Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

1/38

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1988

TORREY HARRI SON,

Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant ,

v.

GRANI TE BAY CARE, I NC. ,

Def endant - Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. D. Br ock Hor nby, Seni or U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Thompson and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

Mar i a Fox, wi t h whom Mi t t el asen, LLC was on br i ef , f orappel l ant .

Ti mot hy J . O' Br i en, wi t h whomTyl er J . Smi t h and Li bby O' Br i enKi ngsl ey & Champi on, LLC wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Barbara Ar cher , Esq. on br i ef f or Ami cus Cur i ae Mai ne HumanRi ght s Commi ssi on.

J ef f r ey Nei l Young and J ohnson, Webber t & Yound, LLP on br i ef

f or Ami ci Cur i ae Mai ne St at e Empl oyees Associ at i on and Mai neEmpl oyment Lawyer s Associ at i on.J ef f r ey Nei l Young, Davi d G. Webber t , and J ohnson, Webber t &

Young, LLP on br i ef f or Ami ci Cur i ae Mai ne St at e Empl oyeesAssoci at i on, Mai ne Educat i on Associ at i on, Mai ne Empl oyment Lawyer sAssoci at i on, and Nat i onal Associ at i on of Soci al Wor ker s and i t sMai ne Chapt er .


2/38

J anuar y 13, 2016


3/38

- 3 -

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s case r equi r es us t o, once

agai n, i nt er pr et and appl y Mai ne' s Whi st l ebl ower Pr ot ect i on Act ,

Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 833. Appel l ant Tor r ey Har r i son

( "Har r i son") , a soci al wor ker , want s t o be abl e t o t el l a j ur y

t hat appel l ee Gr ani t e Bay Car e, I nc. ( "Gr ani t e Bay") i l l egal l y

f i r ed her i n vi ol at i on of t hat st at ut e. Her t heor y i s Gr ani t e Bay

was get t i ng back at her f or r eport i ng what she consi der ed t o be

vi ol at i ons of st at e empl oyment l aw t o her super vi sor and, l at er ,

t o Mai ne' s Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Ser vi ces ( "DHHS") . She

f ound her sel f st ymi ed when, r el yi ng on a supposed " j ob dut i es

except i on" we carved out i n Wi nsl ow v. Ar oost ook Count y, 736 F. 3d

23 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , t he di st r i ct cour t sai d t hat Har r i son' s repor t s

do not qual i f y f or whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on.

Today, af t er cl ear i ng t he decks of a j ur i sdi ct i onal

i ssue, we' l l expl ai n why Wi nsl ow doesn' t hand Gr ani t e Bay an

aut omat i c vi ct or y on t he f act s i n t hi s r ecor d.

JURISDICTION

We f i r st addr ess whet her we have di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on.

See 28 U. S. C. 1332( a) ( 1) ( ext endi ng f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on t o ci vi l

act i ons bet ween "ci t i zens of di f f er ent st at es") ; see al so Amer i can

Fi ber & Fi ni shi ng, I nc. v. Tyco Heal t hcar e Gr oup, LP, 362 F. 3d

136, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "Feder al cour t s are expect ed t o moni t or

t hei r j ur i sdi cti onal boundar i es vi gi l ant l y and t o guar d car ef ul l y

agai nst expansi on by di st ended j udi ci al i nt er pr et at i on. ") .


4/38

- 4 -

Har r i son, a Mai ne ci t i zen, f i l ed her sui t ( whi ch r ai ses

st at e l aw cl ai ms onl y) i n Mai ne Super i or Cour t . Gr ani t e Bay

evi dent l y pr ef er r ed t o be i n f eder al cour t and, i nvoki ng f eder al

di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on, r emoved t he act i on t o t he Mai ne di st r i ct

cour t . I n doi ng so, Gr ani t e Bay hel d i t sel f out as a New Hampshi r e

cor por at i on wi t h a pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness i n Concor d, New

Hampshi r e. Nei t her Har r i son nor t he di st r i ct cour t chal l enged t he

j ur i sdi ct i onal cl ai ms.

"Even though the par t i es have assumed t he exi st ence of

appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on, we enj oy no compar abl e l uxur y. " Espi nal -

Domi nguez v. Com. of P. R. , 352 F. 3d 490, 495 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Far

f r om i t . "[ W] e have an unf l aggi ng obl i gat i on t o not i ce

j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s and t o pur sue t hem on our own i ni t i at i ve. "

I d. ( ci t i ng cases) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hor n, 29 F. 3d 758,

768 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( "Par t i es cannot conf er subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on on ei t her a t r i al or an appel l at e cour t by i ndol ence,

over si ght , acqui escence, or consent . ") .

Our r evi ew of t he r ecor d and our j udi ci al not i ce of

Gr ani t e Bay' s f i l i ngs i n anot her case i n t he Mai ne di st r i ct cour t ,

see Af f o v. Gr ani t e Bay Car e, I nc. et al . , No. 11- cv- 482, 2013 WL

2383627 ( D. Me. 2013) , r ai sed a quest i on as t o whether Gr ani t e Bay

i s a ci t i zen of bot h New Hampshi r e and Mai ne. I f i t i s, t hi s woul d

make t he par t i es non- di ver se and r ender f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on

phant asmal . We or der ed t he par t i es t o br i ef t he j ur i sdi ct i on i ssue


5/38

- 5 -

and pr ovi ded an oppor t uni t y f or t hem t o submi t evi dence suppor t i ng

t hei r posi t i on. Based on t he addi t i onal br i ef i ng and our t hor ough

consi der at i on of t he i ssue, we ar e now sat i sf i ed t hat we have

j ur i sdi ct i on. Cer t ai nl y, not hi ng i n t he addi t i onal evi dence

pr ovi ded demonst r at es a basi s f or any j ur i sdi ct i onal concer n. 1

1. Jurisdictional Facts

Gr ani t e Bay r uns group homes and pr ovi des servi ces f or

adul t s who have cogni t i ve or physi cal di sabi l i t i es. Gr ani t e Bay

i s a New Hampshi r e cor por at i on, and i t mai nt ai ns i t s corpor at e

headquar t ers i n Concord. 2 Never t hel ess, i t s gr oup homes ar e al l

i n Mai ne and al l of i t s cl i ent s ar e Mai ne r esi dent s. I n addi t i on

t o i t s Concor d headquar t er s, Gr ani t e Bay has an admi ni st r at i ve

of f i ce i n Por t l and, Mai ne.

1Har r i son does not cont end t hat her whi st l ebl ower cl ai mf ai l st o meet t he $75, 000 amount i n cont r over sy requi r ement . See 28U. S. C. 1332( a) . Her compl ai nt pr esent s cl ai ms f or compensat oryand puni t i ve damages pur suant t o Mai ne l aw, al ong wi t h" r ei nst at ement , appr opr i at e back pay, and rei mbur sement f or l ostheal t h, soci al secur i t y, and ot her benef i t s. " Gi ven t hat overf i ve years have el apsed si nce Har r i son' s December 2010t er mi nat i on, we have no reason t o bel i eve t hi s case does not cl eart he amount i n cont r oversy t hr eshol d. See Covent r y Sewage Assocs.v. Dwor ki n Real t y Co. , 71 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( di scussi nghow, when a pl ai nt i f f ' s damages cl ai m i s made i n good f ai t h, t heamount i n cont r over sy r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed unl ess " t he f ace oft he compl ai nt r eveal s, t o a l egal cer t ai nt y, t hat t he cont r over sycannot i nvol ve t he r equi si t e amount " ) .

2 When we t al k about Concor d, we mean t he ci t y i n NewHampshi r e, not t he t own i n Massachuset t s.


6/38

- 6 -

Gr ani t e Bay i s owned by t wo i ndi vi dual s, Kasai Mumpi ni

and Car ol et t a Al i cea, bot h of whom wor k out of Concor d. Si nce at

l east 2009, Mumpi ni has served as t he cor porat i on' s Presi dent ,

wi t h Al i cea as i t s Vi ce Pr esi dent . Mumpi ni and Al i cea ar e Gr ani t e

Bay' s onl y t wo of f i cer s. And t hey' r e t he onl y cor por at e di r ect or s,

t o boot . Thei r r ol e i s t o mai nt ai n a vi si on f or wher e t he company

i s goi ng, and t o set over al l cor por at e pol i ci es.

Gr ani t e Bay' s day- t o- day oper at i ons - - t hi ngs l i ke

pr ovi di ng car e t o i t s cl i ent s and hi r i ng, t r ai ni ng, and super vi si ng

empl oyees - - are handl ed out of t he Por t l and of f i ce. An empl oyee

wi t h t he t i t l e of St at e Di r ect or r uns t he show i n Mai ne. Si nce

2009, t here have been t wo St at e Di r ect ors, Gr egory Robi nson and

Ken Ol son, and t her e are no si gni f i cant di f f er ences bet ween how

each one went about t he j ob. Ol son, t he cur r ent St at e Di r ect or ,

di vi des hi s work week bet ween t he of f i ces i n Por t l and and Concord.

Al t hough he has "si gni f i cant f l exi bi l i t y" i n managi ng

Gr ani t e Bay, Ol son never t hel ess r epor t s t o Mumpi ni and Al i cea.

I ndeed, he communi cates wi t h t hem dai l y and meet s wi t h t hem i n

per son at l east once per week. Ol son keeps t he owner s updat ed as

t o how Gr ani t e Bay i s doi ng, and t he owner s di r ect hi m on t he

over al l st r ategy he shoul d empl oy i n worki ng t owards t he company' s

f ut ur e goal s. Fur t her mor e, t hey gi ve Ol son "gener al f i nanci al

par amet er s" i n whi ch he may oper at e, and they gi ve hi m di f f er ent

obj ect i ves t o accompl i sh.


7/38

- 7 -

The previ ous St at e Di r ect or , Robi nson, hel d t hat

posi t i on f or about seven year s bef or e becomi ng Gr ani t e Bay' s Chi ef

Oper at i ons Of f i cer . He descri bed C. O. O. as a "t r ansi t i on t i t l e, "

and af t er some t i me Gr ani t e Bay' s owner s t ol d hi m t hey "wer e

el i mi nat i ng t he posi t i on. " Fol l owi ng t hi s, he began wor ki ng f or

a separat e company, Gr ani t e Bay Connect i ons, whi ch was al so owned

by Mumpi ni and Al i cea and pr ovi ded si mi l ar servi ces as Gr ani t e Bay

di d, but t o adul t s i n New Hampshi r e.

Al t hough t he par t i es have submi t t ed addi t i onal f act s,

i ncl udi ng ones f r om t he Af f o case, t hese ar e enough f or us t o get

on wi t h t he j ur i sdi ct i onal i nqui r y.

2. Nerve Center Jurisdictional Test

No one doubt s t hat Gr ani t e Bay i s a ci t i zen of New

Hampshi r e. Af t er al l , when i t comes t o quest i ons of di ver si t y

j ur i sdi ct i on, "a cor porat i on shal l be deemed t o be a ci t i zen of

ever y St at e . . . by whi ch i t has been i ncor por at ed. " 28 U. S. C.

1332( c) ( 1) . What we have t o wor r y about i s t he l ocat i on of i t s

pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness. See i d. ( pr ovi di ng t hat a cor por at i on

i s a ci t i zen of t he st at e wher e i t has i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of

busi ness) . I s Gr ani t e Bay' s i n New Hampshi r e or Mai ne?

Some basi cs f i r st . Because t hi s case does not pr esent

a f eder al quest i on, t he par t i es' di ver si t y of ci t i zenshi p i s t he

onl y hook f or f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on. See 28 U. S. C. 1332( a) . "For

f eder al j ur i sdi ct i onal pur poses, di ver si t y of ci t i zenshi p must be


8/38

- 8 -

det er mi ned as of t he t i me of sui t . " Val ent i n v. Hospi t al Bel l a

Vi st a, 254 F. 3d 358, 361 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Her e, because Gr ani t e

Bay removed Har r i son' s st at e cour t case t o f eder al cour t , we l ook

at t he dat e of r emoval i nst ead of t he date on whi ch t he compl ai nt

was f i l ed. 3 See Casas Of f i ce Machi nes, I nc. v. Mi t a Copyst ar

Amer i ca, I nc. , 42 F. 3d 668, 673 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

Several years ago, t he Supr eme Cour t est abl i shed beyond

any doubt t hat f eder al cour t s must empl oy t he "nerve cent er " t est

t o det er mi ne t he l ocat i on of a cor por at i on' s pr i nci pal pl ace of

busi ness. See Her t z Cor p. v. Fr i end, 559 U. S. 77, 80- 81 ( 2010) . 4

The t est i s st r ai ght f or war d. A cor porat i on' s "nerve cent er " ( i . e. ,

i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness) i s the par t i cul ar l ocat i on f r om

whi ch i t s "of f i cer s di r ect , cont r ol , and coor di nat e t he

cor por at i on' s acti vi t i es. " I d. at 92- 93. Gener al l y speaki ng,

t hi s wi l l "be t he pl ace wher e t he cor por at i on mai nt ai ns i t s

headquar t er s - - pr ovi ded t hat t he headquar t er s i s t he act ual cent er

3 Never t hel ess, nei t her par t y cl ai ms t hat anyt hi ng bear i ng onour anal ysi s has changed between t he dat e of r emoval and t oday.

4 I n doi ng so, t he Cour t over r ul ed our appl i cat i on of t he" l ocus of oper at i ons t est , " whi ch we appl i ed wher e " t he bul k of [ acompany' s] physi cal oper at i ons [ wer e] i n one st at e, " even though"t he cor por at i on' s execut i ve of f i ces [ wer e] i n anot her st at e. "Di az- Rodr i guez v. Pep Boys Cor p. , 410 F. 3d 56, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .Under t hat appr oach, we f ocused not on t he l ocat i on of a company' sadmi ni st r at i ve or execut i ve oper at i ons, but on i t s day- t o- dayoper at i ons. The Supr eme Cour t expl i ci t l y r ej ect ed t hi s appr oachi n Her t z. See Her t z Cor p. , 559 U. S. at 90- 91 ( descr i bi ng ouri nqui r y as " f ocused mor e heavi l y on wher e a cor por at i on' s act ualbusi ness acti vi t i es ar e l ocat ed") .


9/38

- 9 -

of di r ect i on, cont r ol , and coor di nat i on . . . and not si mpl y an

of f i ce wher e t he cor por at i on hol ds i t s board meet i ngs ( f or exampl e,

at t ended by di r ect or s and of f i cer s who have t r avel ed t her e f or t he

occasi on) . " I d. at 93.

The par t y seeki ng t o est abl i sh di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on

bear s t he bur den of per suasi on, and par t i es must suppor t t hei r

j ur i sdi ct i onal al l egat i ons wi t h "competent proof . " See i d. at 96-

97 ( ci t i ng McNut t v. Gener al Motors Accept ance Corp. , 289 U. S.

178, 189 ( 1936) ) . Al t hough t he Supr eme Cour t di d not go i nt o dept h

about t he exact quant um of pr oof r equi r ed t o meet t he bur den of

per suasi on, i t made i t cl ear t hat r un- of - t he- mi l l cor por at e

f i l i ngs - - l i ke a For m 10- K - - ar e not enough on t hei r own t o

sat i sf y i t . I d. at 97.

The Her t z Cour t r ecogni zed t hat , " i n t hi s er a of

t el ecommut i ng, some cor por at i ons may di vi de t hei r command and

coor di nat i ng f unct i ons among of f i cer s who work at sever al

di f f er ent l ocat i ons, per haps communi cat i ng over t he I nt er net . "

I d. at 95- 96. But even when pr esent ed wi t h such a si t uat i on, t he

ner ve cent er t est "nonet hel ess poi nt s cour t s i n a si ngl e di r ect i on,

t owar ds t he cent er of over al l di r ect i on, cont r ol , and

coor di nat i on. " I d. at 96. Feder al cour t s must al so be on t he

l ookout f or at t empt s at " j ur i sdi ct i onal mani pul at i on. " I d. at 97.

Ther ef or e, " i f t he r ecor d r eveal s at t empt s at mani pul at i on - - f or

exampl e, t hat t he al l eged ' ner ve cent er ' i s not hi ng mor e t han a


10/38

- 10 -

mai l dr op box, a bar e of f i ce wi t h a comput er , or t he l ocat i on of

an annual execut i ve r et r eat - - t he cour t s shoul d i nst ead t ake as

t he ' ner ve cent er ' t he pl ace of act ual di r ect i on, cont r ol , and

coor di nat i on, i n t he absence of such mani pul at i on. " I d.

The t est may seem pret t y si mpl e, and i t i s. That ' s no

acci dent . "Compl ex j ur i sdi ct i onal t est s compl i cat e a case, eat i ng

up t i me and money as t he par t i es l i t i gat e, not t he mer i t s of t hei r

cl ai ms, but whi ch cour t i s t he r i ght cour t t o deci de t hose cl ai ms. "

I d. at 94. Compl i cat ed t est s al so engender appeal s, "encour age

gamesmanshi p, and . . . di mi ni sh t he l i kel i hood t hat r esul t s and

set t l ement s wi l l r ef l ect a cl ai m' s l egal and f act ual mer i t s, " not

t o ment i on demand t he expendi t ur e of j udi ci al r esour ces. I d.

Accor di ngl y, t he t est descr i bed by t he Supr eme Cour t i s i nt ended

t o be "r el at i vel y easi er t o appl y" t han ot her s t hat coul d be

i magi ned. 5 I d. at 96.

At i t s hear t , t he ner ve cent er t est i s an i nqui r y t o

f i nd t he one l ocat i on f r om whi ch a cor por at i on i s ul t i mat el y

cont r ol l ed. Put sl i ght l y di f f er ent l y, t he f eder al cour t i s t o

l ook f or t he pl ace wher e t he buck st ops. And wher e i t does, wel l ,

t hat ' s t he cor por at i on' s ner ve cent er and pr i nci pal pl ace of

busi ness.

5 Li ke Di az- Rodr i guez' s l ocus of oper at i ons t est , under whi chwe t hi nk t he j ur i sdi ct i onal quest i on woul d have beenext r aor di nar i l y cl ose on t he f acts i n t hi s r ecor d.


11/38

- 11 -

3. Analysis

Each par t y has had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o submi t

evi dence and ar gument s about t he j ur i sdi ct i onal i ssue. Nei t her

has asked us t o send t he case back t o the di st r i ct cour t f or

j ur i sdi ct i onal di scover y or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. We t hi nk t he

f act s i n t he r ecor d ar e suf f i ci ent f or us t o det er mi ne, wi t hout

r emandi ng f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t hat j ur i sdi ct i on i s pr oper .

See Val ent i n, 254 F. 3d at 364 ( not i ng t he "key consi der at i ons" i n

r esol vi ng a j ur i sdi ct i onal di sput e on t he paper s ar e "whet her t he

par t i es have had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o pr esent r el evant

f act s and ar gument s, and whet her ei t her part y seasonabl y r equest ed

an evi dent i ary hear i ng" ) . The compet ent evi dence poi nt s t owards

Concor d as Gr ani t e Bay' s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness.

Har r i son does not cont est ( or seek t o devel op addi t i onal

evi dence to cont est ) t hat Gr ani t e Bay' s owner s, al t hough t hey may

be hands- of f when i t comes t o day- t o- day deci si ons, exer ci se

"ul t i mat e" cont r ol over Gr ani t e Bay, and t hat t hey do so f r om

Concor d. Gr ani t e Bay has suppor t ed t hi s asser t i on t hr ough

af f i davi t s and swor n deposi t i on test i mony showi ng t hat t he owner s

set over al l cor por at e pol i cy and goal s, pl us advi sed and gave

i nst r uct i ons t o t he St at e Di r ect or as t o how t o make t he owner s'

vi s i on a real i t y.

Moreover , t he uncont est ed evi dence shows t hat t he owners

make t he cal l as t o j ust who exact l y wi l l be pl aced i n what upper


12/38

- 12 -

management posi t i on. For exampl e, t hey moved Robi nson f r om Stat e

Di r ect or i n Mai ne t o Chi ef Oper at i ng Of f i cer , t hen el i mi nat ed t hat

posi t i on and t r ansi t i oned hi m t o a di f f er ent one. Thi s i s a

concr et e exampl e of t he owner s' act ual exer ci se of cont r ol over

Gr ani t e Bay. And al l of t he evi dence i ndi cat es t hi s ul t i mat e

cont r ol i s wi el ded f r om Gr ani t e Bay' s Concor d headquar t er s.

I n sum, t he compet ent evi dence i n t he r ecord est abl i shes

t hat Gr ani t e Bay' s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness i s i n Concor d, not

Por t l and. Accor di ngl y, t he par t i es ar e di ver se, we have

j ur i sdi ct i on, and we may proceed t o t he mer i t s. 6

FACTS

Thi s i s where Har r i son f i nal l y enter s t he scene. We

r eci t e cont est ed f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Har r i son,

t he nonmovi ng par t y at summary j udgment . Pont e v. St eel case I nc. ,

741 F. 3d 310, 313 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Har r i son, a Li censed Cl i ni cal Soci al Wor ker ( "LCSW") ,

worked f or Gr ani t e Bay f r omMarch t hrough December of 2010. Dur i ng

her t i me t her e, Har r i son ser ved as Gr ani t e Bay' s Tr ai ni ng Di r ect or ,

a posi t i on whi ch pl aced her i nt o t he seni or management t eam. She

r epor t ed t o t he Oper at i ons Di r ect or , Ken Ol son who, i n t ur n,

r epor t ed t o St at e Di r ect or Gr eg Robi nson.

6 That our Her t z anal ysi s i s much more st r ai ght f orward t hani t woul d have been under Di az- Rodr i guez' s over r ul ed " l ocus t est "i s, we t hi nk, an i ndi cat i on t hat we ar e appl yi ng t he Supr emeCour t ' s t est i n t he way i t i nt ended.


13/38

- 13 -

As Trai ni ng Di r ect or , Har r i son was r esponsi bl e f or

managi ng Gr ani t e Bay' s t r ai ni ng depar t ment and conduct i ng t r ai ni ng

sessi ons f or empl oyees. She per f or med her j ob dut i es "ver y wel l "

and was an "excel l ent " t r ai ner f or Gr ani t e Bay.

Har r i son, l i ke ot her LCSWs, i s a "mandat ed r epor t er "

under Mai ne l aw. A mandat ed r epor t er i s ( as par t i cul ar l y r el evant

t o t hi s case) someone who, by vi r t ue of her pr of essi on, i s i n

cont act wi t h " i ncapaci t at ed or dependent adul t [ s] . " Me. Rev. St at .

t i t . 22, 3477( 1) . A mandat ed r epor t er l i ke Har r i son i s r equi r ed

t o i mmedi at el y f i l e a r epor t wi t h Mai ne' s DHHS i f she "knows or

has r easonabl e cause t o suspect " t hat a dependent adul t "has been

or i s l i kel y t o be abused, negl ect ed or expl oi t ed. " I d.

I n May of 2010, somet hi ng goi ng on at Gr ani t e Bay rubbed

Harr i son t he wr ong way. She di scover ed t hat one of Gr ani t e Bay' s

cl i ent s ( a "dependent adul t " under Mai ne l aw) who di d of f i ce and

mai nt enance work f or Gr ani t e Bay wasn' t get t i ng pai d on t i me f or

hi s ser vi ces. Har r i son expr essed concer n t o her super vi sor , Ol son.

But speaki ng wi t h Ol son di d not have t he desi r ed ef f ect .

Gr ani t e Bay' s cl i ent - wor ker cont i nued t o not be pai d on t i me, so

Har r i son i ni t i at ed a f ol l ow- up conver sat i on wi t h Ol son i n August .

Thi s t i me Har r i son al so t ol d hi m t hat not payi ng t hi s gent l eman

f or hi s wor k f el l under t he r ubr i c of expl oi t at i on of a dependent

adul t . She r emi nded Ol son t hat she i s a mandat ed r epor t er and

t ol d hi m t hat she di d not want t o have t o report what had been


14/38

- 14 -

goi ng on t o DHHS. Ol son never r esponded t o Har r i son' s concerns,

and t he wor ker i n quest i on was not pai d i n f ul l f or hi s wor k over

a per i od of appr oxi matel y t hr ee mont hs.

I n mi d- Sept ember 2010, Harr i son l earned t hat cl i ent s

l i vi ng i n t wo of Gr ani t e Bay' s gr oup homes had had t hei r

el ect r i ci t y shut of f . Thi s happened, she bel i eved, because Gr ani t e

Bay f ai l ed t o pay t he el ect r i c bi l l s. Har r i son t hen di scover ed

t hat anot her r esi dent - - whose behavi or pl an requi r ed al ar med

wi ndows t o not i f y st af f i f he l ef t t he home t hat way - - was at

r i sk because f aul t y wi ndows made i t i mpossi bl e t o i nst al l al ar ms.

She al so l ear ned t hat t he Por t l and of f i ce was under st af f ed. As i t

t ur ned out , an of f i ce t hat cal l ed f or f i ve empl oyees ( f our Pr ogr am

Managers and one Ar ea Di r ect or ) was bei ng run wi t h onl y t wo.

Tr oubl ed by what she' d l earned, Har r i son cont act ed t wo

of her LCSW col l eagues t o sound t hem out on whet her she had t o

r eport any or al l of t hese i ssues t o DHHS. Each one advi sed

Har r i son t hat , yes, she shoul d r epor t her concer ns. We al so not e

her e t hat one of Gr ani t e Bay' s i nt er nal pol i ci es speci f i cal l y

pr ovi ded t hat mandat ed r epor t er s such as Har r i son shoul d f i l e a

r epor t wi t h DHHS di r ect l y, wi t hout goi ng t o t hei r own super vi sor

f i r st , unl ess i t was an "emer gency cri si s. "

So i t was t hat , on Sept ember 16, 2010, af t er apparent l y

concl udi ng t hat f ur t her compl ai nt s t o Gr ani t e Bay woul d be no more

ef f ect i ve t han her di ng cat s, Har r i son went t o DHHS wi t h her


15/38

- 15 -

suspi ci ons of negl ect and expl oi t at i on. She i nf ormed DHHS about

Gr ani t e Bay' s f ai l ur e t o pay i t s cl i ent - wor ker , t he el ectr i ci t y

shut of f s at gr oup homes, t he l ack of r equi r ed wi ndow al arms f or

one cl i ent , and under st af f i ng i n t he Por t l and of f i ce. Gr ani t e Bay

admi t s t hat i t di d not pay i t s cl i ent - wor ker i n f ul l unt i l af t er

Har r i son' s r epor t t o DHHS.

When she went i nt o work t he next day, Har r i son tol d Ol son

what she' d done. Shor t l y af t er t hat , she emai l ed a summary of her

r epor t t o one of t he owner s, Mumpi ni . I n t he emai l , Har r i son

expr essed a f ear t hat Robi nson ( t he St at e Di r ect or ) woul dn' t deal

wi t h what Harr i son t hought wer e "syst emi c i ssues, " and woul d

i nst ead r esor t ( as she' d seen happen bef or e) t o i nt i mi dat i ng peopl e

and i ssui ng "cor r ect i ve act i ons" t o hi s under l i ngs. Mumpi ni

i nst r uct ed Robi nson t o meet wi t h Harr i son t o di scuss her DHHS

r eport , but he never di d. What di d happen was t hat Ol son cal l ed

Harr i son i nt o a meet i ng (Gr ani t e Bay' s Human Resour ces Di r ect or

was t her e, t oo) and admoni shed her f or f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow t he "chai n

of command" by sendi ng a summar y of t he DHHS repor t t o Mumpi ni

r ather t han Ol son, who she r epor t ed t o. Dur i ng t hat meet i ng, Ol son

t ol d her t he i ssues r ai sed i n her r epor t wer e "bei ng addr essed"

and t hat he had no ot her compl ai nt s about her j ob per f ormance.

Despi t e Ol son' s assur ances about her good j ob

per f or mance, Har r i son f el t she was t r eat ed di f f er ent l y by her

bosses af t er her DHHS r eport . Ol son i gnored her , woul dn' t make


16/38

- 16 -

eye cont act , r ol l ed hi s eyes when he hear d her name ment i oned,

margi nal i zed her , and became l ess r esponsi ve t o emai l s. On one

occasi on, Har r i son was i n a col l eague' s of f i ce, havi ng a

conver sat i on wi t h her . Ol son came i n, sat down acr oss f r om

Har r i son wi t hout l ooki ng at her , and began chat t i ng wi t h Har r i son' s

col l eague. When Harr i son sai d "hel l o" to hi m, Ol son got up and

wal ked out of t he of f i ce. Harr i son descr i bed t hi s as an exampl e

of t he "mar ked change" i n t hei r r el at i onshi p af t er she f i l ed her

DHHS r epor t .

And Har r i son had l i t t l e cont act wi t h Robi nson af t er her

r eport . I ndeed, Robi nson cancel l ed a meet i ng wi t h her t hat had

been schedul ed f or t he end of Sept ember , wher e they were supposed

t o t al k about r evi si ng t he t r ai ni ng pol i cy. Robi nson di d not

r eschedul e t he meet i ng, opt i ng i nst ead t o r evi se t he t r ai ni ng

pol i cy wi t hout any i nput f r om Har r i son. Fur t her mor e, Ol son and

Robi nson met r egul ar l y and di scussed Harr i son i n a negat i ve

manner . 7

Thi ngs cont i nued, appar ent l y i n a si mi l ar vei n, unt i l

December 2, 2010, when Har r i son at t ended a meet i ng of Gr ani t e Bay' s

seni or manager s. The meet i ng was physi cal l y hel d i n t he Por t l and

of f i ce, but i t i nvol ved per sonnel f r om Concor d, who par t i ci pat ed

7 Ot her Gr ani t e Bay managers, however , f ound Har r i son t o bever y pr of essi onal , good t o wor k wi t h, and hel pf ul at sol vi ngpr obl ems.


17/38

- 17 -

vi a vi deo t el econf er ence. Bef ore t he meet i ng began, Harr i son and

sever al ot her empl oyees f r om t he Por t l and of f i ce wer e chat t i ng,

appar ent l y unaware t he vi deo and audi o f eeds were up and r unni ng

i n Concord. When Robi nson went i nt o t he conf er ence r oom i n

Concor d, he coul d hear Har r i son t al ki ng to t he ot her empl oyees i n

Por t l and.

Har r i son, i t t ur ned out , was t al ki ng about Robi nson and

t he way he' d been r unni ng Gr ani t e Bay. Robi nson heard her t el l

t he ot her s t hat he had a "di ct at or i al " l eader shi p st yl e, t hat he

was an obst r uct i on t hat needed t o be removed, and t hat Gr ani t e Bay

coul d perhaps move t o a "consensus bui l di ng" model ( as opposed t o

havi ng j ust one per son devel opi ng pol i cy) i f Robi nson wer e out of

t he pi ct ur e. Al t hough Har r i son i s t he one t hat Robi nson says he

heard, she was not domi nat i ng t he meet i ng, l eadi ng t he di scussi on

or speaki ng more t han t he other s. I ndeed, dur i ng t he back and

f or t h, she shar ed her f eel i ng t hat t r ai ni ng had been i mpact ed by

a l ack of suppor t f r om upper management t owards t eamwork

devel opment , answered a quest i on f r om anot her manager about

t r ai ni ng r ecer t i f i cat i on, and comment ed t hat pr i or t o wor ki ng f or

Gr ani t e Bay, she' d had exper i ence i n ot her or gani zat i ons i n whi ch

more t han one per son f ormul ated pol i ci es. She di dn' t phr ase her

comment s i n a negat i ve manner , and none of t he subst ance shoul d

have been new t o Robi nson ei t her , as she had al r eady di scussed

t hese i ssues wi t h hi m and Ol son.


18/38

- 18 -

Fur t her mor e, at some poi nt dur i ng t hi s di scussi on,

Robi nson t exted wor ds t o t he ef f ect of " I hear you" t o one of t he

par t i ci pant s. He di d not , however , t ext Har r i son t o war n her t hat

he coul d hear what was bei ng sai d.

J ust days l at er , December 6, Ol son ( and t he HR Di r ect or )

agai n met wi t h Har r i son. By t he end of t hi s meet i ng, she f ound

her sel f out of a j ob. Harr i son asked why she was bei ng t er mi nated,

and i n r esponse t he HR Di r ect or t ol d her t hat Gr ani t e Bay di d not

have t o gi ve her a r eason. She was, however , gi ven a l et t er

st at i ng she was f i r ed f or "cr eat i ng di shar mony i n t he wor kpl ace. "

I n i t s appeal br i ef , Gr ani t e Bay put i t t hi s way: "Har r i son' s

di scharge was t he resul t of an emot i onal r esponse t o an i mpr ompt u

i nst ance of i nsubordi nat i on" on December 2.

Aggr i eved by her t er mi nat i on, Har r i son f i l ed sui t . She

al l eged Gr ani t e Bay i l l egal l y r et al i at ed agai nst her , wi t h t he

payback cul mi nat i ng i n her December 6 sacki ng, as a r esul t of

havi ng f i l ed t hose expl oi t at i on r epor t s wi t h DHHS i n Sept ember .

Har r i son cl ai med she was ent i t l ed t o whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on f or

t he DHHS r epor t , as wel l as t he i ni t i al r epor t s she made t o Ol son

bef or e she went t o DHHS.

Gr ani t e Bay sai d, however , t hat because i t s i nt er nal

pol i ci es r equi r e LCSWs l i ke Harr i son t o make DHHS report s and

because Mai ne l aw i t sel f r equi r es mandat ed r epor t er s l i ke her t o

r eport suspect ed expl oi t at i on, maki ng such r eport s t o DHHS was,


19/38

- 19 -

si mpl y put , par t of her j ob. Gr ani t e Bay poi nt ed t o Wi nsl ow' s

" j ob dut i es except i on" and ar gued t hat , as a mat t er of l aw,

Har r i son f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t hat except i on. And so, i t

concl uded, Har r i son does not qual i f y f or pr ot ect i on under t he

Whi st l ebl ower Act , maki ng Gr ani t e Bay' s mot i ve f or f i r i ng her

i r r el evant .

Gr ani t e Bay' s mot i on f or summary j udgment on t hose

gr ounds was r ef er r ed t o a magi st r ate j udge. Agr eei ng wi t h Gr ani t e

Bay' s t ake on Wi nsl ow, t he magi st r ate j udge concl uded t hat none of

her r epor t s const i t ut ed "pr ot ect ed act i vi t y" wi t hi n t he meani ng of

t he Whi st l ebl ower Prot ect i on Act . The di st r i ct j udge r evi ewed t he

magi st r at e' s deci si on de novo and came t o the same concl usi on.

Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct j udge al l owed Gr ani t e Bay' s mot i on f or

summar y j udgment on t he grounds t hat she had not , t hanks t o

Wi nsl ow' s j ob dut i es except i on, engaged i n pr ot ect ed

whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t y. 8 Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

8 Al ong t he way, Harr i son moved t o cer t i f y quest i ons of st at el aw t o t he Mai ne Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t si t t i ng as t he Law Cour t .The di st r i ct j udge deni ed t hi s mot i on, obser vi ng t hat , " [ i ] f t heWi nsl ow l anguage potent i al l y mi sconst r ues t he Mai ne st atut e sucht hat t he i ssue shoul d be cer t i f i ed t o the Mai ne Law Cour t , t hat. . . i s a deci si on f or t he Fi r st Ci r cui t . " On appeal , Har r i sonr enews her r equest f or cer t i f i cat i on. We gr at ef ul l y acknowl edget he ami cus br i ef f i l ed by t he Mai ne St at e Empl oyees Associ at i onand Mai ne Empl oyment Lawyer s Associ at i on, al ong wi t h t he separat ebr i ef f i l ed by t he Mai ne St at e Empl oyees Associ at i on, Mai neEducat i on Associ at i on, Mai ne Empl oyment Lawyer s Associ at i on, andNat i onal Associ at i on Of Soci al Wor ker s And I t s Mai ne Chapt er [ si c] ,bot h of whi ch addr essed t he cer t i f i cat i on quest i on. Ul t i mat el y,however , we do not f i nd cer t i f i cat i on necessary.


20/38

- 20 -

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We revi ew " t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y

j udgment . . . de novo, and we draw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

f avor of t he nonmovi ng par t y. " Pont e, 741 F. 3d at 319. Her e, of

cour se, t he par t y get t i ng t he benef i t of r easonabl e i nf er ences i s

Har r i son. We af f i r m onl y " i f t he movant shows that t her e i s no

genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed

t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) .

