190 So. 3d 878
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Fred White was hired as HCHRA vice president of Head Start on a six-month provisional basis and received warning letters and a poor performance appraisal near the end of that period.
- HCHRA President Kenn Cockrell suspended White and recommended termination; the board and policy council voted to terminate on June 2, 2011.
- White sued for wrongful termination under the McArn public-policy exception, plus claims for conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and slander; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the McArn and breach-of-contract claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the McArn claim and breach-of-contract and sua sponte dismissed White’s other tort claims; White appealed (but did not challenge the breach-of-contract ruling).
- White’s asserted illegality centered on Cockrell’s contracts with Rampant Development Corporation (James King) for operational studies; White alleged the contracts could constitute misuse of federal funds and violate federal criminal statutes, but he presented no evidence of criminality or that he reported alleged illegal acts to anyone other than Cockrell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination falls within McArn public-policy exception for refusing to participate in or reporting illegal acts | White argued he questioned Cockrell about contracts (King) and expenditures that could be criminal (misuse of federal funds) and was terminated in retaliation | HCHRA/Cockrell argued White failed to identify actual criminal violations or present evidence linking questioning to termination | Court held summary judgment proper: White failed to show conduct that violated criminal statutes or that he reported illegal acts as required by McArn |
| Whether White presented sufficient evidence of specific illegal conduct under McArn | White contended the warehouse study/contracts could be fraudulent and violate 18 U.S.C. §§1001, 287 | Defendants pointed to valid, executed contracts, delivered work product, and payments made after satisfactory performance; no evidence of false claims or fraud in the record | Court held plaintiff presented no evidence at trial showing the contracts were criminal; mere suspicion or good-faith belief insufficient |
| Whether the trial court could sua sponte grant summary judgment on White’s other tort claims (conspiracy, IIED, libel, slander) | White had pled these claims and did not receive targeted summary judgment movant notice on them | Defendants’ partial motion addressed only McArn and breach of contract; they conceded other claims were pled | Court held sua sponte dismissal was improper; reversed and remanded those claims for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- McArn v. Allied Bruce–Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603 (Miss. 1993) (establishing narrow public-policy exceptions to at-will employment for refusing to participate in or reporting employer illegal acts)
- Buchanan v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg Inc., 852 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2003) (restating at-will employment rule)
- Davis v. Hoss, 869 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 678 (Miss. 1987) (burden when opposing summary judgment on claims the plaintiff must prove at trial)
- Hammons v. Fleetwood Homes of Mississippi Inc., 907 So. 2d 357 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (employee must show employer acts would warrant criminal penalties, not only civil violations)
- Mitchell v. Nelson, 830 So. 2d 635 (Miss. 2002) (appellate review limited to evidence before the trial court)
- Byrd v. Woods, 90 So. 3d 666 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court errs in granting summary judgment sua sponte on issues not raised in the motion)
- Moore v. M&M Logging Inc., 51 So. 3d 216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (plaintiff need not produce evidence on claims until defendant makes a prima facie summary-judgment showing)