Kimberly Johnson v. City of Detroit

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIMBERLY JOHNSON, UNPUBLISHED August 05, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellant, 11:23 AM v No. 367098 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT, MIKEL OGLESBY, LOIS LC No. 21-015461-CD PITTMAN, MARYANN WALSH, DEBRA WARE, and KELECHI N. AKINBOSEDE, Defendants-Appellees and OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, Defendant. Before: PATEL, P.J., and RIORDAN and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, city of Detroit, Mikel Oglesby, Lois Pittman, MaryAnn Walsh, Debra Ware, and Kelechi N. Akinbosede,1 under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and dismissing her claims for violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.369 et seq., violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq., and municipal liability under 42 USC 1983. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 Throughout this opinion, the term “defendants” refers solely to defendants-appellees, unless otherwise stated. In the trial court, plaintiff also brought claims against the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which were dismissed, with prejudice, by stipulation. -1-  I. BACKGROUND This case arises out of the suspension and subsequent termination of plaintiff from her position as superintendent of operations at the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT). The disciplinary action was issued within one week after plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) alleging that the DDOT administration misused city resources. Plaintiff is an African-American female over the age of 40. She began her employment with DDOT in 1986. She received many promotions over the years, and eventually became the superintendent of operations in 2015. Beginning in 2019, plaintiff had a strained relationship with her then-supervisor, Zaundra Wimberley. Wimberley disciplined plaintiff on several occasions regarding her professionalism, job performance, and compliance with DDOT’s on-call and vacation policies. In September 2020, Pittman was hired as DDOT’s deputy director of operations and maintenance. Pittman reported to Oglesby, DDOT’s executive director.2 Shortly after Pittman’s hiring, Wimberley suggested to Pittman that plaintiff be terminated. Although Pittman agreed that the documentation provided by Wimberly supported plaintiff’s termination, Pittman declined to terminate plaintiff. Instead, Pittman met with plaintiff to discuss her expectations moving forward. She informed plaintiff that Wimberley requested that plaintiff be terminated. Pittman explained to plaintiff that she was giving her an opportunity to prove Wimberley’s accusations wrong. Over the ensuing months, many personnel changes took place at DDOT. Walsh was hired as the interim deputy director of administration. Ware was hired as a superintendent of operations. Ware worked alongside plaintiff and Andre Mallet—another superintendent of operations. Plaintiff requested Pittman to remove her from Wimberley’s supervision, and Pittman honored her request. Plaintiff was briefly supervised by Larry Smith, and then Pittman. In March 2021, Mallett was appointed to the position of interim assistant director of operations, and became plaintiff’s direct supervisor. Both plaintiff and Mallett remained subordinate to Pittman. In late June 2021, plaintiff indicated that she was sick and was taking a day off. Plaintiff also took the following two days off, but failed to notify management. Accordingly, Pittman considered plaintiff to be absent without leave (AWOL). A few days later, Pittman attempted to call plaintiff regarding a city-wide emergency. Plaintiff failed to respond to Pittman’s calls. Plaintiff also failed to follow the applicable procedures when she took vacation time. On July 5, 2021, plaintiff called the OIG and spoke to Edyth Porter-Stanley, an OIG forensic auditor, expressing that she wished to submit a complaint based on concerns that DDOT individuals were misusing city-assigned vehicles. Plaintiff also complained of a potential conflict of interest between coworkers. Porter-Stanley allegedly informed plaintiff that it was within Oglesby’s authority to deter