The Michigan Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision in Stegall v. Resource Technology Corporation, which held in February 2023 that federal and state occupational safety and health acts preempted Michigan workers’ claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held, however, that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (“MiOSHA”) did not preempt the plaintiff’s public policy cause of action.
Case Background
As previously reported in our 2022 and 2023 posts, the plaintiff in Stegall, employed through a staffing agency, was an information technology support specialist working on-site at an assembly plant. In April 2016, the plaintiff raised concerns to his staffing agency’s supervisor of potential asbestos issues in one of the work areas at the assembly plant. He also filed a complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (the “Administration”), which he later withdrew.
In May 2016, the assembly plant announced that it would be ending production of a specific vehicle and eliminating the plaintiff’s shift. He was then released from employment.
The plaintiff subsequently sued both the staffing agency and the assembly plant, alleging they were his joint employers and each unlawfully discharged him in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and in violation of public policy. The plaintiff’s public policy claim alleged that his purported joint employers “wrongfully terminated him because of his failure or refusal to violate the law in the course of his employment.”
With respect to the plaintiff’s public policy claim, the trial court dismissed it, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, stating: “MiOSHA and OSHA both prohibit retaliatory discharge and thus preempt plaintiff’s public-policy claim.”
Addressing the Adequacy of OSHA’s and MiOSHA’s Remedies
In its analysis, the Court explained that “generally, where a statute creates a new right or imposes a new duty not previously recognized under the common law, the remedies provided in the statute are presumed exclusive unless the remedies are plainly inadequate or there is a clear contrary intent.” Thus, “courts must therefore conduct an inquiry into the adequacy of the remedy when addressing whether statutory remedies are exclusive or cumulative.”
Then, turning to the adequacy of the OSHA and MiOSHA’s remedies, the Court held that the 30‑day limitation for employees to file a complaint, combined with the “unfettered discretion” provided to the Administration to decide which complaints to investigate, was sufficient to conclude that the remedies were plainly inadequate. Because these remedies were found to be plainly inadequate, the Court explained the remedies provided under OSHA and MiOSHA were “merely cumulative and not exclusive.” Thus, the Court in Stegall found the plaintiff’s public policy cause of action was not preempted.
Practical Takeaways
For employers defending wrongful discharge claims in violation of public policy (one of the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine), the Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that such claims are not automatically preempted by OSHA and MiOSHA. Going forward with regard to other “applicable statutes,” courts will need to conduct an analysis as to the adequacy of the statutory remedies in deciphering whether such remedies are deemed exclusive or cumulative.
If you have any questions, please contact:
- Larry Jensen at (248) 457-7850 or ljensen@hallrender.com;
- Kathryn Jones at (248) 457-7846 or kejones@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Special thanks to Wyatt Poer, Summer Associate, for his assistance in the preparation of this article.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
