Tom R. Pabst went back to the Michigan Supreme Court to argue on behalf of Kevin Smith, a Flint Police Officer who spoke up against the city misusing millage funds intended to increase the number of police present in the city. Smith claims that right after speaking out and raising his concerns, the city retaliated against him, and in doing so, took away his ability to represent union members and made him the only officer on a static route patrolling the North End of Flint.
The Supreme Court took the case to consider whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standard as to Michigan's pleading standards. In particular they wanted oral argument regarding whether Smith alleged sufficient facts to establish that he suffered an "adverse employment action" and sufficient facts to establish that he engaged in a protected activity under the WPA.
After hearing oral arguments the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion that agreed with Plaintiff's position that undesirable job assignments is discrimination and an "adverse employment action" under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act.
The case was settled shortly after being sent back down from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Michigan Supreme Court materials:
- To read the briefs filed with the Michigan Supreme Court, click here
- To watch the oral arguments, click here
In the media:
- Mlive "Flint council OKs $72.5K police union president payout in retaliation lawsuit" 01/04/2018
- Mlive "Supreme Court says police union chief's lawsuit can continue against Flint" 02/06/2017
- Mlive "Flint police union president's lawsuit going to state Supreme Court" 06/15/2016
- Mlive "Judge dismisses Flint police union president's Whistleblower claim against city" 02/01/2014