Opinion ID: 3202038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AEP’s Burden

Text: The Energy Reorganization Act protects workers who report safety concerns from retaliatory termination. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a). To this end, the Act places an initial burden on employees to offer preponderating evidence that protected activity contributed to an adverse employment action; if the employee succeeds, the burden shifts to the employer to show by “clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior.” See id. § 5851(b)(3); see also Sanders v. Energy Nw., 812 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016). “The employer bears the risk if the two motives prove inseparable.” Am. Nuclear Res., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292, 1295 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Mackowiak v. Univ. Nuclear Sys., Inc. 735 F.2d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 1984)). Here, the district court determined that Ma set forth a prima facie case of retaliatory termination because her 2010 condition report and opposition to the LOTIC2 solution constituted protected activities that played a role in her termination. Pivoting, the court concluded that AEP carried its burden of showing it would have terminated Ma even absent these activities because of her enduring difficulties with coworkers. Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error, giving due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility. See Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Serv. Dep’t, 549 F.3d 666, 673–74 (6th Cir. 2008). -3- Case No. 15-2105 Ma v. American Electric Power, Inc. Ma challenges the district court’s conclusion that AEP met its burden, maintaining that because only a subset of the senior management team testified, it was impossible for the court to discern AEP’s true reason for terminating her. Although she aptly notes that an employer must present evidence of its actual rather than hypothetical motivations, see Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm’rs v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 992 F.2d 474, 482 (3d Cir. 1993), Ma points to no authority necessitating that all decisionmakers testify. Instead, the statute requires AEP provide “clear and convincing” evidence of its motivations. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(3)(B). Here, the consistent testimony from multiple decisionmakers provided sufficient evidence from which the district court could glean AEP’s reason for firing Ma. Even if this management-team testimony were sufficient, Ma continues, the court erred in finding that AEP distinguished its legitimate rationale from its prohibited rationale. She likens her case to Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc., in which the court of appeals acknowledged substantial evidence of an employee’s interpersonal trouble with coworkers and superiors, but could not decipher the extent to which this troublesomeness arose from his engaging in protected activity. 735 F.2d at 1164. The court of appeals remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. Ma’s case differs starkly. Here, it was not Ma’s safety reports and LOTIC2 objections that irked colleagues, but rather the aggressive tone with which she delivered them. And testimony showed that colleagues avoided going to Ma with concerns because of her confrontational attitude and unwillingness to accept criticism. AEP elicited sufficient testimony on these points to support the district court’s conclusion that Ma’s inability to talk, collaborate, or otherwise work with peers caused her termination. See Am. Nuclear Res., Inc., 134 F.3d at -4- Case No. 15-2105 Ma v. American Electric Power, Inc. 1295 (“[A]n employer may terminate an employee who behaves inappropriately, even if that behavior relates to a legitimate safety concern.”). Pushing on, Ma contends that the district court erroneously discounted her positive performance reviews, overlooked hostility she experienced from certain colleagues, and accepted disputed testimonial evidence. The court adequately addressed and reconciled these points, and we will not reweigh evidence. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). As for the disputed testimony, the court explained that Ma’s “frozen” and “dodg[y]” demeanor on the witness stand “presented exactly what her detractors said—she was unable or unwilling to see or allow for potential error on her side of the conflict.” Findings based on a witness’s credibility during a bench trial demand increased deference, “for only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575 (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985)). And though “a district court cannot ‘insulate [its] findings from review by denominating them credibility determinations,’” here the record buttresses the court’s determination. King v. Zamiara, 680 F.3d 686, 701 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575). Last, Ma objects to a number of the district court’s subsidiary findings, including its description of AEP’s safety-and-disciplinary culture and its unwillingness to credit adverse inferences. But these purported errors leave intact the court’s underlying finding that AEP fired Ma because of her behavioral problems and insubordination, rather than in retaliation for protected activity. -5- Case No. 15-2105 Ma v. American Electric Power, Inc.