Clarifying Public-Policy Retaliatory Discharge & Employer Status under Michigan’s WPA –
A Structured Commentary on Janetsky v. County of Saginaw, 508 Mich ___ (2025)

1. Introduction

The Michigan Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Janetsky v. County of Saginaw is a sprawling, highly fact-specific employment dispute that nevertheless produces three doctrinally significant holdings:

1. It confirms that a county is an “employer” subject to suit under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., without resort to the common-law “economic-reality” test.
2. It adopts a new three-part test describing when an at-will employee may sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy when the employee acted to prevent or remedy a perceived illegality.
3. It clarifies that (i) even a very brief restraint can support a false-imprisonment tort and (ii) contact with an object under a victim’s immediate control (here, a door handle) can satisfy the elements of civil battery.

The judgment emerges from a saga inside the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office: Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Janetsky challenged the legality of a plea deal negotiated by her supervisor, Christopher Boyd, and alleged that the push-back she received—culminating in a heated office altercation—forced her constructive resignation. Her litigation named both Saginaw County (her putative employer) and individual prosecutors as defendants, asserting claims under the WPA, the common law of public policy, and several intentional tort theories.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Justice Thomas writing for five Justices) largely sided with the plaintiff, reversing most of the Court of Appeals’ disposition and remanding for trial-level proceedings. Key conclusions:

• WPA Coverage: Because the statute itself defines “employer” as any “person who has one or more employees,” Saginaw County fits the definition; the lower courts erred by importing the economic-reality test.
• Public-Policy Tort: A plaintiff states a prima facie claim if she shows (1) an actual or imminent violation of law, (2) a reasonable, good-faith belief that her conduct was preventing/remedying that violation, and (3) a causal link between that conduct and an adverse employment action. The trial court must now apply this framework.
• False Imprisonment & Assault/Battery: Duration of confinement is relevant only to damages, not liability; a 30-second detention can suffice. Boyd’s shutting of the door while plaintiff’s hand was on the handle raises jury questions on both torts.
• Portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion (Janetsky III) were vacated; the case was remanded for fact-finding under the clarified rules.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas (1982) – the original Michigan authority recognizing a narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment. The Court extends its logic by articulating a new, more detailed test for “remedy/prevention” scenarios.
• Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management (1999) – adopted the economic-reality test in workers’-compensation context. The Court distinguishes Hoste and disallows that test for WPA employer status.
• Chilingirian v. City of Fraser (1992) – Court of Appeals decision that had transplanted the economic-reality test into WPA jurisprudence. Overruled sub-silentio on that point.
• Secondary influences include Restatement (Second & Third) of Torts §§ 35 & 18 on false imprisonment and battery, and the Restatement of Employment Law § 5.02 on reasonable, good-faith reporting.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Employer Status under the WPA

The statutory text (MCL 15.361(b)) uses the simplest possible formulation: any “person” with at least one employee is an employer. The Court condemns the lower courts’ reliance on the economic-reality factors (control, payment, etc.), explaining that those factors were designed to distinguish employees from independent contractors, not to parse which of multiple entities counts as the employer when the worker indisputably is an employee.

3.2.2 Expanding Suchodolski: The New Three-Part Test

(1) A law was or would have been violated;
(2) Plaintiff reasonably & in good faith believed her conduct prevented or remedied the violation; and
(3) The employer took adverse action because of that conduct.

The Court marshals public-policy sources: the Legislature’s exclusive power to set criminal punishment (Const 1963 art 4, §45; MCL 771.1(1)), and the prosecutor’s duty to ensure lawful sentences (MRPC 3.8). Discharging a prosecutor for attempting to correct an unlawful sentence, it reasons, undermines both separation of powers and public confidence in criminal justice.

Importantly, the Court declines to decide whether MCL 771.1 actually forbade the probation-plus-jail recommendation; it is enough, for now, that the trial court must decide if plaintiff’s reading was reasonable and in good faith.

3.2.3 Torts of False Imprisonment & Assault/Battery

False Imprisonment. Citing national authority, the Court emphasizes the dignitary nature of the tort: “interference with liberty” is compensable no matter how brief. The defendant’s burden is to show lawful authority for the detention—Boyd had none.

Assault/Battery. Although Boyd never touched the plaintiff, striking the door while her hand held the handle could be viewed by a jury as (i) creating apprehension of immediate battery (assault) and (ii) offensive contact with an object intimately connected to her person (battery). The Court analogizes to cases where snatching a plate or bag from one’s grasp suffices.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Employer Definition Settled. Governmental subdivisions can no longer avoid WPA suits by arguing lack of direct supervisory control; the statutory definition controls.
• Broader Public-Policy Claims. The new three-part framework invites more litigation by employees who intervene to stop perceived illegalities—even if no external report (whistleblowing) is made. Trial courts will confront questions of “reasonableness” and “good faith” routinely left to juries.
• Short-Duration Detentions. Employers should train supervisors that any intentional blocking of egress, even momentary, risks liability.
• Disagreement Among Justices. Justice Zahra’s partial dissent foreshadows future debate: does the majority unduly chill managerial discretion by protecting actions based on an employee’s “subjective” legal view?

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA): Michigan statute shielding employees from retaliation for reporting law violations. Central issue: who counts as the employer?
• Public-Policy Tort: A judicially created exception to “at-will” employment. The employee must show termination violates a clear legal principle benefitting the public at large (not merely personal interests).
• Economic-Reality Test: A multi-factor analysis (control, method of payment, etc.) used to tell employees from independent contractors. Not the yardstick for WPA employer status.
• False Imprisonment vs. Detention Length: Liability arises the instant someone is intentionally confined without legal authority; even seconds are enough—length matters only for damages.
• Assault vs. Battery: Assault is the fear/apprehension of imminent harmful contact; battery is the actual offensive touching—including objects intimately connected to the person.

5. Conclusion

Janetsky v. County of Saginaw will resonate in three doctrinal spheres:

1. It cements a plain-text reading of “employer” for WPA suits, preventing public bodies from escaping liability through technical employment structures.
2. It extends Michigan’s public-policy exception, inviting claims based on reasonable, good-faith efforts to stop illegality—thus offering employees a litigation avenue even when no external whistleblowing occurs.
3. It reinforces the dignity interests protected by intentional-tort law, signaling that workplace confrontations crossing even minimal physical boundaries may reach juries.

Whether the plaintiff ultimately prevails remains undecided; the trial court must now apply the newly minted test. Yet the precedential seeds are sown: Michigan employers—public and private—must treat employee objections to perceived legal violations with heightened care, and workplace supervisors must avoid even fleeting physical restraints. The decision thus reshapes the risk calculus for public-sector management, whistleblower strategy, and tort exposure in Michigan.

© 2025 – Prepared for educational purposes. All errors remain the author’s.