Defendants argue that a remedy for plaintiffs’ allegedly reta liatory discharge is provided by the WPA and the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, as these statutes contain anti-retaliatory provisions that plaintiffs could invoke in this case. Public Policy Violation Claimĭefendants first argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ “public policy violation” claim (Count II) because su ch a claim is not cognizable when “there exists a statute explicitly proscribing a particular adverse employment action.” Defs.’ Br. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants discharged them for taking intermittent medical leave, thereby interfering with and retaliating against them in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. Laws § 15.361, et seq., and for violation of Michigan public policy (Counts I and II). 26, PageID.1818 Filed 04/15/21 of 14Īssert claims under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”), Mich. Plaintiffs Case 2:20-cv-10450-BAF-APP ECF No. Plaintiffs allege that they were discharged in retaliation for Candace Follen reporting to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“MIOSHA”) that, and then assisting in MIOSHA’s investigation into whether, the surgical gowns provided to hospital workers were unsafe and unsterile because they were permeable and allowed blood to leak through. The individual defendants (Katherine Robertson-Cain, Paula Coffee, Kriss Weiss, and Melissa Sparks) are hospital employees who allegedly were involved in plaintiffs’ termination. Candace Follen worked at the hospital for twelve years, most recently as a surgical technician her husband, James Follen, worked there for thirteen years, most recently as a registered nurse. Plaintiffs Candace and James Follen are former employees of defendant Genesys Regional Medical Center (hereinafter “the hospital”). This is an employment discrimination case. For the reasons stated below, the Court shall grant the motion in part and deny it in part. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion without a hearing. Plaintiffs have responded and defendants have replied. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTĭEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter is presently before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. FRIEDMAN GENESYS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., SOUTHERN DIVISION CANDACE FOLLEN, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Ascension genesys