Case ID: f-appx_228/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sonja SENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC, and Renee Hughes, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-60504.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 21, 2007.
    Jim D. Waide, III, Waide & Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jennifer A. Harris, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Emma Mildred Newman, Centreville, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before REAYLEY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Sonja Senter (“Senter”) appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to remand and the dismissal of her suit. We review de novo and affirm for the following reasons:

1. Senter has no viable cause of action against defendant-appellee Renee Hughes (“Hughes”). Hughes merely recommended Senter’s discharge, which is no tort.
2. In her complaint, Senter neither alleged malicious interference with contract nor raised facts that would support such an allegation, and thus the district court properly disregarded Senter’s argument on this issue.
3. Finally, Senter does not state a McAm claim against defendant-appellee Cingular Wireless, LLC. In McAm, the Mississippi Supreme Court created a “narrow” public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine, holding that employers may not terminate their employees for (1) refusing to participate in an illegal act; or (2) “reporting illegal acts of his employer to the employer or anyone else.... ” McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc., 626 So.2d 603, 607 (Miss.1993). The McAm exception applies only when employees report the illegal acts of the employer. See, e.g., id.; Willard v. Paracelcus [Paracelsus] Health Care Corp., 681 So.2d 539, 542 (Miss.1996). Because Senter does not allege that she was discharged for reporting the illegal acts of her employer, her claim fails.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.