ANALYSIS9

Because t hi s i s a di ver si t y case, t he subst ant i ve l aw of

Mai ne cont r ol s. The r el evant pr ovi si ons of Mai ne' s Whi st l ebl ower

Pr ot ect i on Act 10 pr ovi de t he f ol l owi ng:

Di scr i mi nat i on agai nst cer t ai n empl oyeespr ohi bi t ed

1. DI SCRI MI NATI ON PROHI BI TED. No empl oyer may

di schar ge, t hr eat en or ot her wi se di scr i mi nat eagai nst an empl oyee r egardi ng t he empl oyee' scompensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, l ocat i on orpr i vi l eges of empl oyment because:

A. The empl oyee, act i ng i n good f ai t h, or aper son act i ng on behal f of t he empl oyee,r epor t s or al l y or i n wr i t i ng t o t he empl oyeror a publ i c body what t he empl oyee hasr easonabl e cause t o bel i eve i s a vi ol at i on ofa l aw or r ul e adopt ed under t he l aws of t hi s

9 We acknowl edge and t hank Ami cus Cur i ae Mai ne Human Ri ght sCommi ssi on f or i t s cogent and i nf or mat i ve ami cus br i ef .

10 We' l l r ef er t o t he st at ut e as ei t her t he Whi st l ebl ower Actor somet i mes as j ust t he Act .


21/38

- 21 -

St at e, a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of t hi s St at eor t he Uni t ed St ates; 11

. . .

2. I NI TI AL REPORT TO EMPLOYER REQUI RED;EXCEPTI ON.

Subsect i on 1 does not appl y t o an empl oyee whohas r epor t ed or caused t o be r epor t ed avi ol at i on, or unsaf e condi t i on or pr act i ce t oa publ i c body, unl ess t he empl oyee has f i r stbr ought t he al l eged vi ol at i on, condi t i on orpr act i ce t o t he at t ent i on of a per son havi ngsuper vi sor y aut hor i t y wi t h t he empl oyer andhas al l owed t he empl oyer a r easonabl eoppor t uni t y to cor r ect t hat vi ol at i on,

condi t i on or pr acti ce.

Pr i or not i ce t o an empl oyer i s not r equi r ed i ft he empl oyee has speci f i c r eason t o bel i evet hat r epor t s t o t he empl oyer wi l l not r esul ti n pr ompt l y cor r ect i ng t he vi ol at i on,condi t i on or pr acti ce.

3. REPORTS OF SUSPECTED ABUSE.

An empl oyee r equi r ed t o repor t suspect ed

abuse, negl ect or expl oi t at i on under Ti t l e 22,sect i on 3477 or 4011- A, shal l f ol l ow t her equi r ement s of t hose sect i ons under t hoseci r cumst ances. No empl oyer may di scharge,t hr eat en or ot her wi se di scr i mi nat e agai nst anempl oyee regardi ng t he empl oyee' scompensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, l ocat i on orpr i vi l eges of empl oyment because t he empl oyeef ol l owed t he r equi r ement s of t hose sect i ons.

Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 833. The par t i es do not di sput e t hat

Har r i son, as a mandat ed r epor t er , i s " [ a] n empl oyee requi r ed t o

r epor t suspect ed abuse, negl ect or expl oi t at i on" wi t hi n t he

11 Thi s sect i on goes on t o l i st f our ot her pr ot ect edact i vi t i es, none of whi ch i s al l eged t o be r el evant her e.


22/38

- 22 -

meani ng of 833( 3) . See gener al l y Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 22, 3477

( r equi r i ng soci al wor ker s t o r epor t suspect ed expl oi t at i on of

i ncapaci t ated or dependent adul t s t o DHHS) .

Mai ne' s Law Cour t has expl ai ned t he t hr ee el ement s of a

successf ul Whi st l ebl ower Act cl ai m: a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat

( 1) she engaged i n act i vi t y pr ot ect ed by the st at ut e; ( 2) she

suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on; and ( 3) t her e was a causal

l i nk between t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. Cost ai n v. Sunbur y Pr i mar y Car e, P. A. , 954 A. 2d 1051,

1053 ( Me. 2008) . Fur t her , "Mai ne l aw pr ovi des a pr i vat e r i ght of

act i on f or a vi ol at i on of t he [ Act ] , " 12 Mur r ay v. Ki ndr ed Nur si ng

Cent er s West LLC, 789 F. 3d 20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( ci t i ng Me. Rev.

St at . t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) , 4621; Cost ai n, 954 A. 2d at 1053 &

n. 2) , so Har r i son has st andi ng.

The par t i es' f l agshi p ar guments ar e der i ved not f r omt he

l anguage of t he Act i t sel f , but f r om t hei r i nt er pr et at i ons of

Wi nsl ow' s ef f ect on t he f i r st pr ong of a Whi st l ebl ower Act cl ai m,

whi ch requi r es a showi ng t hat t he empl oyee engaged i n pr ot ect ed

12 Techni cal l y, t he Whi st l ebl ower Act does not act ual l y gr antan empl oyee a cause of act i on. I t i s t he Mai ne Human Ri ght s Actt hat "pr ovi des a r i ght of act i on t o per sons who have been subj ectt o unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng whi st l ebl ower s who havesuf f er ed ret al i at or y di schar ge or ot her adver se empl oymentact i ons. " Cost ai n, 954 A. 2d at 1053. Though t he Human Ri ght s Acti s t he sour ce of an empl oyee' s "r i ght of act i on, " i d. , "t her equi r ement s t hat must be met f or an act i on t o be af f ordedpr ot ect i on st em f r om t he [ Whi st l ebl ower Act ] , " i d. at 1053 n. 2.


23/38

- 23 -

act i vi t y. I n f act , t he par t i es have f r amed t hi s appeal even mor e

nar r owl y as present i ng t he quest i on whether Wi nsl ow, when appl i ed

her e, ent i t l es Gr ani t e Bay t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. So we

f ocus our at t ent i on on t hi s speci f i c quest i on.

Gr ani t e Bay bel i eves Wi nsl ow - - whi ch di d not i nvol ve a

whi st l ebl ower cl ai m made by a mandat ed r epor t er l i ke Har r i son - -

st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he Whi st l ebl ower Act pr ovi des no

pr ot ect i on f or an empl oyee whose of f i ci al j ob descr i pt i on and

r esponsi bi l i t i es i ncl ude r epor t i ng i l l egal i t i es ( or suspect ed

i l l egal i t i es) i nt er nal l y or t o t he gover nment . Gr ani t e Bay di r ect s

our at t ent i on t o i t s i nt er nal pol i ci es r equi r i ng al l empl oyees t o

r epor t suspect ed expl oi t at i on of dependent adul t s. From t hi s,

Gr ani t e Bay concl udes t hat Harr i son' s r epor t s wer e nothi ng more

t han "par t and par cel " of her j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es not wi t hst andi ng

any st at ut or y repor t i ng mandat e appl i cabl e t o her , and so she can' t

get Whi st l ebl ower Act pr ot ect i on based on Wi nsl ow' s carve- out .

Harr i son, t oo, assumes Wi nsl ow r ecogni zed a j ob dut i es

except i on, but she says t he except i on doesn' t appl y t o mandated

r epor t er s. I n her vi ew, t hi s i s because t he Whi st l ebl ower Act ' s

833( 3) expr essl y pr ovi des speci f i cal l y- t ai l or ed pr ot ect i ons f or

mandat ed r epor t er s l i ke her sel f13 and, as i mpor t ant l y, t he Act ' s

13 Sect i on 833( 3) appl i es t o empl oyees " r equi r ed t o r epor tsuspect ed abuse, negl ect or expl oi t at i on under Ti t l e 22, sect i on3477 or 4011- A, " and st at es t hat " [ n] o empl oyer may di scharge,t hr eaten or ot her wi se di scr i mi nat e agai nst an empl oyee r egardi ng


24/38

- 24 -

pl ai n l anguage does not i ncl ude a j ob dut i es except i on. Accor di ng

t o Har r i son, t he Mai ne Law Cour t i mpl i ci t l y hel d as much i n t he

case of Bl ake v. St ate, 868 A. 2d 234 (Me. 2005) . 14 Thus, i n her

vi ew, r eadi ng a j ob dut i es except i on i nt o t he st at ut e woul d r ender

meani ngl ess t he ver y pr ot ect i ons expl i ci t l y wr i t t en i n by t he Mai ne

Legi sl atur e and acknowl edged by Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t .

As a f al l back, Har r i son says t hat even i f Wi nsl ow' s j ob

dut i es except i on appl i es t o mandat ed r epor t er s, i t i s not a bl anket

except i on t hat an empl oyer can l ean on anyt i me i t f eel s l i ke i t by

creat i ng i nt er nal pol i ci es gener al l y requi r i ng i t s empl oyees t o

come f or war d t o r epor t a pot ent i al i l l egal i t y. Per Har r i son, even

under t he br oadest r eadi ng of Wi nsl ow, t he j ob dut i es except i on

appl i es onl y t o "empl oyees whose r egul ar j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es

i ncl ude r epor t i ng t he speci f i c wr ongdoi ng i n quest i on and/ or whose

super vi sors di r ect ed t hem t o make t he r epor t . " Appel l ant Br . at

t he empl oyee' s compensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, l ocat i on orpr i vi l eges of empl oyment because t he empl oyee f ol l owed t her equi r ement s of t hose sect i ons. " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 833( 3) .One of t he two ref er enced st at ut es r equi r es a soci al wor ker l i keHarr i son to r eport t o DHHS ( under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances) when she"knows or has r easonabl e cause t o suspect t hat an i ncapaci t ated ordependent adul t has been or i s l i kel y t o be abused, negl ect ed orexpl oi t ed. " See i d. t i t . 22, 3477( 1) . Gr ani t e Bay does notdi sput e t hat Har r i son i s r equi r ed t o r epor t suspect ed abuse,negl ect , or expl oi t at i on pur suant t o 3477.

