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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more