Terminated Employee Does Not Qualify As "Protected"

Specialty Lines

Employment Related Practices

Employment Termination

Joseph W. Chandler used to work for Dowell Schlumberger Inc. (DSI). However, when the Michigan Department of Transportation received a tip and cited DSI for improper handling and transporting of hydrochloric acid, Chandler was accused of whistleblowing and fired. Chandler denied any involvement in whistleblowing activities to no avail.

Chandler filed suit against DSI under the protection of the Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA). In an interesting decision by the trial court, Chandler's case was dismissed as Chandler was not a "protected" employee as defined in the WPA because he had not engaged in nor was he about to engage in any whistleblowing activities. Thus, he was not protected by the WPA.

The WPA requires that for an action to be filed, the terminated employee must 1. be engaged in a protected activity defined by the Act; 2. be terminated or discharged, and 3. there must be a causal relationship between the protected activity and the termination. Chandler was not involved in the protected activity. Even though Chandler appealed because he was a perceived whistleblower and thus should be protected, the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and again by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Joseph W. Chandler, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Dowell Schlumberger Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee. Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing, Michigan, No. 98-104864, January 21, 1998.