14 The l ogi cal concl usi on of t hi s argument , al t hough notst at ed as such i n Har r i son' s br i ef , i s t hat Bl ake t r umps Wi nsl owt o t he ext ent t her e i s any conf l i ct bet ween t hem.


25/38

- 25 -

18. Because no one t ol d her t o r epor t t o Ol son or t o DHHS, and

because her "det ai l ed j ob descr i pt i on does not i ncl ude f i l i ng DHHS

r epor t s [ on] any of t he subst ant i ve i ssues she r epor t ed t o DHHS, "

i d. at 20, t he j ob dut i es except i on does not bar her cl ai m. 15

Har r i son and Gr ani t e Bay cl ear l y have di f f er ent

concept i ons of what we hel d i n Wi nsl ow. And nei t her t hey nor t he

di st r i ct j udge ar e the onl y ones i n Mai ne to have r ead Wi nsl ow as

enshr i ni ng a j ob dut i es except i on t o t he Act . See, e. g. , Pi ppi n

v. Boul evard Mot el Corp. , No. 14- cv- 00167, 2015 WL 4647919 ( D. Me.

2015) . Yet , we never so much as ut t er ed t he phr ase " j ob dut i es

except i on" i n Wi nsl ow, and Gr ani t e Bay' s argument s i n par t i cul ar

ar e based on a di st or t ed under st andi ng of t hat case. Accor di ngl y,

we must di ve back i nt o Wi nsl ow t o cl ar i f y what i t does and does

not st and f or .

Our opi ni on i n Wi nsl ow set f or t h i t s f act s i n pr et t y

exact i ng det ai l , so we wi l l r epeat onl y t hose needed f or our

anal ysi s. Wi nsl ow v. Ar oost ook Count y, 736 F. 3d 23 ( 1st Ci r .

15 Har r i son' s argument s r el y excl usi vel y on her r epor t s ( bot hi nt er nal and exter nal ) r egar di ng t he pot ent i al empl oyment l awvi ol at i on, namel y, Gr ani t e Bay' s f ai l ur e t o pay i t s cl i ent - wor keron t i me. She has opt ed t o f orgo any argument t hat her r epor t sabout t he el ect r i ci t y shut of f s, mi ssi ng wi ndow al ar ms, orunder st af f i ng i n Por t l and count , t oo, so we deem wai ved anypot ent i al ar gument al ong t hose l i nes. See Uni t ed St at es v.Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i na per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel opedargument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " ) . Thus, we f ocus sol el y on t hewage i ssue.


26/38

- 26 -

2013) , i nvol ved t he Execut i ve Di r ect or of Ar oost ook Count y' s Local

Ar ea I Wor kf orce I nvest ment Boar d, a st at e- cr eat ed ent i t y t hat

r ecei ved and admi ni st er ed cer t ai n f eder al f unds. 736 F. 3d at 24-

25. The Boar d had been set up i n such a way t hat Wi nsl ow r epor t ed

di r ect l y t o t he Count y i nst ead of t he Boar d i t sel f . I d. at 25.

Government r egul at or s di scover ed t hi s when t hey per f ormed a

compl i ance r evi ew and concl uded t he ar r angement vi ol at ed f ederal

r egul at i ons: Wi nsl ow shoul d have been r epor t i ng t o t he Boar d, not

t he Count y. I d.

The key f act s f or our pur poses ar e t hat t he gover nment ,

not Wi nsl ow her sel f , uncover ed t he pot ent i al vi ol at i on of f eder al

pol i ci es, and t he gover nment br ought t hi s t o the at t ent i on of

Wi nsl ow and her super vi sor . See i d. Wi nsl ow' s own super vi sor

t ook st eps t o not i f y t he r el evant deci si onmaker s i n t he Count y and

wi t h t he Boar d. I d. He i nst r uct ed Wi nsl ow t o di ssemi nat e her

not es of t he ver y meet i ng at whi ch t he government advi sed t hem of

t he r epor t i ng snaf u. I d. Thi s was f ol l owed up wi t h a publ i c

meet i ng at whi ch t he i ssue was di scussed, and t he meet i ng mi nut es

wer e post ed on t he i nt er net soon af t er war ds. I d. at 26.

I n her sui t , Wi nsl ow i dent i f i ed t wo communi cat i ons she

t hought qual i f i ed f or Whi st l ebl ower Act pr ot ect i on. The f i r st was

t hat emai l t o Boar d member s at t achi ng her not es f r om t he meet i ng

wi t h f eder al r egul at or s at whi ch t hey di scl osed t he pr obl em. See

i d. at 25- 26. The second was anot her emai l she sent t o Boar d


27/38

- 27 -

member s a coupl e weeks af t er t he publ i c meet i ng i n whi ch she

expr essed her t hought s about t he si t uat i on. I d. I n her sui t , she

al l eged she was a whi st l ebl ower because t he Board woul d not have

known of t he pot ent i al vi ol at i on but f or t hese t wo emai l s. I d. at

32.

We soundl y r ej ect ed thi s ar gument based on the f act s i n

t he r ecor d. Af t er al l , t he evi dence showed t hat Wi nsl ow sent her

f i r st emai l not because she want ed t o expose an i l l egal i t y, but

because her super vi sor ( who, don' t f or get , was awar e of i t as wel l )

t ol d her t o. And she sent t hi s f i r st emai l t o exact l y t he peopl e

she had been i nst r uct ed t o l oop i n on t he si t uat i on. Thus, because

t he onl y evi dence was t hat Wi nsl ow was doi ng what she was t ol d,

t her e was not hi ng f r om whi ch a f i nder of f act coul d i nf er she

per sonal l y i nt ended t o bl ow t he whi st l e or expose an i l l egal i t y by

sendi ng t hi s par t i cul ar emai l .

By t he t i me she sent t he second emai l , t he pr obl em had

been di scussed i n a publ i c f orum and t he mi nut es of t he meet i ng

had been post ed onl i ne f or al l t he wor l d t o see. I ndeed, " t he

undi sput ed f act s" made i t cl ear t hat Wi nsl ow' s super vi sor , al ong

wi t h t he Count y i t sel f and ot her s i nvol ved wi t h t he I nvest ment

Boar d, "wer e not t r yi ng t o bur y t he pr obl em of t he vi ol at i on"

di scover ed and r eport ed t o t hem by the f eds, "but t o acknowl edge

i t and deal wi t h i t . " I d. at 32. Ther ef or e, Wi nsl ow' s second

emai l , addr essed as i t was t o i ndi vi dual s who wer e al r eady (or who


28/38

- 28 -

easi l y coul d have become) aware of t he pr obl em, was cl ear l y not

i nt ended t o expose a pot ent i al i l l egal i t y. Rat her , Wi nsl ow' s

i nt ent was t o make sur e her voi ce was heard and her opi ni on

consi der ed.

I n sum, t he l ack of evi dence i n t he recor d showi ng t hat

Wi nsl ow was mot i vated by whi st l ebl owi ng concer ns, and not some

br oad- based j ob dut i es except i on, i s why we concl uded no r easonabl e

j ury coul d f i nd t hat she had engaged i n prot ect ed whi st l ebl owi ng

act i vi t y.

Moreover , none of t he cases we rel i ed on i n Wi nsl ow t o

but t r ess our r easoni ng espoused a j udi ci al l y- creat ed "j ob dut i es

except i on" t o a whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on st at ut e. Nor do any of

t hose cases support concl udi ng t hat t he natur e of an empl oyee' s

j ob dut i es, st andi ng al one, may make t hat empl oyee i nel i gi bl e as

a mat t er of l aw f or whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on. We' l l expl ai n.

Wi nsl ow ci t ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on i n Capal bo

v. Kr i s- Way Tr uck Leasi ng, I nc. , 821 F. Supp. 2d 397, 419 ( D. Me.

2011) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "t he usual r ul e i n Mai ne i s t hat

a pl ai nt i f f ' s repor t s ar e not whi st l ebl owi ng i f i t i s par t of hi s

or her j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es t o make such r epor t s, par t i cul ar l y

when i nst r uct ed t o do so by a super i or . " Wi nsl ow, 736 F. 3d at 32.

Descri bi ng t hi s as t he "usual r ul e, " however , i s f ar f r om hol di ng

t hat an empl oyee i s, as a mat t er of l aw, whol l y i nel i gi bl e f or


29/38

- 29 -

st atut ory whi st l ebl ower pr otect i on whenever her empl oyer

i mpl ement s i t s own r eport i ng r equi r ement s.

