2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-9-2010 

# S uresh B a drin auth v

. M etLi fe P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2631

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ur e sh B a drin auth v

. M e tL i fe " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1760. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1760NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2631

___________ S UR E S H B ADR I NAUT H, A ppel l ant

v . M E T L I F E CO RP OR AT I ON; VI RG E L AQUI NO

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 2552) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 9, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t Su resh B ad ri n au th ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s A p ri l 2, 20 0 8 o rde r, as a m en d ed b yit s A p ri l 7, 20 0 8 o rde r, d en y ing in p art D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entw i thoutpr ej udi ce. H e furtherappea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ay7, 2009D ur i ng the per i od of B adr i nauth’ s empl oym entw i th M et L i fe, A qui no w as the 1 C h i e f O p e r a t i n g O f

f i c e ro f a B r o k e rD e a l e rR e s o u r c e C e n t e r( “ B D R C ” ) i n N e w J e r s e y, w hi ch w as oper at ed byM et L i fe. 2 o rd e r g ra n tin g D e f

e n d a n ts’ re n e w e d m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e w ill a f f irm b o th rul i ng s. I. In 1 9 9 6 , B a d ri n a u th b e g a n e m p lo ym e n t w ith N a th a n & L e w is C o m p a n y(“ N L ” ). I n 2002, N L w as acqui r ed byD efe ndantM etr opol i t an Li fe I ns ur ance C om pany ( “M et L i fe” ) , and B adr i nauth beca m e an e m pl oy ee of M et L i fe unt i l he w as di s char ged fro m the c o m p an yin Ju n e 2 0 0 3 . A t som e p o int be tw ee n D ec em b er 2 0 0 1 an d Jan u ary 2002, B adr i nauth m etw i th D efe ndantV i r gel A qui no and a mem berof M et L i fe’ s hum an 1 r es our ces depart m entt o di s cus s the tr ans i t i on of empl oy ees fr om N L t o M et L i fe. A tt hat t i m e, B adr i nauth w as offe r ed, and he a cce pt ed, a pos i t i on as a C as hi er i ng M anage ri n the B D R C . H e r eport ed di r ect l yt o R obertC os t el l o, w ho r eport ed t o A qui no. B adr i nauth al l eges thati n orar ound M ay2002, he bec ame aw ar e thatM et L i fe w as notpay i ng i t s empl oy ees overt i m e payatthe r equi r ed r at e. B adr i nauth al l eges thathe ra is e d th e is s u e w ith R o b e rt C o s te llo o n tw o o c c a s io n s – in M a y2 0 0 2 a n d F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 . H e al s o al l eges thathe thr eat ened t o i nform the D epart m entof Labor( “D O L ”) aboutt he is s u e , b u t th a t h e n e v e r r e p o rt e d th e a lle g e d v io la tio n s to th e D O L o r a n yo th e r a g e n c y . M e tL if e a v e rs th a t itb e c a m e in d e p e n d e n tlya w a re o f th e c o n c e rn s ra ise d b yc e rta in3

e m p lo y e e s re g a rd in g th e c a lcu latio n o f o v e rtim e p a ya n d iss u e d su p p lem e n tal p a ym e n ts to the af fect ed em ploy ees. A r ound M ay2002, B adr i nauth, al ong w i th hi s fi ancé e, opened a per s onal br oker age a ccountw i th M et L i fe. I n orar ound J une 2003, dur i ng a r out i ne r evi ew of empl oy ee a ccount s , A qui no not i ced thatB adr i nauth had a ne gat i ve bal ance i n the acc ount . A qui no al s o not i ced otheri rr egul ar i t i es w i th the ac count . A s a r es ul tof A qui no’ s fi ndi ngs , M et L i fe c om m ence d a form al i nves t i gat i on. T he i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed thatB adr i nauth had cha nged, w i thoutauthor i zat i on, the addr es s on the ac count fr om hi s fi ancé e’ s hom e addr es s t o hi s ow n hom e addr es s . B adr i nauth then made a s er i es of w i thdr aw al s fr om the ac counteven though he w as r equi r ed t o obt ai n w r i t t en appr oval fr om hi s fi ancé e bef

or e doi ng s o. B adr i nauth’ s fi ancé e t es t i fi ed atherdepos i t i on thats he w a s n o t a w a re o f

