PHILLIP ALTON BIGGS V CITY OF TAYLOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILLIP ALTON BIGGS,
UNPUBLISHED
April 15, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 245280
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-141409-CZ
v
CITY OF TAYLOR, THOMAS BONNER,
GLENN BONDY and GEOFFREY BONDY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Neff and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of
defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this case brought under the Whistleblowers’
Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. Because we find that plaintiff’s claim does not fall
under the purview of the WPA, we affirm.
Plaintiff, a police officer, wrote a traffic citation upon observing a woman running a stop
sign. He then voided the citation when he discovered that the woman was the mother of two
fellow police officers (defendant’s Glenn Bondy and Geoffrey Bondy), both of them his
superiors. On appeal, plaintiff contends his act of logging the warning violation/citation/ticket as
required by State law and his law enforcement employer’s policies, was sufficient to constitute a
report of a violation or suspected violation of law leading to an actionable claim under the WPA.
We disagree.
“The determination whether evidence establishes a prima facie case under the WPA is a
question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239
Mich App 270, 278; 608 NW2d 525 (2000). “Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of
law and are therefore reviewed de novo.” Oakland County Bd of County Road Com'rs v
Michigan Property & Cas Guar Ass'n, 456 Mich 590, 610; 575 NW2d 751 (1998); Grzesick v
Cepela, 237 Mich App 554, 559; 603 NW2d 809 (1999).
Plaintiff argues that he has a viable claim under the WPA, MCL 15.361 et seq. MCL
15.362 provides:
An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an
employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or
-1-
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.
Our Supreme Court has stated that in order to establish a prima facie case under the WPA:
The plaintiff must show that (1) he was engaged in protected activity as defined
by the act, (2) the defendant discharged him, and (3) a causal connection exists
between the protected activity and the discharge. ‘Protected activity’ under the
WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or
rule; (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body; or (3) being asked
by a public body to participate in an investigation. [Chandler v Dowell
Schlumberger, Inc, 456 Mich 395, 399; 572 NW2d 210 (1998) (internal citations
omitted).]
Despite the fact that plaintiff maintains his action of writing a traffic ticket falls within
the meaning of the phrase “reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a
suspected violation of a law or regulation” and thus supports a prima facie WPA violation,
plaintiff’s actions are not the type of conduct that the WPA was meant to encourage and protect.
“The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act’s main purpose is to alleviate the inability to combat
corruption or criminally irresponsible behavior in the conduct of government or large
businesses.” Shallal v Catholic Social Services, 455 Mich 604, 612; 566 NW2d 571 (1997).
Moreover, “[t]he primary motivation of an employee pursuing a whistleblower claim must be a
desire to inform the public on matters of public concern . . . .” Id. at 621. Additionally, this
Court has also explained that:
The underlying purpose of the act was to protect the public and to promote
public health and safety by removing barriers that may interfere with
employee efforts to report violations or suspected violations of the law.
[Trepanier v National Amusements, Inc, 250 Mich App 578, 584; 649
NW2d 754 (2002).]
Plaintiff’s activity of issuing and then voiding a traffic ticket as part of the normal course
of his employment as a police officer is not protected activity under the WPA. Plaintiff was
simply performing his ordinary duties as a police officer assigned to a traffic enforcement detail.
Plaintiff’s action of logging the citation at the police department was not an attempt to inform the
public of, or bring about remediation for a matter of public concern. Shallal, supra, 455 Mich
621. And, plainly, plaintiff’s writing a traffic violation to a single individual was in no way an
attempt to combat corruption or criminally irresponsible behavior of a government or business
entity. Id. at 612. For these reasons, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motions
for summary disposition. Given our resolution of this issue we need not address the alternative
-2-
grounds for affirmance advanced by defendants.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
