Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Qui Tam – Whistleblower – Retaliatory Termination

By: Derek Hawkins//December 16, 2015//

Qui Tam – Whistleblower – Retaliatory Termination

By: Derek Hawkins//December 16, 2015//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Debra Marshall v. Woodward, Inc.

Case No: 15-1866

Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.  

Practice Area: Qui Tam  – Whistleblower – Retaliatory Termination

Court affirms district court decision to award summary judgment on the merits in favor of defendant-appellants.

“But even reviewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we agree with the district court that any reason‐ able jury would find that plaintiffs were terminated because of their insubordination, not protected activity. First, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs were in fact in‐ subordinate. Plaintiffs contend that they were following their training to protect U.S. military personnel, and thus were not insubordinate. But their training did not authorize them to repeatedly refuse to resume working in the face of direct commands from multiple supervisors and an investigation dismissing their concerns. Second, we also agree with the district court that plain‐ tiffs’ insubordination was the but for cause of their termination. Certainly, Woodward’s management was irritated by plaintiffs’ allegations. But Woodward terminated Marshall and Thurman only after investigating their concerns, informing plaintiffs that their concerns were unfounded, and giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to resume their as‐ signed tasks. Instead, plaintiffs engaged in insubordination by repeatedly refusing to work when faced with overwhelming evidence contradicting their allegations. The BCOC investigation, which determined that Woodward would be justified in terminating plaintiffs because of their insubordination, further bolsters the conclusion that plaintiffs were fired because of insubordination, not protected activity. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs were terminated because of protected activity.”

Affirmed

Full Text


Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests