If the District would have terminated Wurtz’s contract before it expired, how would that change the court’s analysis?

The Beecher Metropolitan District (District) manages water and sewage for a municipality in Michigan. The District has five elected board members and also employs a part-time district administrator who manages District operations on a day-to-day basis. Wurtz was hired as the district administrator for a 10-year period spelled out in a contract between the District and Wurtz. There was no language in the contract concerning any future extension. By 2009, the working relationship between Wurtz and the board members had deteriorated significantly. Wurtz accused members of the board of violating public meeting laws and reported the conduct to the local prosecutor, who ultimately declined to prosecute. Despite the tension between Wurtz and the board members, he proposed an extension to his contract which was rejected by the District’s board. 

Relations between Wurtz and the board became even more contentious after he leveled criminal allegations against several board members related to improper reimbursement for expenses submitted by the board for costs of attending a professional conference. The board members were criminally charged in connection with the reimbursements, but all were acquitted of wrongdoing or had the charges against them dismissed.

At a November 2009 meeting of the District, Wurtz warned the District’s board that he would consider the board’s failure to extend his contract to be retaliation for the criminal investigation. The board, however, refused to heed Wurtz’s warn-ing and voted 3 to 2 not to renew Wurtz’s contract, citing legitimate reasons for its decision. The board countered that the tumultuous relationship between Wurtz and the board members far preceded any alleged whistle-blowing activities. Wurtz sued the
District under the Michigan Whistle blower Protection Act (WPA). The trial court dismissed the claim, reasoning that Wurtz had not suffered any “adverse employment action” as required for recovery under the WPA. The appellate court partially reversed and the parties appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. 

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District. It reasoned that Wurtz was not entitled to relief under the WPA because he alleged that the District violated the WPA by deciding not to renew his contract. In other words, Wurtz only alleged that the District took some action against him in his capacity as an applicant  for future employment. But the court held that the WPA does not apply to job applicants, nor does it apply to contract employees seeking renewal of their contracts. The court focused exclusively on the language in the WPA that requires a whistle blower to be subject to an adverse employment action. In this case, the District paid all money and other benefits owed to Wurtz by virtue of his 10-year contract. Therefore, he did not suffer any consequences that are required for relief under the WPA. 

“Significantly, as gleaned from the WPA’s express language, the statute only applies to individuals who currently have the status of an employee. The Legislature defined an employee in the WPA as ‘a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied.’  Noticeably absent from the WPA’s definition of ‘employee’ is any reference to prospective employees or job applicants. And indeed, the actions prohibited under the WPA could only be taken against a current employee. Only an employee could be discharged and only an employee could be threatened or discriminated against regarding his or her compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment. . . .

“During Wurtz’s ten years as an employee—when he enjoyed the protections of the WPA—he endured no action prohibited by the WPA. He was not discharged, threatened, or discriminated against regarding his compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment. He served the District for the entire duration of his contract and received every cent and every benefit to which he was entitled. Thus, the District did not engage in any action prohibited by the WPA.”