Retaliation Cases

WEISHUHN v CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LANSING Docket No. 273117. Submitted April 1, 2008, at Detroit. Decided May 22, 2008, at 9:05 a.m. Madeline Weishuhn brought an action in the Genesee Circuit Court against the Catholic Diocese of Lansing and St. Mary’s Catholic Church, alleging violations of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., in connection with the termination of her employment at St. Mary’s, where she had taught mathematics and religion classes and performed other duties. The court, Archie L. Hayman, J., granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition of the claim asserting violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and denied the defendants’ motion for summary disposition of the claim alleging retaliatory termination under the Civil Rights Act. The defendants appealed by leave granted from the denial of the motion regarding the claim under the Civil Rights Act. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The ministerial exception, which precludes subject-matter jurisdiction over claims involving the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministerial employees, exists in Michigan. The ministerial exception has its roots in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The exception bars discrimination claims where religious employers employ or have employed plaintiffs with religious positions. Application of the exception is not inherently complex. It requires courts to determine only whether the resolution of a plaintiffs claim would limit a religious institution’s right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. The exception does not apply to all employment decisions by religious institutions nor does it apply to all claims by ministers. 2. The trial court erred in holding that the motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) for summary disposition of the claim under the Civil Rights Act, which asserted that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim because of the application of the ministerial exception, might create a question of fact for the jury. A determination that there is no genuine issue of material fact can play a part in ruling on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and this may involve an evaluation of the factual elements of the case. However, this evaluation is for the trial court, not the jury, to make. 3. In determining whether the ministerial exception applies, courts must first determine whether the employer is a religious institution and next determine whether the employee is a ministerial employee. There is no question here that St. Mary’s is a religious institution. The order denying the motion for summary disposition of the claim under the Civil Rights Act must be vacated and the matter must be remanded for a determination by the trial court whether the plaintiff was a ministerial employee. The claim must be dismissed if it is determined that the plaintiff was a ministerial employee, and proceedings as necessary for a trial must be scheduled if it is determined that the plaintiff was not a ministerial employee. Vacated and remanded. 1. Constitutional Law — Ministerial Exception — Establishment of Religion — Free Exercise of Religion. Michigan allows the application of the ministerial exception, which precludes subject-matter jurisdiction by a court over claims involving the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministerial employees where the resolution of the employee’s claim would limit the religious institution’s right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions; however, the exception does not apply to all employment decisions by religious institutions or all claims by ministers. 2. Motions and Orders — Subject-Matter Jurisdiction — Issues of Material Fact. A determination that there is no genuine issue of material fact may play a part in a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition that alleges that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter; the determination regarding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact is for the trial court, not the jury, in regard to the motion for summary disposition (MCR 2.116[C][4]). Law Offices of Julie A. Gafkay, PLC (by Julie A. Gafkay and Sandra D. Hanshaw), and Joliat, Tosto, McCormick & Bade, PLC (by Michael T Joliat), for the plaintiff. Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, EC. (by Thomas R. Meagher and Stephen J. Rhodes), for the defendants. Before: ZAHRA, EJ., and WHITBECK and Beckering, JJ. Per Curiam. Defendants Catholic Diocese of Lansing (the Diocese) and St. Mary’s Catholic Church (St. Mary’s) appeal by leave granted the trial court’s order denying their motion for summary disposition in this Civil Rights Act retaliatory-termination case. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. I. OVERVIEW This case involves the “ministerial exception.” The ministerial exception is a nonstatutory, constitutionally compelled exception to the application of employment-discrimination and civil rights statutes to religious institutions and their “ministerial” employees. The ministerial exception has its roots in the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment and generally bars inquiry into a religious institution’s underlying motivation for a contested employment decision. We first conclude that the ministerial exception exists in Michigan. We next conclude that the trial court erred when it concluded that the motion before it— which sought summary disposition of plaintiff Madeline Weishuhn’s retaliatory-termination claim on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter because of the ministerial exception— might create a question for the jury. We therefore remand to the trial court for an analysis of, and conclusions regarding, whether Weishuhn was a “ministerial” employee. We direct the trial court, in undertaking that analysis and reaching those conclusions, to focus on the totality of Weishuhn’s duties and responsibilities, her position, and her function. II. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. WEISHUHN’S BACKGROUND In 1992, Weishuhn obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in elementary education from the University of Michigan. For more than 10 years, until 1999, Weishuhn worked for St. Charles and Helena Catholic Church in Clio, Michigan. She was that church’s director of religious education for its “parish religious education] program” for approximately eight years. In 2001, she obtained her master’s degree in teaching from Marygrove College. B. WEISHUHN’S EMPLOYMENT AND DUTIES AT ST. MARY’S In August 1999, Weishuhn began teaching at St. Mary’s Elementary School in Mount Morris, Michigan. Weishuhn taught mathematics for the fifth through the eighth grades and carried out religious responsibilities that included teaching religion for the sixth through the eighth grades. Initially, Weishuhn taught two mathematics classes and four religion classes each day, but she later taught four mathematics classes and three religion classes each day. And in her final year at St. Mary’s (2004-2005), she taught four mathematics classes and two religion classes each day. At her deposition, Weishuhn explained that her religious-education duties entailed teaching sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade religion classes. She was also responsible for planning Masses for those grades, as well as assisting a fourth-grade teacher with student liturgies. Weishuhn and the St. Mary’s pastor discussed the subject matter of the Masses. Weishuhn also prepared her seventh- and eighth-grade students for the sacrament of confirmation, and she developed reconciliation (penance) services twice a year. At her deposition, Weishuhn agreed that her responsibilities were ministerial in the sense that she provided religious direction for her students. She also testified that religion was an integral part of the school’s curriculum and her lesson plan. C. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW After a series of employment-related incidents, none of which involved the subject of religion, St. Mary’s terminated Weishuhn’s employment in the spring of 2005. Weishuhn later filed a two-count complaint against defendants, alleging violations of the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act and the Civil Rights Act for retaliatory termination. Defendants then moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10), asserting that both of Weishuhn’s claims failed as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion with respect to the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claim, but it denied the motion with respect to the retaliation claim under the Civil Rights Act. In June 2006, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Weishuhn’s employment-discrimination claim because of the ministerial exception. Defendants asserted that “[bjecause [Weishuhn’s] duties while employed by St. Mary’s School included a ‘spiritual function,’ the First Amendment of the United States Constitution preeludes application of the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act... to [her] employment relationship with St. Mary’s School.” The trial court denied defendants’ motion, ruling that there was a question of fact for the jury in terms of whether Weishuhn’s primary function was spiritual in nature. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court noted that the caselaw cited by the parties used the word “primary.” The trial court also acknowledged that there appeared to be some overlap between Weishuhn’s duties in terms of secular and spiritual teaching, and opined that “this is a case that maybe could create some new law in this area, at least maybe get some clarification as to whether or not there needs to be an analysis by the court with respect to this primary or secondary purpose.” The trial court gave effect to its ruling in a subsequent written order. The trial court also denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of this matter. Defendants now appeal. III. THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews de novo a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4). “When viewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4), this Court must determine whether the pleadings demonstrate that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or whether the affidavits and other proofs show that there was no genuine issue of material fact.” This Court also reviews constitutional issues de novo on appeal. B. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT As noted above, Weishuhn alleged a violation of the Civil Rights Act. One purpose of that act is “to eradicate particular forms of discrimination in the workplace.” The act provides in pertinent part that “a person shall not... [Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.” C. THE FIRST AMENDMENT The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!.]” The First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. “[T]he state and federal provisions of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution!] are subject to similar interpretation.” The Establishment Clause guarantees governmental neutrality with respect to religion and guards against excessive governmental entanglement with religion. And the Free Exercise Clause generally prohibits governmental regulation of religious beliefs. D. THE