Background
Athanasios Glavas served as Gentherm Incorporated’s global vice president of quality. In 2022, he raised internal concerns that the company’s SP-56 battery-monitoring device, under development for BMW electric vehicles, did not satisfy certain specifications and posed a potential fire risk.
Glavas also discussed the issue with his friend Harilaos Sorovigas, a licensed Michigan attorney who was working as a business professor and had not actively practiced law since 2017. They discussed possibly reporting the matter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but Sorovigas recommended waiting to see whether Gentherm corrected or self-reported the problem. Neither man made a report, and Glavas never asked Sorovigas to do so. After Gentherm terminated Glavas in January 2023, he sued under Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. The circuit court granted Gentherm summary disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Glavas failed to establish protected activity under the WPA. Even assuming Sorovigas qualified as a member of a “public body” because he was a State Bar member, Glavas did not report a violation or suspected violation of a specific law, regulation, or rule. His discussions sought general guidance about whether Gentherm’s conduct was wrong and what he should do, rather than making a charge of illegality.
The court also held that Glavas had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was “about to report” a violation. The conversations concerned the possible benefits and risks of a future report and contemplated waiting until Gentherm moved forward without correcting or reporting the alleged defect. Because Glavas neither identified a specific violated law nor demonstrated an affirmative intent to report imminently, his WPA claim failed as a matter of law. The court therefore did not address causation or Gentherm’s stated business reasons for the termination.
Key Takeaways
- A general discussion with an attorney about potentially improper conduct does not constitute a protected report under Michigan’s WPA.
- A WPA plaintiff must identify the specific law, regulation, or rule allegedly violated or suspected of being violated.
- An “about to report” claim requires clear and convincing evidence that the employee was on the verge of reporting; discussing possibilities or hoping another person will report is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that workplace safety concerns, even serious ones, do not automatically receive WPA protection. Employees must connect the reported conduct to a specific legal violation and communicate it in a manner qualifying as a report to a public body.
It also reinforces the demanding proof required for an anticipated-report theory: preliminary consultations, questions about consequences, and conditional plans to report later do not establish that an employee was “about to report.”