Stegall v. Resource Technology Corporation heads back to the high court for oral argument
The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed summary disposition in a case involving a former employee’s claim that he was discharged in violation of public policy. This case, Stegall v. Resource Technology Corporation, has already made one trip to the high court, and now oral arguments will be heard to address whether the appellate court erred in its decision. The case raises important questions about the viability of public-policy tort claims and the potential preemption of such claims by state or federal law.
The Background of the Case
The case revolves around the termination of Stegall, who worked at FCA’s Sterling Heights Assembly Plant through a staffing agency called Brightwing. In April 2016, Stegall raised concerns about asbestos insulation at his workplace, but an outside expert determined there was no issue. A month later, FCA announced the end of production for one of its vehicles, and Stegall’s supervisor informed human resources that Stegall would be released. After being terminated, Stegall filed a discrimination complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MiOSHA) against Brightwing and FCA.
The Appeals Court Decision
In 2019, the Oakland County Circuit Court granted summary disposition for both Brightwing and FCA, dismissing Stegall’s complaint. The appeals court later rejected Stegall’s argument that the lower court erred in dismissing his claim against Brightwing under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA). The majority of the appeals court found that Stegall had not presented sufficient evidence to show that Brightwing retaliated against him for filing a MiOSHA complaint. However, Judge Elizabeth Gleicher dissented, arguing that temporal proximity alone could support a claim of retaliation.
Michigan Supreme Court Ruling
The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in 2022 to address whether Stegall had established a prima facie claim of discharge in violation of public policy and whether his claim was preempted by state or federal law. The court sent the case back to the appeals court for further consideration. The justices clarified that Stegall’s claim was based on two well-known exceptions to the public-policy tort described in Suchodolski v. Mich Consol Gas Co. The court emphasized that the requirements of these exceptions should not be considered together, as the appeals court had done.
The Appellate Court’s Decision on Remand
In a published decision in February 2023, Judge Kathleen Jansen concluded that summary disposition in favor of the defendants was appropriate. She argued that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and MiOSHA, as both statutes prohibit retaliatory discharge. Judge Elizabeth Gleicher dissented, suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dudewicz v. Norris-Schmid, Inc. had cast doubt on the vitality of the public-policy tort claim described in Suchodolski.
Oral Argument and Key Issues
The case will now return to the high court for oral argument. The parties will file supplemental briefs addressing two key issues: (1) whether a public-policy claim for retaliation still exists under Suchodolski when a statute has an antiretaliation provision, and (2) whether the appeals court correctly held that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by OSHA and MiOSHA. The justices have allocated 40 minutes for argument, with each side receiving 20 minutes.
Conclusion:
The case of Stegall v. Resource Technology Corporation highlights the complex legal questions surrounding public-policy tort claims and their potential preemption by state or federal law. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for employees seeking redress for alleged violations of public policy. As the parties prepare for oral argument, it remains to be seen how the high court will ultimately decide on the viability of Stegall’s claim and the broader implications for public-policy tort claims in Michigan.
Leave a Reply