Susan Yang Case Study

5075 Words21 Pages
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Susan Yang Whistle-blower and Defamation ------------------------------------------------- DATE: QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Under the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act, will Susan Yang have a claim where she reported to the Attorney Grievance Commission that a partner in her law firm was moving funds from a clients’ trust account to a personal account, and where she was denied partnership? II. Under Michigan’s defamation laws should Susan Yang be able to bring a cause of action for libel where her former supervisor made statements to a prospective employer that although literally true also falsely implied that Ms. Yang had violated the rules of professional conduct? BRIEF…show more content…
National Distillers Prods. Co., 445 F. Supp. 1319, 1327-1328, (S.D. Ohio 1978). A Michigan court is likely to agree that the fourth standard set out in Sutton is likely to apply, since the employer displayed retaliatory actions against Ms. Yang by denying her a partnership opportunity two weeks after reporting the suspected violation of the MRPC. Ms. Yang met all criteria for partnership and would not have experienced such actions had there been no protected activity. Ms. Yang is seeking protection under the WPA claiming that her employer acted in a retaliatory manner by failing to promote her, by denying her a partnership opportunity. The court held in a similar case, where the plaintiff was an employee working as a plumbing cross-connection inspector who complained to the Michigan Department of Labor’s Bureau of Safety and Regulation, about safety violations in defendant’s old water plant and then overlooked for another position, that a sufficient basis existed to grant protections afforded under the WPA. The court held…show more content…
An investigation was conducted by a special agent, who wrote up a report to the superintendent, the report was based on the testimony of Mr. Humphrey another employee of the company, the conductor of the train and the inspection he made of the two coats. The special agent never met with the plaintiff and two days after the superintendent received the report, the plaintiff was discharged and put on a discharge list for reasons of stealing. The court in Bacon, held that if the defendant honestly believed based on all of the facts gathered surrounding the incident that the plaintiff’s intent was to use the jacket for his personal use then the defendant is protected, in having listed the plaintiff as being discharged for stealing. Therefore, the court held that a new trial be granted and that the case should have been submitted to the jury to determine whether defendant, through its agents, acted in good faith, under all the circumstances of the
Open Document