Edward Veard, Jr. v. F&M Bank
704 F. App'x 469
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Veard, an at-will mortgage loan originator (MLO) at F&M Bank, worked under Branch Manager Maggart and Mortgage Operations Manager Alexander; Compliance Officer was Amanda Dean.
- Veard originated a loan for the Smiths; underwriter Pachachi flagged a cancellation-of-debt reported on the Smiths’ tax returns stemming from a $3.6M LLC default in which Mr. Smith had a 20% interest.
- Veard disagreed with denial, pursued the file with colleagues and external investors (Chase, U.S. Bank), and sought legal and compliance input about adverse action notices and the loan rationale.
- After Alexander directed staff to stop discussion of the file, Veard uploaded an altered/updated version of the Smiths’ file to U.S. Bank without Alexander’s knowledge; Alexander reported his conduct as insubordinate and a bonding/insurance risk.
- Olive (CFO) terminated Veard in January 2014; Veard filed an OSHA complaint under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and later sued after OSHA did not issue a final determination within 210 days.
- The district court granted summary judgment for F&M on Veard’s CFPA retaliation claim; Veard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veard engaged in protected activity by questioning adverse action notices | Veard contends asking about mailing Adverse Action Notices and saying they could be liable constituted protected opposition | F&M contends he only asked questions seeking clarification, not objected to unlawful conduct | Court: Not protected — mere questions/clarification do not constitute opposition |
| Whether Veard engaged in protected activity by disputing F&M’s denial of the Smiths’ loan | Veard argues he reasonably believed F&M’s loan denial relied on a false/misleading reason and thus opposed conduct violative of CFPA | F&M contends considering the LLC default and tax reporting was a legitimate credit-risk inquiry and not an unlawful act | Court: Not protected — although subjective belief existed, it was not objectively reasonable for an MLO to view F&M’s conduct as violating CFPA |
| Whether Veard made out a prima facie CFPA retaliation claim (contributing factor) | Veard asserts his protected communications contributed to his termination | F&M argues termination was for insubordination and bond/insurance risk regardless of complaints | Court: Even if prima facie case were assumed, F&M proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have fired him anyway |
| Standard for objective reasonableness of employee belief under CFPA | Veard contends factual disputes make reasonableness a jury question | F&M relies on objective-review standard and factual record showing other lenders’ concerns and plausible reasons | Court: Applied Rhinehimer standard and held belief was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment review de novo)
- Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Invs., Inc., 787 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2015) (CFPA retaliation; objective reasonableness test for employee belief)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (retaliation framework elements)