Opinion ID: 4468159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whistleblower Retaliation

Text: [¶22] Johnson next contends that the court erred when it concluded that the record on summary judgment did not include evidence that the hospital’s decision to terminate his employment was in retaliation for complaints he had made about other employees’ conduct toward him and therefore was in violation of the WPA. See 26 M.R.S. § 833(1)(A)-(B). [¶23] To establish a prima facie case for retaliation pursuant the WPA, an employee must show that (1) he “engaged in activity protected by the 11 statute, (2) [he] was the subject of adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Sullivan v. St. Joseph’s Rehab. & Residence, 2016 ME 107, ¶ 14, 143 A.3d 1283 (quotation marks omitted). “In the context of the summary judgment analysis, the employee’s burden of proving a prima facie case of retaliation is relatively light, and requires only a small showing that is not onerous and is easily made.” Brady v. Cumberland Cty., 2015 ME 143, ¶ 14, 126 A.3d 1145 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). An employee’s protected activity is causally connected to the adverse employment action “when the alleged retaliation was a substantial, even though perhaps not the only, factor motivating the adverse employment action.” Id. ¶ 16 (quotation marks omitted). Any relevant evidence, including temporal proximity, may be considered in determining whether there is an arguable causal nexus. See Cormier v. Genesis Healthcare LLC, 2015 ME 161, ¶ 22, 129 A.3d 944; Brady, 2015 ME 143, ¶ 16, 126 A.3d 1145; Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80, ¶ 21, 45 A.3d 722. [¶24] The record on summary judgment affirmatively establishes the hospital’s stated reason for terminating Johnson’s employment—specifically, “safety concerns relating to patients and staff” as created by Johnson’s behavior. 12 The termination decision followed a “thorough” investigation of Johnson’s own complaints—an investigation that revealed that Johnson himself had engaged in an “ongoing pattern of inappropriate behavior.” A human resources officer at the hospital (the Leader of Staff Experiences) relied on the results of the investigation, concluded that Johnson had created a “hostile work environment,” and recommended to the hospital’s president that Johnson be fired because Johnson posed “safety concerns” for patients and staff. Johnson’s employment was then terminated. [¶25] In his summary judgment filings, Johnson disputed the truthfulness of the accounts of his own behavior provided to the hospital’s investigator. That dispute, however, does not transform the hospital’s rationale for its decision to terminate Johnson’s employment into one that was illegal. Rather, on this record, as the trial court astutely observed, Johnson’s dispute shows only that the reports of Johnson’s intolerable behavior may have been incorrect. Thus, it remains established that Johnson was terminated not for retaliatory reasons but based on investigated reports of his own untoward conduct. Therefore, the record does not generate a prima facie case of 13 retaliation, and the court correctly entered a summary judgment against Johnson on his WPA claim.3