Skip to main content

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.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Sessions III

Date:  November 30, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/MayhewHeritage113016.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more