CONTOURS OF THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION The ministerial exception has its roots in the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious freedom and, generally, it “bars any inquiry into a religious organization’s underlying motivation for [a] contested employment decision.” More specifically, the ministerial exception “precludes subject matter jurisdiction over claims involving the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministerial employees[.]” Federal courts have held that the ministerial exception bars employment-discrimination claims under the federal Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and common-law claims. Courts applying the ministerial exception to employment-discrimination claims base such application on a religious “institution’s constitutional right to be free from judicial interference in the selection of... employees.” And one state supreme court has described the ministerial exception as a “nonstatutory, constitutionally compelled” exception to federal civil rights laws. We note that “[w]ith respect to questions of federal law, this Court is not bound by precedent from federal courts except the United States Supreme Court.” “However, where the United States Supreme Court has not resolved an issue, a state court may choose among conflicting lower federal court decisions... to adopt the rule it determines to be most appropriate.” And, in applying the ministerial exception to state civil rights laws, one state appellate court has noted that “there is ... no reason why an exemption carved by the courts from federal civil rights laws should not also apply to their state analogs.” However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has cautioned that “[t]he ministerial exception does not insulate wholesale the religious employer from the operation of federal anti-discrimination statutes.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that the ministerial exception “requires federal courts to determine only whether the resolution of the plaintiffs claim would limit a church’s right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions.” The Third Circuit then continued as follows: [W]e agree with the implied findings of our sister circuits that Congress would prefer a tailored exception to Title VII than a complete invalidation of the statute. Finally, our remedy is limited: It does not apply to all employment decisions by religious institutions, nor does it apply to all claims by ministers. It applies only to claims involving a religious institution’s choice as to who will perform spiritual functions.[] Therefore, “[w]hile the ministerial exception promotes the most cherished principles of religious liberty, its contours are not unlimited and its application in a given case requires a fact-specific inquiry.” As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has succinctly stated, the ministerial exception applies when (1) the employer is a religious institution, and (2) the employee is a ministerial employee. When the employer’s “ ‘mission is marked by clear or obvious religious characteristics,’ ” this satisfies the first prong. Thus, courts have held that “religiously affiliated schools, corporations, and hospitals . . . come within the meaning of a ‘religious institution’ ” for purposes of the ministerial exception. Under the second prong, the scope of the ministerial exception depends on the individual’s position. The Sixth Circuit previously “applied the ministerial exception only to ordained ministers”; however, it later extended the exception to a nonordained plaintiff who fulfilled a pastoral role in a hospital. Therefore, rather than focusing on the fact of ordination, the function of an individual’s employment position has generally been dispositive of the question whether that position was “ministerial.” Accordingly, the ministerial exception applies when “the employee’s primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship ... ,” Under those circumstances, the employee is considered clergy. Indeed, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut stressed the primacy of the employee’s religious duties and responsibilities: Courts are required to examine the duties and responsibilities of the particular employee and examine whether they are ministerial or secular in nature. It is only when the Court concludes that the employee had primarily religious duties and responsibilities that the employment decision made by the religiously-affiliated institution is barred from review by the Free Exercise Clause.[] In McClure v Salvation Army, the plaintiff commenced an action alleging retaliation by the defendant Salvation Army after the plaintiff initiated a gender-discrimination claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit first stated that the Salvation Army was a church and that the plaintiff, as a denominated officer, was one of the Salvation Army’s clergy. The court then concluded that the First Amendment exempted the Salvation Army from federal civil rights laws under the circumstances, because its “ministers” were “the chief instrument by which the church seeks to fulfill its purpose.” Other jurisdictions have consistently applied the ministerial exception in cases where the plaintiffs’ positions were inherently or exclusively religious, as in the case of clergy members and the like. Additionally, courts have applied the ministerial exception to cases where the plaintiffs’ functions were essentially liturgical, that is, related to worship. Yet other courts have also applied the ministerial exception to cases where the plaintiffs’ functions were inextricably intertwined with a religious institution’s doctrine and where the plaintiffs’ positions entailed proselytizing on the defendant church’s behalf. But foreign jurisdictions have not extended the ministerial exception to cases where the plaintiffs’ positions have no connection with the religious institution’s doctrinal mission. E. THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION AND THE TEACHING FUNCTIONS (1) CASES APPLYING FIRST AMENDMENT RATIONALE We first note that there are cases in which courts have concluded that the ministerial exception applied to teachers, but then disposed of those cases on a broader First Amendment rationale. For example, in Stately v Indian Community School of Milwaukee, Inc, although the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin found that the plaintiff filled a ministerial position, it ultimately concluded that her claim must fail under Establishment Clause grounds because her claim “would result in excessive entanglement both procedurally and substantively.” Similarly, in Curay-Cramer v Ursuline Academy of Wilmington, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that the ministerial exception applied to the plaintiff, who taught English and religion classes, but ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs case on application of the Free Exercise Clause. And in Powell v Stafford, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado also concluded that the ministerial exception applied to a theology teacher at a Catholic high school but, instead of barring the plaintiffs claim on the basis of the ministerial exception, the court then provided an analysis under the Free Exercise Clause, concluding that “the balance of values does not favor the government’s interference with the [defendant’s] decision as to the appropriate individual to teach its theology” classes. (2) CASES CONSTRUING THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION However, there are a number of cases in which the courts have directly applied the ministerial exception to teachers. For example, in Equal Employment Opportunity Comm v Catholic Univ of America, it was clear that the ministerial exception applied to a nun teaching canon law. And the Fourth Circuit has applied the ministerial exception to a director of music ministry and part-time musi

KIMMELMAN v HEATHER DOWNS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Docket No. 277201. Submitted April 9, 2008, at Detroit. Decided April 15, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Leave to appeal sought. David Kimmelman brought a common-law, wrongful-discharge action in the Monroe Circuit Court against Heather Downs Management Limited and Legacy Golf Course LLC. Before he was fired, the plaintiff had cooperated in a police investigation and criminal prosecution for sexual assault of a coworker by one of the defendants’ co-owners and had attended the co-owner’s sentencing hearing. The court, Michael W LaBeau, J., granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy lay in the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., but the plaintiff had failed to file his action within the 90-day statute of limitations for claims under the WPA. The court also denied a subsequent motion by the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint to allege that the sexual assault took place away from work. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The WPA, among other things, forbids an employer from discharging an employee because the employee was requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. The language of the WPA does not limit the act’s application to investigations involving employers. The plaintiffs claim, that the WPA does not apply to his claim because the investigation in which he participated and the court proceeding that he attended did not pertain to his actual employment, is without merit. 2. The additional allegation that the plaintiff sought to make in an amended complaint is immaterial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Affirmed. Statutes — Whistleblowers’ Protection Act — Investigations, Hearings, and Inquiries. The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act forbids an employer from discharging an employee because the employee was requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action; this prohibition applies even where the investigation, hearing, or court action does not involve the employer (MCL 15.362). Charles W. Palmer for the plaintiff. Lyden, Liebenthal & Chappell, Ltd (by Erik G. Chappell), for the defendants. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and DONOFRIO and DAVIS, JJ. DAVIS, J. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and denying his motion to amend the complaint. We affirm. A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entire record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted only where the complaint is so legally deficient that recovery would be impossible even if all well-pleaded facts were true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 119. Only the pleadings may be considered when deciding a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Rozwood, supra at 119-120. Because defendants moved for summary disposition in lieu of filing an answer, the only pleading in this case is the complaint. See MCR 2.110(A). We likewise review de novo questions of statutory construction, with the fundamental goal of giving effect to the intent of the Legislature. Weakland v Toledo Engineering Co, Inc, 467 Mich 344, 347; 656 NW2d 175 (2003), amended on other grounds 468 Mich 1216 (2003). The goal of statutoiy interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature, with the presumption that unambiguous language should be enforced as written. Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 597; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). If the language is unambiguous, “the proper role of a court is simply to apply the terms of the statute to the circumstances in a particular case.” Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 155, 160; 645 NW2d 643 (2002), citing Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22; 528 NW2d 681 (1995). Leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” MCR 2.118(A)(2). “Leave to amend the pleadings should be freely granted to the nonprevailing party upon a grant of summary disposition unless the amendment would be futile or otherwise unjustified.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 126-127; 724 NW2d 718 (2006). The trial court’s decision whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. Taking plaintiffs complaint as true, plaintiff was employed by defendants as a mechanic. One of defendants’ co-owners, Joseph Garverick, sexually assaulted one of plaintiffs coworkers; plaintiffs proposed amended complaint emphasizes that this assault took place away from work and after working hours. The coworker told plaintiff about the assault. Plaintiff agreed to give a statement to the Michigan State Police in their ensuing criminal investigation of Garverick, and plaintiff was subpoenaed as a witness at Garverick’s trial. Plaintiff was not required to testify because that case was resolved by entry of a plea. On September 21, 2006, plaintiff accompanied the coworker to Garverick’s sentencing. The next day, when plaintiff reported to work, his employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed the instant suit on January 10, 2007, alleging common-law wrongful discharge. Specifically, he alleged that he was terminated as retaliation for his cooperation with the criminal investigation and prosecution and his presence at the sentencing. Defendants argued all of the alleged bases for plaintiffs termination constitute protected activities under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. “The existence of the specific prohibition against retaliatory discharge in the WPA is determinative of the viability of a public policy claim.” Dudewicz v Norris-Schmid, Inc, 443 Mich 68, 79; 503 NW2d 645 (1993). Therefore, plaintiffs exclusive remedy would be under the WPA, and he would have no other “public policy” claim. Critically, the WPA provides 90 days in which to file suit, MCL 15.363(1), and plaintiff exceeded this window. The trial court granted summary disposition on that basis. Whether any of plaintiffs alleged bases for his termination fall outside the scope of the WPA is therefore the issue before us in this appeal. Plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint, nor has he alleged in his proposed amended complaint, that his employment was anything other than at-will. In the absence of any indications to the contrary, employment is rebuttably presumed to be at-will. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 163-164; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). Because plaintiff has not alleged anything that would tend to rebut this presumption, plaintiff must be considered an at-will employee on the basis of the pleadings. Consequently, his employment was terminable at any time and for any — or no — reason, unless that termination was contrary to public policy. Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). “Public policy” proscribing termination of at-will employment is “most often” used in three situations: (1) “adverse treatment of employees who act in accordance with a statutory right or duty,” (2) an employee’s “failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment,” or (3) an “employee’s exercise of a right conferred by a well-established legislative enactment.” Suchodolski, supra at 695-696. Our Supreme Court’s enumeration of “public policies” that might forbid termination of at-will employees was not phrased as if it was an exhaustive list. However, as a general matter, “the proper exercise of the judicial power is to determine from objective legal sources what public policy is, and not to simply assert what such policy ought to be on the basis of the subjective views of individual judges.” Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56, 66; 648 NW2d 602 (2002) (emphasis in original), citing Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177; 2 L Ed 60 (1803). Consistently with this principle that the courts may only derive public policy from objective sources, our Supreme Court’s enumerated “public policies” in the context of wrongful termination all entail an employee exercising a right guaranteed by law, executing a duty required by law, or refraining from violating the law. Furthermore, where there exists a statute explicitly proscribing a particular adverse employment action, that statute is the exclusive remedy, and no other “public policy” claim for wrongful discharge can be maintained. Dudewicz, supra at 78-80. The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act provides as follows: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. [MCL 15.362.] It is not disputed that plaintiff did not report, nor was he about to report, any violation of law. It is also not disputed that the criminal investigation and court action did not technically involve plaintiffs employer, but rather the individual co-owner, in that person’s individual capacity, of the business entities that employed plaintiff. Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint states —and the parties have treated as presumed — that the subject of the investigation was not related to plaintiffs employer or employment. Nevertheless, the plain language of the statute is not limited to violations by employers. Dudewicz, supra at 77. In Dudewicz, our Supreme Court determined that the facts before it did not warrant “testing] the outer limits of this rather broad statute.” Id. The facts here do. Moreover, this Court must follow the unambiguous language of a statute, even if doing so would produce an absurd or irrational result. Our Supreme Court has explained that the courts must follow the plain and unambiguous language of a statute, even if doing so would produce an absurd or irrational result. People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155-158 & n 2; 599 NW2d 102 (1999). The language in the WPA is unambiguous: an employee need only be requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, inquiry, or court action (or, under the first part of the statute, report or be about to report a violation of law). There is absolutely nothing, express or implied, in the plain wording of the statute that limits its applicability to violations of law by the employer or to investigations involving the employer. Plaintiffs argument that the WPA does not apply is that the investigation in which he participated and the court actions that he attended did not pertain to his actual employment. In support, plaintiff cites several cases in which this Court or our Supreme Court avoided addressing whether some connection to the employee’s employment was required by the WPA by concluding that there was, in fact, a connection to the employment. Dudewicz, supra at 77-78; Terzano v Wayne Co, 216 Mich App 522, 530-532; 549 NW2d 606 (1996); Trepanier v Nat’l Amusements, Inc, 250 Mich App 578, 586-588; 649 NW2d 754 (2002). But in all these cases the courts deemed it unnecessary to address the question directly, and thus they left it outstanding. Furthermore, although in the context of a report rather than a participation, our Supreme Court has observed that there may “[frequently” be “a close connection . . . between the reported violation and the employment setting,” but “no such limitation is found in the statute.” Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 381; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). Plaintiff alleges that his employment was terminated because he participated in a criminal investigation and court action. These activities are protected under the WPA, irrespective of whether the criminal investigation had any connection to his employer or to his employment. Plaintiff therefore alleges that he was terminated because of his participation in a protected activity under the WPA, so his exclusive remedy is a claim under the WPA. Pleadings in Michigan need only provide a statement of facts and allegations sufficient to advise the adverse party of the nature of the claims being brought, so a complaint need not explicitly refer to a statute to bring a claim under that statute. MCR 2.111(B)(1); Johnson v A & M Custom Built Homes of West Bloomfield, PC, 261 Mich App 719, 723; 683 NW2d 229 (2004). Plaintiffs claim is exclusively under the WPA, and because plaintiff did not meet the 90-day limitations period under MCL 15.363(1), the trial court properly granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff additionally argues that his attendance at Garverick’s sentencing is not protected under the WPA. It appears that defendants conceded this point, although we are not bound by a party’s statement of law, or even the parties’ stipulations on a point of law. Rice v Ruddiman, 10 Mich 125 138 (1862); In re Finlay Estate, 430 Mich 590, 595-596; 424 NW2d 272 (1988). In any event, even if plaintiffs apparently gratuitous attendance at Garverick’s sentencing is not protected under the WPA, “public policy” must still be derived from an objective source. Plaintiff cites article 1, § 24 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords certain rights to crime victims, but plaintiff is not himself a crime victim, so he cannot have been exercising a right or executing a duty of his own. Plaintiff also cites MCL 750.122, the witness anti-intimidation statute, but because plaintiff did not attend the sentencing to provide information, he again could not have been exercising a right or executing a duty of his own. In summary, we simply have not found an objective source for a public policy that would make termination of an at-will employee legally wrongful under these circumstances. We finally note that the only significant distinction between plaintiffs complaint and plaintiffs proposed amended complaint is clarification of the fact that the assault was unrelated to plaintiffs employment. Because this fact is immaterial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend on the basis of futility. Affirmed. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Heather Downs Management Limited pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff conceded the correctness of this determination below, and this is not an issue on appeal. We do not suggest that an irrational result exists here. The Legislature intended the WPA to serve a vitally important and far-reaching goal: protection of the public by protecting all employees who have knowledge that is relevant to the protection of the public from some abuse or violation of law and who, for whatever reason, might fear that their employers would not wish them to divulge that information or otherwise participate in a public investigation. The Legislature clearly intended to maximize employees’ involvement by removing as much doubt as possible regarding whether those employees will face negative consequences. Moreover, the Legislature clearly did not intend the WPA to protect the public only from violations of law or abuses by employers, but rather from violations of law or abuses in general.