COWARD Et Al. v. MCG HEALTH, INC.
342 Ga. App. 316
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Coward and Bargeron, registered nurses and former charge nurses, worked on MCG Health’s Adult psychiatric unit after reassignment in 2009.
- Coward relinquished a charge-nurse assignment on Sept. 11, 2009 without notifying management; she later reported short‑staffing after a patient attempted suicide; MCG Health fired her a week later for refusing her Sept. 11 assignment.
- On May 31, 2010 Bargeron arrived to a busy, understaffed shift, could not obtain an official status report, called her manager twice, refused to assume the assignment, was sent home, and was later terminated for refusing the shift.
- Both appealed administratively and then sued MCG Health under Georgia’s Whistleblower Statute, OCGA § 45‑1‑4, alleging retaliation for complaining about understaffing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to MCG Health; the Court of Appeals reviews de novo and considers whether Plaintiffs made a prima facie retaliation claim under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs engaged in protected disclosure or objection under OCGA § 45‑1‑4 | Coward and Bargeron: complaints about understaffing and refusal to work were protected because they raised patient‑safety/legal compliance concerns | MCG Health: complaints related only to internal staffing policies, not violations of a law, rule, or regulation, so not protected | Held for MCG Health: neither plaintiff made a protected disclosure or refusal tied to a law, rule, or regulation |
| Whether plaintiffs showed adverse employment action causally related to protected activity | Plaintiffs: terminations followed their complaints/refusals, creating causal link | MCG Health: even assuming causation, no protected activity exists so prima facie fails | Held for MCG Health: court did not reach causation or pretext because no protected activity established |
| Whether internal policy complaints qualify as whistleblowing under OCGA § 45‑1‑4 | Plaintiffs: internal policy violations implicate patient safety and should be protected | MCG Health: statute protects disclosures of violations of laws/rules/regulations, not mere internal policy grievances | Held for MCG Health: internal policy concerns alone are insufficient to trigger statutory protection |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs: triable issues of fact exist about whether they reasonably believed illegal conduct occurred | MCG Health: record shows no evidence they reported unlawful conduct; summary judgment proper | Held for MCG Health: summary judgment affirmed because plaintiffs failed to establish protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 311 Ga. App. 155 (discussing whistleblower protections and summary judgment standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Edmonds v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 302 Ga. App. 1 (internal‑policy safety concerns are not protected under Georgia’s Whistleblower Statute)
- Albers v. Ga. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 330 Ga. App. 58 (describing prima facie elements and when whistleblowing may present factual questions)