opposing a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff is only required to show a genuine issue of material fact.” Appellant’s Br. at 20 (citing Lynd v. Adapt, Inc., 200 Mich.App. 305, 503 N.W.2d 766 (1993)). It is settled, however, that a court must consider the burden of proof applicable at trial in determining whether a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254-55, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To avoid summary disposition, then, Talhelm must show that there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that she was about to report Pike to a public body for a violation or suspected violation of law when she was terminated. Lynd says nothing different. 503 N.W.2d at 767 (<HOLDING>). With respect to the merits, Talhelm’s
holding plaintiff to his burden of persuasion on appeal of summary judgment holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment holding that the district court erred in ruling that a plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to survive summary judgment on its discrimination claim where the district court had simply discounted plaintiffs admissible evidence as less probative than defendants holding that appellant had submitted sufficient evidence of racebased retaliation to survive summary judgment on his  1981 claim holding that evidence of alleged limitations obtained soon after accident was without more insufficient to survive summary judgment