Court Opinion

ID: 9476801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:05:50.346512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:25.569565
License: Public Domain

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In its opinion recognizing a cause of action for abusive discharge the Court of Appeals of Maryland explained that an at-will employee would be protected under the following circumstances:
[A]n at will employee’s interest in job security, particularly when continued employment is threatened not by genuine dissatisfaction with job performance but because the employee has refused to act in an unlawful manner or attempted to perform a statutorily prescribed duty, is deserving of recognition.
Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 42, 432 A.2d 464, 470 (1981). This illustration of the doctrine of abusive discharge applies to Adler’s claim. In count 2 of his amended complaint he set forth in detail the violations of state and federal laws, including kickbacks, that he found upon assuming control of two of the company’s subsidiaries. He then alleged:
In August, September and early October 1978, after plaintiff assumed responsibilities as chief executive of TCP and S-M, he made it clear to Kenealy and *1308Sinclair that he would not participate in, permit or condone continuation of the improper and illegal activities relating to the business of those companies. His own reputation for honesty required that the activities be revealed to superior corporate officers. Kenealy and Sinclair became increasingly insecure and feared for their positions, in light of plaintiff's insistence that he would not permit or condone continuation of such practices and that they be disclosed.
Adler’s testimony was consistent with his complaint. The evidence discloses that he told his immediate superiors, Kenealy and Sinclair, that, despite their insistence, he would not include in his profit projections any anticipated business from two kickback accounts. He testified: “There was no way that I was going to get any business because I wasn’t going to pay for it.” In short, the jury could find that Kenealy and Sinclair knew that Adler was not going to engage in the unlawful acts for which his predecessor was ultimately convicted.
To be sure Kenealy and Sinclair fired Adler on the eve of a meeting with officers from the parent company in order to silence him. But that should not be the end of the court’s inquiry. The critical aspect of the case is the content of the disclosure Adler intended to make. The evidence is sufficient for the jury to find that Kenealy and Sinclair knew that Adler was not only going to reveal, as a whistle blower, past crimes committed by his predecessor. They knew also that he was going to announce that he would not engage in, permit, or condone similar crimes in the future.
It is Adler’s refusal to commit unlawful acts that distinguishes this case from those where whistle blowers, who did no more than accuse other persons of derelictions, were not given protection. Indeed, when a whistle blower is also the person who must decide whether a course of illegal conduct will continue, implicit in his disclosure of the illegality to his superiors is his renunciation of its continuance in the absence of any express intention to the contrary.
I believe that the public policy of Maryland, which is so clearly explained in Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. at 42, 432 A.2d at 470, does not tolerate the discharge of a person because he has refused to continue and intends to disclose the illegal activity of his predecessor. I dissent because, despite the jury’s verdict in his favor, this sound public policy is not given effect in Adler’s appeal. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.