According to the Court’s
opinion, the plaintiff’s “engineering talents garnered her recognition for maintaining
safety at AEP over her eleven-year career. But interpersonal conflict ultimately
overshadowed her technical prowess . . .. Tempers flared and
workflow slowed, culminating in a verbal altercation between” her and others
after she made a safety complaint against another team and made another safety
complaint when they objected. Notwithstanding coaching on teamwork and
professionalism, disciplinary action and an mandatory counseling, she continued
her combative behavior. After a competing proposal was selected over
her suggestion, she claimed it was unsafe and refused to work on it. Believing that her safety objections was
merely a continuation of her us-vs-them mentality, she was terminated. Following a five-day bench trial, the court
found that the plaintiff was fired for interpersonal shortcomings instead of
legitimate safety objections.
The Energy Reorganization Act
protects workers who report safety concerns from retaliatory termination. See
42 U.S.C. § 5851(a). To this end, the Act places an initial burden on employees
to offer preponderating evidence that protected activity contributed to an
adverse employment action; if the employee succeeds, the burden shifts to the
employer to show by “clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken
the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior.”
Despite this heightened
burden of proof, the employer was found to have met it in this case (after
lengthy and expensive pre-trial discovery and a week-long bench trial). Despite the fact that the plaintiff was
undisputedly fired after expressing protected safety concerns, the employer
showed that it would have fired her without those safety concerns based on the manner of her expression.
Here, it was not Ma’s safety reports and LOTIC2 objections that
irked colleagues, but rather the aggressive tone with which she delivered them.
And testimony showed that colleagues avoided going to Ma with concerns because
of her confrontational attitude and unwillingness to accept criticism. AEP
elicited sufficient testimony on these points to support the district court’s
conclusion that Ma’s inability to talk, collaborate, or otherwise work with
peers caused her termination. See
Am. Nuclear Res., Inc.,
134 F.3d at 1295 (“[A]n employer may terminate an employee who behaves
inappropriately, even if that behavior relates to a legitimate safety
concern.”).
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.