And Capal bo di d not suggest t hat t hi s shoul d be so. I n

Capal bo, t he di st r i ct cour t r evi ewed t he r ecor d evi dence and

concl uded t hat " [ n] o r easonabl e t r i er of f act coul d concl ude t hat

t he r epor t s . . . whi ch [ t he empl oyer ] r equi r ed of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] ,

const i t ut ed conduct i n opposi t i on t o an unl awf ul empl oyment

pr act i ce of [ t he empl oyer ] . " Capal bo, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 419. We

f i nd t he " i n opposi t i on t o" concept and phr aseol ogy hel pf ul i n

t hi s ar ena because an empl oyee who passes on i nf ormat i on as not hi ng

mor e t han a r equi r ed st ep of car r yi ng out hi s or her j ob dut i es

i nt ends t o do her j ob, not bl ow t he whi st l e on a pot ent i al or

act ual i l l egal i t y. Capal bo' s r evi ew and anal ysi s of t he r ecor d

evi dence bef or e i t si mpl y under scores t he need t o l ook at t he

uni que f act s of each case bear i ng on an empl oyee' s mot i vat i on i n

maki ng a repor t t hat i s l at er cl ai med t o have const i t ut ed pr ot ect ed

whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t y. I t di d not pur por t t o r ecogni ze a br oad

j ob dut i es except i on t o t he Act ' s prot ect i ons. Thus, Wi nsl ow' s

ci t at i on t o Capal bo cannot be const r ued as an endorsement of t he

j ob dut i es except i on espoused by Gr ani t e Bay.

Fur t hermore, Wi nsl ow l ooked t o sever al non- Mai ne cases

as per suasi ve aut hor i t y, but t he r easoni ng i n t hose cases does not

suppor t t he cr eat i on of a j ob dut i es except i on. We' l l go t hr ough

t hem one by one t o expl ai n why not .


30/38

- 30 -

Wi nsl ow f i r st poi nt ed t o t he Mi nnesot a Supr eme Cour t ' s

opi ni on i n Ki dwel l v. Sybar i t i c, I nc. , 784 N. W. 2d 220 ( Mi nn. 2010) ,

as st andi ng f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat , "when a company' s i n- house

counsel advi ses t he company on compl i ance i ssues, ' t he l awyer i s

not sendi ng a r epor t f or t he pur pose of exposi ng an i l l egal i t y and

t he l awyer i s not bl owi ng t he whi st l e. ' " Wi nsl ow, 736 F. 3d at 32

( quot i ng Ki dwel l , 784 N. W. 2d at 231) . The Mi nnesot a cour t r el i ed

on t he f act s t hat t he al l eged whi st l ebl owi ng consi st ed of an emai l

t hat i n- house counsel sent t o member s of management , and t hat he

"had pr evi ousl y di scussed l egal mat t er s" wi t h each of t hese peopl e.

Ki dwel l , 784 N. W. 2d at 230- 31. Theref ore, "no i nf erence can be

dr awn t hat hi s pur pose was ot her t han t o do hi s j ob" of advi si ng

hi s cl i ent . I d. at 231. The cour t was qui ck t o poi nt out t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f "pr esent ed no evi dence t hat he sent t he emai l t o l aw

enf or cement or t o t he gover nment , " i d. , an observat i on whi ch r ai ses

t he possi bi l i t y t hat a r epor t al ong t hose l i nes ( i . e. , an ext er nal

r epor t ) coul d have const i t ut ed pr ot ect ed whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t y.

Mor eover , t he Ki dwel l cour t made i t cl ear t hat i t s

concl usi on was di ct at ed by t he f act s i n t he r ecor d r at her t han a

gener al except i on t o whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on. I t began i t s

anal ysi s by "r ej ect [ i ng] as t oo br oad t he . . . concl usi on t hat ,

as a mat t er of l aw, an empl oyee does not engage i n pr ot ect ed

conduct under t he [ Mi nnesot a] whi st l ebl ower act i f t he empl oyee

makes a r epor t i n f ul f i l l ment of t he dut i es of hi s or her j ob. "


31/38

- 31 -

I d. at 226- 27 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The cour t al so

st at ed i n no uncer t ai n t er ms t hat , whi l e t he nat ur e of an

empl oyee' s j ob dut i es may have some bear i ng on whet her she had

engaged i n pr ot ect ed conduct , " t he whi st l ebl ower st at ut e does not

cont ai n a j ob dut i es except i on. " I d. at 227 ( emphasi s added) .

Obvi ousl y then, when we ci t ed Ki dwel l we di d not t hereby

gr af t ont o Mai ne' s Whi st l ebl ower Act a j ob dut i es except i on

squar el y r ej ect ed by t hat case. Nor coul d we have r el i ed on i t s

r easoni ng t o cr af t a j ob dut i es except i on of our own maki ng.

Wi nsl ow next l ooked at a case out of t he Feder al Ci r cui t

i nt er pr et i ng t he f eder al whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on act . We

descr i bed t he case as hol di ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f whose j ob was t o

moni t or and r epor t on f arms' compl i ance wi t h f eder al l aw "di d no

mor e t han car r y out hi s r equi r ed ever yday j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es"

when he repor t ed some f arms as bei ng out of compl i ance wi t h

gover nment al conservat i on pl ans. Wi nsl ow, 736 F. 3d at 32 ( quot i ng

Wi l l i s v. Dep' t of Agr i c. , 141 F. 3d 1139, 1144 ( Fed. Ci r . 1998) ) .

I n t hat case, t he Feder al Ci r cui t r ecogni zed t hat t he f eder al

whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on act " i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect gover nment

empl oyees who r i sk t hei r own per sonal j ob secur i t y f or t he

advancement of t he publ i c good by di scl osi ng abuses by gover nment

per sonnel . " Wi l l i s, 141 F. 3d at 1144. The pl ai nt i f f ' s j ob as a

Di st r i ct Conser vat i oni st wi t h t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of

Agr i cul t ur e r equi r ed hi m"t o r evi ew t he conser vat i on compl i ance of


32/38

- 32 -

f ar ms wi t hi n hi s ar ea. " I d. The pl ai nt i f f i nspect ed 77 f ar ms,

f ound t hat 16 of t hem were not i n compl i ance wi t h t he USDA' s

conser vat i on pl ans, and t hen t r i ed t o asser t a whi st l ebl ower cl ai m

based upon hi s announcement of t he non- compl i ance f i ndi ngs.

The cour t was uni mpressed wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

whi st l ebl ower cl ai m and obser ved t hat , "[ i ] n r epor t i ng some of

[ t he f arms] as bei ng out of compl i ance, he di d no more than carr y

out hi s r equi r ed ever yday j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es. " I d. at 1144.

Thus, " i n no way di d [ hi s r eport ] pl ace [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] at personal

r i sk f or t he benef i t of t he publ i c good and cannot i t sel f

const i t ut e a pr ot ect ed di scl osur e under t he [ whi st l ebl ower

pr ot ect i on act ] . " I d. I n ot her wor ds, t he f act s t her e woul d not

have al l owed t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he pl ai nt i f f was mot i vat ed by

any desi r e t o bl ow t he pr over bi al whi st l e.

Fi nal l y, we ci t ed our own opi ni on i n Cl audi o- Got ay v.

Bect on Di cki nson Car i be, Lt d. , 375 F. 3d 99, 102- 03 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ,

a case i nt er pr et i ng t he Feder al Fai r Labor St andar ds Act ( "FLSA")

and i nvol vi ng r epor t s of al l eged over t i me vi ol at i ons, t o say t hat

"an empl oyee who r eport s vi ol at i ons of l aws or ot her r equi r ement s

as par t of hi s j ob i s not engagi ng i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y f or t he

pur poses of an ant i - r et al i at i on pr ovi si on. " Wi nsl ow, 736 F. 3d at

32. But i n Cl audi o- Got ay, t he pl ai nt i f f ' s j ob dut i es "i ncl uded

appr ovi ng i nvoi ces document i ng the [ empl oyees' ] hour s worked and

t hei r cor r espondi ng pay, " and when he repor t ed pot ent i al


33/38

- 33 -

vi ol at i ons of t he FLSA, he made t hem t o hi s empl oyer and " i n

f ur t her ance of hi s j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es. " 375 F. 3d at 102. The

evi dence i n t hat case showed t hat he "was concerned wi t h pr ot ect i ng

[ hi s empl oyer ] , not asser t i ng r i ght s adver se t o" i t . I d.

Accordi ngl y, we concl uded t hat he di d not engage i n pr otect ed

act i vi t y under t he FLSA. I d. at 103.

I mpor t ant l y, none of t hese thr ee cases rel i ed on a

gener al l y- appl i cabl e except i on t o whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on.

Ki dwel l expr essl y repudi at ed even t he not i on of such an except i on.

I nst ead, i n each of t hese cases t he cour t l ooked at t he act ual

evi dence speaki ng t o an empl oyee' s mot i vat i on i n maki ng each r epor t

at i ssue. Each r epor t was made i nt er nal l y, not t o a gover nment al

agency wi t h over si ght aut hor i t y. The common r ef r ai n i s that each

pl ai nt i f f coul dn' t get whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on because he or she

f ai l ed to pr esent evi dence that a repor t was made t o shed l i ght on

and "i n opposi t i on t o" an empl oyer ' s pot ent i al i l l egal act s rat her

t han as si mpl y par t of hi s or her ever yday j ob dut i es.

