conclude that plaintiff reasonably suspected a violation of law, whether completed or actively planned. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorably to plaintiff, she “reported a suspected violation of an actual law,” which constitutes “protected activity” and is sufficient to establish the first element of a prima facie case under the WPA. Debano-Griffin, 486 Mich at 938. The trial court erred by ruling to the contrary. B. CAUSAL CONNECTION In their motion for summary disposition, defendants also argued that plaintiff could not establish the necessary causal connection between her alleged protected activity and her termination. Although the trial court did not rule on this issue, we are inclined to address it. See Heydon v MediaOne, 275 Mich App 267, 278; 739 NW2d 373 (2007) (<HOLDING>). And we conclude that questions of fact exist
holding that this court may address an issue not ruled on by the trial court if it presents a question of law and all the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented holding an issue not raised in the pleadings is tried by implied consent where the issue is presented considered and ruled upon by the trial court without objection holding that even though the arbitrator ruled on the issue of arbitrability it was the responsibility of the court to address that issue de novo holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief