Mixed-Motive Wrongful Discharge Claim Allowed to Proceed After Employee Terminated For Raising Animal Rights Concerns
Mayhew v. Hermitage Club, LLC - United States District Court, District of Vermont
Facts: Effie Mayhew ("Mayhew") worked as a grounds keeper for the Hermitage Club ("Hermitage"). In her position at Hermitage, Mayhew took an interest in the company's horses but observed a deficiency in the horse's care. In particular, the horses' hooves were overgrown and cracked, their manes were matted and unkempt, and their legs appeared to be infected. Mayhew shared these concerns with Benjamin Fritz, a supervisor. Mayhew took her concerns to Hermitage's management and was told the Club was interested in opening an equestrian center. Mayhew was encouraged by Fritz and other supervisors to help develop a business plan to make a profitable use out of the horses.
Mayhew alerted Fritz to her concerns that poisonous plants apparently were growing in one of the horses' pastrues. She told Fritz that if he disregarded her concerns and the horses were harmed, she would disclose Fritz's failure to act. After Fritz failed to act, Mayhew sent an e-mail to Hermitage's owner to express her concern over the well being of the horses and stated that although she would probably lose her job for speaking out, she couldn't in good conscience "walk away" without raising her concerns. The day after Mayhew sent the e-mail, Fritz terminated her on the basis of her "threatening conduct." Fritz wrote a document after Mayhew was terminated that Mayhew had fallen behind in her grounds keeping work (as a result of caring for the horses) and her relationship with her supervisors "appeared to be too far one to repair..."
Mayhew brought suit against Hermitage on the grounds that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. Hermitage subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
Holding: (Note, this analysis only deals with the wrongful discharge portion of Mayhew's claim). The District Court began its analysis with a reference to a Vermont public policy against the mistreatment of animals. In fact, the statute prohibits many forms of animal cruelty. In this case, Mayhew was found to have taken steps to advance the public policy against mistreatment of animals.
However, simply establishing that Mayhew engaged in protected conduct was not sufficient to establish her wrongful discharge claim. Mayhew was also required to show that her protected activity was casually connected to her termination. As the Court pointed out, when a court in Vermont addresses public policy wrongful discharge claims, mixed-motive claims are permissible. Although Hermitage asserted it terminated Mayhew because she was insubordinate (by sending the e-mail and "ruining" her working relationship with her supervisors), Mayhew did not need to rebut this assertion. Instead, because mixed-motives were alleged, Mayhew simply was required to show her insubordination was not the sole reason for her termination. In this case, the Court held there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that her allegations of animal mistreatment "were at least a motivating factor" in the decision to terminate her.
Judgment: The District Court denied Hermitage's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that because mixed-motives were alleged by Mayhew in regard to Hermitage's decision to terminate her, sufficient facts had been alleged to allow her wrongful discharge claim to proceed.
The Takeaway: Some readers might recall that depending upon the state or circuit where a case is pending, that can tip the case one way or another. This case is a prime example. Given that Vermont recognizes a public policy against animal mistreatment (and what state shouldn't?!?), coupled with the fact that mixed-motive claims are permissible in the state, sufficient facts had been plead to allow Mayhew's claim to survive. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mayhew was terminated because of her insubordination. It is also not unreasonable to conclude that Mayhew was terminated as a result of raising concerns over the treatment and condition of horses at the Club. Since Vermont recognizes mixed-motive claims, I think the Court got it right when it concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Mayhew's termination was the result of several things (including the wrongful termination in violation of Vermont public policy). Had this been another state or circuit that did not recognize mixed-motive claims, this case might have ended up differently. In the meantime, Mayhew lives to fight another day.
The Takeaway: Some readers might recall that depending upon the state or circuit where a case is pending, that can tip the case one way or another. This case is a prime example. Given that Vermont recognizes a public policy against animal mistreatment (and what state shouldn't?!?), coupled with the fact that mixed-motive claims are permissible in the state, sufficient facts had been plead to allow Mayhew's claim to survive. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mayhew was terminated because of her insubordination. It is also not unreasonable to conclude that Mayhew was terminated as a result of raising concerns over the treatment and condition of horses at the Club. Since Vermont recognizes mixed-motive claims, I think the Court got it right when it concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Mayhew's termination was the result of several things (including the wrongful termination in violation of Vermont public policy). Had this been another state or circuit that did not recognize mixed-motive claims, this case might have ended up differently. In the meantime, Mayhew lives to fight another day.
Date: November 30, 2016
Opinion: hr.cch.com/eld/MayhewHeritage113016.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment