The Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in *Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority*, a case that examined whistleblower protections for emergency communications employees who report safety violations. The case was argued on application for leave to appeal on Jan. 22, 2025, and decided April 14, 2025.
James Stefanski brought an action in Saginaw Circuit Court against his former employer, the Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority, alleging violations of Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act. Specifically, Stefanski claimed the defendant violated MCL 15.362 of the WPA when it constructively discharged him in retaliation for reporting a supervisor's actions that he believed constituted gross negligence.
The case centers on a critical emergency call handling incident that had fatal consequences. One night, a supervisor at the 911 center answered an emergency call from someone who reported hearing gunshots and believed someone had been shot. The supervisor coded the call as "1010J," indicating that shots had been fired. Under this coding protocol, emergency medical services are not automatically dispatched to the scene.
Tragically, a woman at the scene had indeed been shot and later died from her injuries. Stefanski believed the supervisor should have coded the call as "40J," which would have indicated that someone had been shot and required emergency medical services to be dispatched immediately to provide potentially life-saving treatment.
Stefanski reported his concerns about the supervisor's handling of the emergency call to the defendant's director, believing the improper coding constituted gross negligence. Under Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act, codified at MCL 15.361 et seq., employees are protected from retaliation when they report violations of law, rule, or regulation, or suspected criminal activity to appropriate authorities.
The WPA provides important protections for public employees who report wrongdoing. MCL 15.362 specifically prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against employees who make protected disclosures. The statute defines protected activity broadly to include reports of suspected violations of laws, rules, or regulations, as well as reports of mismanagement, gross waste of public funds, or abuse of authority.
Stefanski's case raises important questions about the scope of whistleblower protections in emergency services contexts. Emergency communications centers operate under strict protocols designed to ensure appropriate response to life-threatening situations. When employees observe potential protocol violations that could compromise public safety, they may face difficult decisions about whether and how to report their concerns.
The constructive discharge claim suggests that while Stefanski was not formally terminated, the working conditions became so intolerable following his report that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Constructive discharge claims under the WPA require plaintiffs to demonstrate that their employer created working conditions that were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in their position would have felt compelled to resign.
The Michigan Supreme Court's consideration of this case reflects the importance of maintaining effective whistleblower protections in public safety contexts. Emergency communications centers serve as critical links between the public and emergency responders. Ensuring that employees can report safety concerns without fear of retaliation is essential for maintaining public trust and safety.
The case also highlights the complex decision-making that emergency communications personnel face during high-stress situations. Call coding decisions must be made quickly based on limited information, and the consequences of coding errors can be severe. Establishing clear protocols and providing appropriate training are essential for preventing tragic outcomes.
While the specific outcome of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision is not detailed in the available information, the case represents an important examination of how whistleblower protections apply in emergency services contexts. The court's ruling will likely provide guidance for future cases involving public safety employees who report concerns about emergency response protocols.
The case underscores the tension between maintaining disciplinary authority over employees and protecting those who report legitimate safety concerns. Emergency services organizations must balance the need for operational efficiency and chain of command with the public interest in encouraging reports of potential safety violations.
For emergency communications professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of following established protocols and the potential legal protections available when reporting concerns about protocol violations. The outcome may influence how similar cases are handled in Michigan and potentially in other jurisdictions with comparable whistleblower protection statutes.
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in *Stefanski* will be closely watched by employment law practitioners, public safety administrators, and emergency communications professionals throughout the state as they navigate the complex intersection of employment law and public safety obligations.