So, havi ng gone t hr ough our Wi nsl ow opi ni on and t he cases

on whi ch we rel i ed ther e, we can see t hat under Wi nsl ow - - pr oper l y

under st ood - - t he empl oyee' s mot i vat i on i n maki ng a repor t i s

cr i t i cal . Thi s readi ng of Wi nsl ow i s i n accor dance wi t h Mai ne

l aw, as Mai ne' s Law Cour t r ecent l y r eaf f i r med t he i mport ance of an

empl oyee' s mot i vat i on i n maki ng a put at i vel y- pr ot ect ed r epor t . I n

Cor mi er v. Genesi s Heal t hcare LLC, No. CUM- 14- 216, 2015 WL 8730694


34/38

- 34 -

( Me. Dec. 15, 2015) , t he cour t had t he oppor t uni t y t o di scuss

Sect i on 833( 1) ( B) of t he Act , whi ch pr ovi des pr ot ect i on t o a

whi st l ebl ower who, "act i ng i n good f ai t h" r epor t s " what t he

empl oyee has r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve i s a condi t i on or pr act i ce

t hat woul d put at r i sk t he heal t h or saf et y of any ot her

i ndi vi dual . " 16 See i d. at *3. Mai ne' s hi ghest cour t expl ai ned

t hat " [ a] compl ai nt i s made i n good f ai t h i f t he empl oyee' s

mot i vat i on i s t o st op a danger ous condi t i on. " I d. ( emphasi s

added) . We ar e, t her ef or e, conf i dent i n our concl usi on t hat t he

cr i t i cal poi nt when anal yzi ng whet her a pl ai nt i f f has made out t he

f i r st el ement of a Whi st l ebl ower Act cl ai m - - engagi ng i n act i vi t y

pr otect ed by the Act - - i s an empl oyee' s mot i vat i on i n maki ng a

par t i cul ar r epor t or compl ai nt .

Thus, and al t hough a par t i cul ar empl oyee' s j ob dut i es

may be r el evant i n di scer ni ng hi s or her act ual mot i vat i on i n

r epor t i ng i nf or mat i on, t hose dut i es ar e not di sposi t i ve of t he

quest i on. I n ot her wor ds, i f an empl oyee i s j ust doi ng hi s or her

j ob by passi ng i nf or mat i on t o ot hers i n t he or gani zat i on, he or

she may not have i nt ended t o engage i n pr ot ect ed whi st l ebl owi ng

act i vi t y by br i ngi ng t o l i ght an unl awf ul ( or pot ent i al l y unl awf ul )

act i vi t y or occur r ence. Thi s i nt er pr et at i on i s, we bel i eve,

16 We note t hat t hi s " good f ai t h" r equi r ement ( whi ch appearst hr oughout Sect i on 1 of t he Act ) i s t he onl y concei vabl e t ext ualhook f or a possi bl e "j ob dut i es except i on. "


35/38

- 35 -

consi st ent not onl y wi t h Cor mi er , but al so wi t h t he pol i cy goal s

under l yi ng Mai ne' s enact ment of t he Whi st l ebl ower Act . Af t er al l ,

and as we r ecogni zed i n Wi nsl ow, t he Act "embodi es Mai ne' s l arger

' st at ut or y publ i c pol i cy agai nst di schar ge i n r et al i at i on f or

r epor t i ng i l l egal act s, a r i ght t o t he di schar ged empl oyee, and a

r emedi al scheme t o vi ndi cat e t hat r i ght . ' " Wi nsl ow, 736 F. 3d at

30 ( quot i ng Fuhr mann v. St apl es Of f i ce Super st or e E. , I nc. , 58

A. 3d 1083, 1097 ( Me. 2012) ) ( f ur t her ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

I ndeed, we not ed i n Wi nsl ow t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s emai l s

wer e sent "ei t her under di r ect i nst r uct i ons f r om" her super vi sor

( i . e. , t he f i r st one) or "because she t hought i t was among her

r esponsi bi l i t i es t o do so" ( i . e. , t he second one l et t i ng ever yone

know what she t hought about t he si t uat i on) . See 736 F. 3d at 32.

Wi t h r espect t o t he f i r st emai l , Wi nsl ow di d not go out on a l i mb

and r i sk her j ob by compl yi ng wi t h her super vi sor ' s i nst r uct i ons,

see Wi l l i s, 141 F. 3d at 1143 ( obser vi ng t hat t he f eder al

whi st l ebl ower act " i s desi gned t o pr ot ect empl oyees who r i sk t hei r

own per sonal j ob secur i t y f or t he benef i t of t he publ i c") , and

t her e was no evi dence t o concl ude that ei t her emai l const i t ut ed

conduct " i n opposi t i on t o" an unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce, see

Capal bo, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 419. At bot t om, we uphel d summar y

j udgment i n Wi nsl ow not because of a j ob dut i es except i on, but

because Wi nsl ow f ai l ed t o come f orward wi t h evi dence f r om whi ch a


36/38

- 36 -

r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude that she had i nt ended t o engage i n

any pr ot ect ed whi st l ebl ower conduct .

Now, get t i ng back t o Har r i son' s cl ai m, i t i s appar ent

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ( wor ki ng, of cour se, wi t hout t he benef i t

of t he Mai ne Law Cour t ' s Cormi er opi ni on) si mpl y mi sunder st ood,

per haps under st andabl y so, what we act ual l y hel d i n Wi nsl ow.

Pr oceedi ng f r om i t s vi ew t hat Wi nsl ow t ur ned on t he nat ur e of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s j ob dut i es, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Har r i son

i s not ent i t l ed t o whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on t hanks to t he

uncont est ed evi dence t hat Gr ani t e Bay' s r epor t i ng pol i ci es are

appl i cabl e t o al l empl oyees. As such, t he j udge di d not f i nd i t

necessar y t o anal yze t he recor d evi dence bear i ng on Har r i son' s

mot i vat i on i n maki ng her i nt er nal and DHHS r eport s. But t he

exi st ence of such a gener al r epor t i ng pol i cy, t hough per haps

r el evant , i s not di sposi t i ve on t he quest i on of whet her a pl ai nt i f f

has engaged i n pr ot ect ed whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t y. The di st r i ct

j udge' s er r oneous shor t cut t i ng of t he anal ysi s r equi r es us t o

r emand f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o r e- anal yze Har r i son' s cl ai ms wi t h

t he ai d of t oday' s cl ar i f i cat i on of Wi nsl ow. 17

17 Our expl anat i on of Wi nsl ow r ender s i t unnecessar y f or ust o consi der Gr ani t e Bay' s or Har r i son' s ot her ar gument s premi sedon t he exi st ence of a j ob dut i es except i on. Speci f i cal l y, we haveno need t o det er mi ne under whi ch speci f i c sect i on of t heAct - - Sect i on 1 or Sect i on 3 - - Har r i son' s cl ai ms f al l , or whet hersome repor t s ar e governed by Sect i on 1 and ot hers by Sect i on 3.Because t hese quest i ons are beyond t he scope of what we deci det oday, we do not addr ess whet her or how our r easoni ng i n Wi nsl ow,


37/38

- 37 -

Bef or e concl udi ng, we not e that Gr ani t e Bay al so rel i es

on t he l ong- st andi ng pr i nci pl e t hat we may af f i r m a r esul t on any

gr ounds suppor t ed by t he r ecor d. I n doi ng so, i t ar gues t hat

Har r i son' s cl ai m never t hel ess f ai l s f or l ack of evi dence on t he

t hi r d pr ong. That i s, Gr ani t e Bay says Har r i son has not come

f or war d wi t h evi dence t hat woul d al l ow a r easonabl e j ur y to f i nd

a causal connect i on bet ween any pr ot ect ed whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t y

and her t er mi nat i on.

Har r i son di sagr ees. She ar gues t hat t he r el at i vel y

shor t t i me t hat el apsed between her r eport s and her t er mi nat i on

goes t owards showi ng t hat she was f i r ed because of her pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y. She al so t el l s us t he evi dence shows t hat her concer ns

were i gnored; t hat she exper i enced shoddy t r eat ment f r omOl son and

Robi nson f ol l owi ng her DHHS r epor t ; t hat when Robi nson f i nal l y di d

si t down wi t h her , i t was not t o di scuss t he subst ance of her

concer ns ( as Mumpi ni had i nst r uct ed hi m t o do) but t o admoni sh her

f or emai l i ng Mumpi ni t o l et hi m know of her r epor t ; and t hat she

was si ngl ed out f or t er mi nat i on af t er t he December meet i ng, even

t hough she was j ust one of mul t i pl e peopl e par t i ci pat i ng i n t he

conver sat i on and despi t e Gr ani t e Bay havi ng t ol d her t hat she was

doi ng good work. Harr i son bel i eves t hese f act s, when vi ewed

whi ch was conf i ned t o Sect i on 1 cl ai ms, see 736 F. 3d at 30, maybear on t he anal ysi s of a mandat ed r epor t er ' s cl ai m f orwhi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on under t he Act ' s Sect i on 3.


38/38

t oget her , woul d al l ow a j ur y t o concl ude t hat Gr ani t e Bay

t er mi nat ed her as payback f or her pr ot ect ed act i vi t y i n vi ol at i on

of t he Act .

We do not r each t hese argument s i n l i ght of our

concl usi on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed an er r or of l aw wi t h

r espect t o i t s anal ysi s of t he f i r st pr ong of Har r i son' s cl ai m.

Because t hi s er r or r equi r es a " r e- do" on t he f i r st pr ong, i t makes

no sense f or us t o ski p ahead and t al k about t he t hi r d. And we

decl i ne t o do so.

CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summar y j udgement i s vacated and t hi s mat t er i s remanded for

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Cost s ar e

awar ded t o appel l ant .

Documents

Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)