a ll o f th e w ith d ra w a ls th a t B a d ri n a u th m a d e f ro m th e a c c o u n t. M e tL if e ’s in v e stig a tio n a lso re v e a led th a t in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 3 a n d M a y2 0 0 3 , B a d rin a u th m a d e se v e ra l im p ro p e r se c u rities tra n sa c tio n s in v o lv in g th e a c c o u n t. I n J une 2003, B adr i nauth m etw i th M et L i fe i nves t i gat or s as w el l as A qui no. W hen as ked aboutthe February2003 and M ay2003 tr ans act i ons , B adr i nauth admi t t ed thathe m ade the tr ans act i ons and thathe al s o ci r cumvent ed pr operpr ocedur e forr eques t i ng a change of addr es s . B adr i nauth cl ai m ed, how ever , thathi s fi ancé e had a uthor i zed the w ith d raw als. A t th e c o n clus ion o f th e m ee ti n g , A q u ino su sp en d ed B ad ri n au th’s empl oym entpendi ng the conc l us i on of M et L i fe’ s i nves t i gat i on. O n J une 30, 2003,B a d rin a u th ra ise d th e c laim p u rsu a n t to th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt’s r u lin g in 2 Pi er ce v. O r tho Phar m . C orp. , 417 A . 2d 505, 512 ( N . J . 1980) , w hi ch r ecogni zed a comm on l aw caus e of a ct i on forw r ongful di s char ge w hen an e m pl oy ee i s di s char ged “ c o n tr a ry to a c le a r m a n d a te o f p u b lic p o lic y .” A s not ed ea r l i er , the D i s tr i ctC our tamended i t s A pr i l 2, 2008 or deri n an or der 3 e n ter e d o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e a m e n d e d o rd e r c lar if ied th a t B a d rin a u th p re v io u sly w ith d re w h is c laim s a lleg in g ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n a n d a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. 4 A qui no t erm i nat ed B adr i nauth’ s empl oym entdue t o B adr i nauth’ s ethi cal and pol i cy viol at i on s. F o ll o w ing h is t erm ination , B ad ri n au th b rou g h t a civil ac ti o n in the D istri ct C o u rt agai ns tM et L i fe a nd A qui no. I n hi s February2006 amended compl ai nt , B adr i nauth r ai s ed s t at e and f

eder al cl ai m s of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entas w el l as a s t at e l aw cl ai m of w r ongful t erm i nat i on agai ns tM et L i fe. B adr i nauth al s o as s ert ed a 2 cl ai m of def

amat i on agai ns tboth M et L i fe a nd A qui no. I n M ar ch 2007, M et L i fe a nd A q u ino m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t on all o f B ad ri n au th’s claim s. S o o n there af ter, B a d rin a u th w ith d re w h is c laim s o f d isc rim in a tio n a n d a h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. I n an A pr i l 2008 deci s i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed B adr i nauth’ s defa m at i on 3 cl ai m agai ns tM et L i fe a nd A qui no, butdeni ed, w i thoutpr ej udi ce, M et L i fe’ s m ot i on for su m m aryjud g m en t on B ad ri n au th’s w ron g fu l t erm ination claim . In d en y ing M etL ife’s m o tio n a s to th a t cla im , the D istric t C o u rt in stru c ted M e tL if e th a t itc o u ld re n e w its mo t i o n a f

t e rth e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me Co u r tr e n d e r e d a d e c i s i o n i n Ta r t a g l i a v . UBS Pai neW ebberI nc. , 961 A . 2d 1167 ( N . J . 2008) , a ca s e w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our texpec t ed w oul d pr ovi de gui dance on a l egal ques t i on ati s s ue i n B adr i nauth’ s cas e. Fol l ow i ng t heB a d rin a u th c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s A p ril 2 0 0 8 o rd e r o n lyw ith re sp e c t to 4 the C our t ’ s deci s i on t o deny , w i thoutpr ej udi ce, M et L i fe’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent on B adr i nauth’ s w r ongful t erm i nat i on cl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , he has w ai ved r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm enti n thats ame or deras t o hi s defa m at i on cl ai m . See K o st v . K o z a k iew icz , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (a n iss u e is w a iv e d u n les s a p a rty raises itin it s o p en ing b ri ef ). 5 N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s rul i ng i n T art agl i a, M et L i fe r enew ed i t s s um m aryj udgm ent m ot i on s eeki ng di s m i s s al of B adr i nauth’ s cl ai m forw r ongful t erm i nat i on. I n a M ay7, 2 0 0 9 d ec isi o n , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted M etL ife’s ren ew ed m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, dis m iss in g B a d rin a u th ’s o n lyre m a in in g c laim . B a d rin a u th f iled a tim e ly a p p e a l. 4 II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er the ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d ex erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm ent . M cG r eevyv. St r oup, 413 F. 3d 359, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the “pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how that th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v a n t is e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). A co u rtrev iew ing a su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on m us teval uat e the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng p a rtya n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s in th a t p a rty ’s f a v o r. B re w e r v . Q u a k e r S tate O il R ef. C o rp., 7 2 F . 3 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). H o w ev er, a p artyo p p o sing su m m ary j udgm ent“mustpr es entm or e than j us t‘ bar e as s ert i ons , concl us oryal l egat i ons or6

s us pi ci ons ’ t o s how the exi s t ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue. ” Podobni k v. U . S. Post al Ser v. , 409 F . 3 d 5 8 4 , 5 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappr opr i at el ydeni ed, w i thoutpr ej udi ce, D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton B adr i nauth’ s cl ai m of w r ongful t erm i nat i on. D es pi t e B adr i nauth’ s cl ai m thatthe rul i ng i m pr oper l ygave M e tL if e a se c o n d “ n ip a t th e a p p le,” th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g d id n o t ad d re ss th e m e rits o f h is w ron g fu l t erm ination claim . Instea d , as m en ti o n ed ea rl ier, the D istri ct C o u rt w ish e d to w a it u n til th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt re n d e re d a d e c isio n in T a rta g lia b ef o re rev iew ing the g rou n d s u p o n w h ich M etL ife so u g h t dism issal of B ad ri n au th’s c l a i m. W e furtherconcl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed M et L i fe’ s r enew ed mo t i o n f o rs u mm a r yj u d g me n to n Ba d r i n a u th ’ s c l a i m f o rwr o n g f

u l t e r mi n a t i o n . As m ent i oned, i n Pi er ce, the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tr ecogni zed a comm on l aw caus e of act i on forw r ongful t erm i nat i on w hen an e m pl oy ee i s di s char ged contr aryt o a cl ear m a n d a te o f

p u b lic p o licy . 4 1 7 A .2 d a t 5 1 2 . B a d rin a u th c laim e d th a t h e w a s w ro n g f u lly ter m in a ted in re talia tio n f o r id e n tify in g M e tL if

e ’s a lleg e d f

a ilu re to p a ya d e q u a te o v e r t i me , a n d i n f

o r mi n g ma n a g e me n tth a th e wou l d r e p o r tth e s a me t o th e DO L.I n T art agl i a, the N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tdet erm i ned thati ti s notnece s s aryfor 5 a pl ai nt i ff t o fi l e an e xt ernal compl ai ntof a vi ol at i on of publ i c pol i cyw i th an out s i de a g e n c yin o rd e r t o s u s ta in a c a u s e o f a c tio n f o r w ro n g f

u l d is c h a rg e . 9 6 1 A .2 d a t 1 1 8 4 . I ns t ead, not i fi cat i on t o upperm anage m entof s uch a vi ol at i on m aybe s uffi ci ent . I d. M etL ife a rgu es th at th e re co rd e n ti relyco n tr ad ict s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 6 d e te rm in a tio n th a t B a d ri n a u th m a yh a v e in f o rm e d s e n io r m a n a g e m e n t a b o u t h is c o n c e rn s . B e c a u se w e a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g o n o th e r g ro u n d s, w e d e c lin e to re v iew th is as pectof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. 7 M e tL if e a rg u e d th a t B a d rin a u th ’s P ier c e c laim sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d b e c a u se : (a ) h e f a iled to f u lf ill th e re p o rtin g re q u ire m e n t se t f o rth in T a rta g lia; a n d (b ) h e f a iled to 5 es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s al l eged r eport i ng of M et L i fe’ s overt i m e pay pr act i ces and hi s di s char ge fr om the company . U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, the D i s tr i ct C our tconcl uded thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of f actw hetherB adr i nauth s at i s fi ed the r eport i ng r equi r ements etfor th i n T art agl i a. A ccor di ngl y , the C our tconcl uded that 6 M etL ife w as n o t entit led to su m m aryjud g m en t on that b asis. H o w ev er, as to M etL ife’s ar gum entthatB adr i nauth cannotes t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s di s char ge and h is a lleg e d re p o rtin g o f th e o v e rtim e p a yirre g u lar iti e s, th e D istric t C o u rt a g re e d w ith M et L i fe thatB adr i nauth w as w hol l yunabl e t o es t abl i s h caus at i on. C o n tr aryto B ad ri n au th’s asse rt ion , h is Pierce claim ca n n o t surv ive s u m m ary j udgm ents i m pl ybeca us e he maybe abl e t o s at i s fythe r eport i ng r equi r ementpr es cr i bed byT art agl i a. H e mustal s o, i nt eral i a, “s how thathe w as i n fac tdi s char ged i n r et al i at i on fort aki ng act i on i n oppos i t i on t o corpor at e ac t i on w hi ch vi ol at es a cl earm andat e of p u b lic p o licy .” S e e H o u se v .C a rte r-W a llac e , In c ., 5 5 6 A .2 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 9 (N .J. S u p e r. C t.8

A p p . D iv . 1 9 8 9 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t B a d rin a u th w a s u n a b le to s etfor th anyevi dence s ugges t i ng he w as di s char ged i n r et al i at i on forhi s al l eged r eport i ng of i m pr operovert i m e paypr act i ces . C onver s el y , ther e i s overw hel m i ng evi dence s ugges t i ng thatB adr i nauth w as di s char ged forvi ol at i ng companypol i cy re g a rd in g h is b ro k e ra g e a c c o u n t. M or eover , as the D i s tr i ctC our tapt l ynot ed, ther e i s a nea r l yfour - m onth gap betw een Badr i nauth’ s thr eat ened not i fi cat i on t o the D O L and hi s di s char ge. A cl ai m for w r ongful t erm i nat i on underPi er ce maybe di s m i s s ed on gr ounds thatthe l ack of t empora l proxim i tybetw een the prot ect ed acti vityand the ad verse em ploym ent act i on beli es a caus al connec t i on. I d. Sum m aryj udgm entw as ther efor e appr opr i at e. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rul i ng s.