Opinion ID: 1640643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proceedings in the fifth circuit court of appeals

Text: ¶ 6. DeCarlo argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court agreed, that absent from the district court's analysis of the issues was discussion of this Court's decisions in Willard v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp., 681 So.2d 539 (Miss.1996) ( Willard I ), and Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So.2d 437 (Miss.1999) ( Willard II ), which arguably extends McArn to a factual situation very similar to this case: a suit against both the company and the individual supervisor over the alleged retaliatory termination for reporting illegal activities. DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 175 (5th Cir.2007). In discussing, inter alia, Willard I and Willard II, as well as McCrory v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 755 So.2d 1141 (Miss.Ct.App.1999); Brandon v. Claiborne County, 828 So.2d 202 (Miss. Ct.App.2001); Senseney v. Mississippi Power Co., 914 So.2d 1225 (Miss.Ct.App. 2005); and Jones v. Fluor Daniel Services Corp., 959 So.2d 1044 (Miss.2007); the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that McArn arguably could protect an employee such as DeCarlo. DeCarlo, 512 F.3d at 176. [3] ¶ 7. The Fifth Circuit likewise determined that there remained a second issue concerning individual liability for the tort of retaliatory discharge, since no Mississippi court had addressed whether the employment-at-will doctrine bars action against individual defendants who participate in the retaliatory decision to terminate an employee within the course and scope of their employment. Id. In a footnote, the Fifth Circuit stated that DeCarlo conceded that Schafer was acting within the scope and course of his employment as Bonus's CEO when he terminated DeCarlo. Id. n. 1. Finding a split in authority in other jurisdictions on this issue, and concluding that this Court had not directly addressed this issue, the Fifth Circuit likewise certified this second question of individual liability of defendants on these facts. Id. at 176-77. ¶ 8. We thus proceed to discuss both questions as certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.