that, although there was no explicit statutory proscription, the public policy expressed in the worker’s compensation act precluded an employer from discharging an employee for filing a claim.”). The other factors considered by the Spearman court also weigh against remand in this case. According to legislative history, “§ 1445(c) is designed to prevent removals that would nullify the ‘expeditious] and inexpensive’ procedures states had devised for workers’ compensation claims.” Spearman, 16 F.3d at 724. The expeditious and inexpensive procedures found in Michigan’s Worker’s Disability Compensation Act are not utilized when an employee alleges retaliatory discharge. Rather, the claim is treated like any other tort. See Delke v. Scheuren, 185 Mich.App. 326, 460 N.W.2d 324, 327-328 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Lamona v. Health Care & Retirement Corp., 230
holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint holding that the bureau of workers disability compensation did not have jurisdiction to hear retaliation claim explaining that the michigan legislatures intent was not to create an administrative remedy for retaliatory discharge recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws