Skip to main content

Chain-of-Events Theory of Causation Rejected In Whistleblower Case


Lemon v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Daniel Lemon (“Lemon”) worked at Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”).  Lemon hurt his neck, although it is unclear whether it happened at work or at home.  Lemon told his co-workers he hurt it at home but told Norfolk that he hurt it on the job.  Lemon also told Norfolk that he had not discussed the injury with his co-workers.  After Norfolk learned that Lemon had discussed his injury with his co-workers, he was terminated for making false statements.

Lemon proceeded to file a retaliation claim with the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).  OSHA dismissed the complaint.  Lemon then filed an administrative appeal and while the appeal was pending, also filed suit in district court.  The district court dismissed Lemon’s claim and Lemon appealed.

Holding:  On appeal, Lemon argued his neck injury was a contributing factor in Norfolk’s decision to terminate him as without the injury report, Norfolk would not have learned that Lemon lied about speaking to co-workers.  As a result, Lemon argued a chain-of-events theory of causation led to Norfolk finding out about the wrongdoing and this was a contributing factor to his termination.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was unswayed, however.  First, if the chain-of-events theory of causation were taken to its logical end, any action would be a contributing factor to an employer’s decision.  (One example given by the Court was if an employee got food poisoning while on a vacation in Alaska, the chain-of-events theory of causation would stipulate that the employer wold be liable for the food poisoning as it gave the employee time off for the vacation.)  Second, the chain-of-events theory of causation would enable employees to engage in banned behavior so long as it occurred during their protected conduct.  Under Lemon’s argument, employees would therefore be immune from discipline.

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the employer on the grounds that the terminated employee’s chain-of-events theory of causation would not produce an equitable result in whistleblower cases.

The Takeaway:  I will point out that the Court’s ruling here applies to cases brought under the Federal Rail Safety Act and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, in regard to whistleblower complaints.  With that being said, the Court’s ruling is instructive and aligns with similar opinions from the Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits which have also held that protected activity does not give employees a “free pass” to be immune from discipline for wrongdoing, even when the protected activity is part of a larger gain of events that leads to an adverse employment action, such as Lemons’s termination in this case.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Sutton

Date:  April 30, 2020

Opinion:  https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/19-3906/19-3906-2020-04-30.pdf?ts=1588267881

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