Compensation Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.301(11). The specific provision that Plaintiff relies on states: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.301(11). Although this language is within Michigan’s workers’ compensation scheme, the state of Michigan’s definition of “workmen’s compensation laws” does not control for purposes of the § 1445(c) limitation. To determine if Plaintiffs claim is one “arising under” the state’s “workmen’s compensation laws,” the court must look to fede Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), Suder v. Blue Circle, Inc., 116 F.3d 1351
holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws holding that illinois cause of action for retaliation does not arise under its workers compensation laws holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws holding that  255111 claim does not arise under alabamas workers compensation laws holding that missouris cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws