Bill Text: MI HB4095 | 2011-2012 | 96th Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Civil rights; equal protection; protection for individuals communicating with state officials; provide for. Creates new act.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 2-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2011-01-19 - Printed Bill Filed 01/19/2011 [HB4095 Detail]
Download: Michigan-2011-HB4095-Introduced.html
HOUSE BILL No. 4095
January 18, 2011, Introduced by Reps. Horn and MacMaster and referred to the Committee on Oversight, Reform, and Ethics.
A bill to protect a person's right to communicate regarding
state government functioning; to prohibit retaliation for certain
communications; and to provide remedies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
"citizen whistleblower act".
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) "Communicated" means conveyed information directly or
indirectly through any medium, including testimony offered at a
public hearing or task force hearing or speaking in a legislative
work group.
(b) "Retaliate" means to apply or threaten to apply unusual or
more strict requirements, restrictions, monitoring, or standards or
to otherwise subject the person to differential or harassing
treatment. Harassing treatment includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
(i) Excessive visits to a private property.
(ii) Changing standards or requirements during the course of an
investigation.
(iii) Delays in issuing a permit or changes in communication
deadlines.
Sec. 3. A state department or agency shall not retaliate
against a person because the person communicated with a legislator
concerning the department's or agency's performance of its duties.
Sec. 4. (1) A person who alleges a violation of section 3 may
bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, damages, or
both within 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation
or within 180 days of an occurrence that is part of a pattern of
activity that constitutes a violation of this act. If the
retaliation caused a business unwarranted delay in opening or
unwarranted suspension of operations, damages may include expenses
or losses that would not have occurred but for the retaliation.
(2) If a claimant provides clear and convincing evidence that
he or she communicated with a legislator and was subsequently
subjected to unusual or differential treatment by the department or
agency that was the subject of the communication, the department or
agency bears the burden of proof that the treatment was not taken
in retaliation for the communication.
(3) The court shall award costs and attorney fees to a
claimant who prevails in an action under this act.
