiff’s…”
- Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1982, 412 Mich. 692)“…37.2701; MSA 3.548(701) (Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act); MCL 37.1602; MSA 3.550(602) (Handicappers’ Civil Ri…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 37.2701Prohibited conductIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act. (b) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act. (c) Attempt directly or indirectly to commit an act prohibited by this act. (d) Willfully interfere with the performance of a duty or the exercise of a power by the commission or 1 of its members or authorized representatives. (e) Willfully obstruct or prevent a person from complying with this act or an order issued or rule promulgated under this act. (f) Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 185 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Barrett v. Kirtland Community College (Michigan Court of Appeals 2001, 245 Mich. App. 306)“…H. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF MCL 37.2701(A) On appeal, kcc argues that th…”
- Rymal v. Baergen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2004, 686 N.W.2d 241)“…citation omitted). With respect to the retaliation claim, MCL 37.2701(a) of the CRA provides, in relevant par…”
- Major v. Village of Newberry (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 527)“…arge, filed a complaint, or opposed a violation of the act. MCL 37.2701. A person alleging a violation of the a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 400.610aCivil action in name of state; initiation; complaint; intervention; pleadings; discovery; stay; alternative remedy; award; share of proceeds; court finding of frivolous claim; civil fineIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Any person may bring a civil action in the name of this state under this section to recover losses that this state suffers from a violation of this act. A suit filed under this section shall not be dismissed unless the attorney general has been notified and had an opportunity to appear and oppose the dismissal. The attorney general waives the opportunity to oppose the dismissal if it is not exercised within 28 days of receiving notice. (2) If a person other than the attorney general initiates an action under this section, the complaint shall remain under seal and the clerk shall not issue the summons for service on the defendant until after the time for the attorney general's election under subsection (3) expires. At the time of filing the complaint, the person shall serve a copy of the complaint on the attorney general and shall disclose, in writing, substantially all material evidence and information in the person's possession supporting the complaint to the attorney general. (3) The attorney general may elect to intervene in an action under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Michigan Ex Rel Marcia Gurganus v. Cvs Caremark Corp (Michigan Supreme Court 2014, 496 Mich. 45)“…7 The MFCA specifically allows a qui tam action. See MCL 400.610a(1). 8 Using language nearly identical…”
- Lawrence Russell v. City of Detroit (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)“…the attorney general, charitable trust division . . . .”); MCL 400.610a(2) (“At the time of filing the complain…”
- People of Michigan v. Xun Wang (Michigan Supreme Court 2020)“…be proven in 10 1977 PA 72. 11 2005 PA 337; see MCL 400.610a. 12 31 USC 3729(b)(4). 13 See…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 408.1065Discharging or discriminating against employee prohibited; complaint; investigation; order; notice; review; finality of determination; parties; hearings officers; conduct of proceedings; determination as final disposition; judicial review; venue; civil action to enforce order; powers of director of laborIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act or has testified or is about to testify in such a proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. (2) An employee who believes that he or she was discharged or otherwise discriminated against by a person in violation of this section may file a complaint with the department of labor alleging the discrimination within 30 days after the violation occurs. Upon receipt of the complaint, the department of labor shall cause an investigation to be made as it considers appropriate. If, upon the investigation, the department determines that this section was violated, the department shall order all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of an employee to his or her former position with back pay. (3) The director of labor, within 90 days after the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, shall notify the complainant of the determination under subsection (2).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Schwartz v. Michigan Sugar Co. (Michigan Court of Appeals 1981, 106 Mich. App. 471)“…regulation of working conditions with an eye toward safety. MCL 408.1065(1); MSA 17.50(65)(1) provides: "A per…”
- Ohlsen v. Dst Industries, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 1981, 111 Mich. App. 580)“…r the act through the Department of Labor as provided under MCL 408.1065; MSA 17.50(65). "Consistent with…”
- Tyrna v. Adamo, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 1987, 159 Mich. App. 592)“…ace. The miosha provision relevant to this case is found at MCL 408.1065(1); MSA 17.50(65X1): A person sh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 408.483Discrimination; complaint; investigation; rehiring or reinstatement of employee with back pay; review of determinationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) An employer shall not discharge an employee or discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or regulated by this act, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding, or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of an employee or others of a right afforded by this act. (2) An employee who believes that he or she is discharged or otherwise discriminated against by an employer in violation of this section may file a complaint with the department alleging the discrimination within 30 days after the violation occurs. Upon receipt of the complaint, the department shall cause an investigation to be made. If, upon the investigation, the department determines that this section was violated, the department shall order the rehiring or reinstatement of an employee to his or her former position with back pay. (3) An employer may seek review of the department's determination by following the procedure provided in section 11(4) to (9).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ramos v. Intercare Cmty. Health Network (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018, 323 Mich. App. 136)“…gally discharged for engaging in a protected activity under MCL 408.483(1). The Wage and Hour Program (WHP) of…”
- Joel Ramos v. Intercare Community Health Network (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018)“…on one’s own behalf constitutes a protected activity under MCL 408.483(1). This provision states: (1)…”
- Cockels v. International Business Expositions, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 1987, 159 Mich. App. 30)“…cluding those determined on the basis of commission. MCL 408.483; MSA 17.277(13) provides in pertinent p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (Act 469 of 1980)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.362 - Prohibited employer retaliation(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.363 - Civil action and damages(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.364 - Court remedies(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.365 - Civil fine for violations(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority (2025)(law.justia.com)
- MCL 37.2701 - Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act retaliation protections(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 408.1065 - MIOSHA retaliation protections(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 333.20180 - Health care worker whistleblower protections(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 408.483 - Payment of Wages Act retaliation protections(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 37.1602 - Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act retaliation protections(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 400.610a - Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Public Act 52 of 2025 - Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (Anti-SLAPP)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- SEC Whistleblower Program(sec.gov).gov
- OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program(osha.gov).gov