Jeffrey Wiest v. Tyco Electronics Corp, 812 F.3d 319

Background

Plaintiff Jeffrey Wiest, Tyco’s Accounts Payable Manager, challenged Tyco’s accounting treatment of two company events (Bahamas and Wintergreen) by requesting documentation and approvals in 2008; his involvement was limited to emails and requests for information.
Over 2008–2009 Wiest received positive internal recognition: anniversary praise, a maximum impact bonus, and high annual ratings.
In August–September 2009 Tyco’s HR director, Susan Wallace, investigated multiple employee complaints that Wiest made unwanted sexual comments and had inappropriate relationships with subordinates; several witnesses corroborated contemporaneous and historical misconduct.
Wallace conducted interviews, documented findings, and informed senior personnel she preliminarily decided to terminate Wiest; before a final meeting Wiest went on short-term disability and later was administratively terminated when leave expired (March 31, 2010).
Wiest sued under SOX §1514A alleging retaliation for his protected accounting complaints; the District Court granted summary judgment for Tyco and the Third Circuit affirmed, holding Wiest presented no record evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in any adverse employment action and that Tyco showed it would have acted the same absent the protected activity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wiest engaged in protected SOX activity	Wiest says his Bahamas and Wintergreen inquiries were protected whistleblowing about potential securities/GAAP issues	Tyco did not dispute protected status for summary-judgment purposes but argued no causal link	Court assumed protected activity but found insufficient evidence of causation
Whether Tyco knew/suspected protected activity	Wiest argues management who acted knew of his accounting complaints	Tyco points to lack of knowledge among HR investigators and complainants	Court found investigators and initiating employees had no knowledge of protected activity
Whether an adverse employment action occurred and which acts qualify	Wiest contends constructive discharge, preliminary termination (9/30/09), or actual termination (9/30/09) were adverse actions	Tyco contends no constructive discharge and actual termination occurred only administratively in March 2010	Court rejected constructive-discharge and 9/30 actual-termination theories; treated preliminary termination as adverse for analysis but found no causation
Causation and Tyco’s affirmative defense (would-have-fired-anyway)	Wiest argues circumstances infer contributing-factor causation and that termination was unduly harsh	Tyco argues long time gap, intervening HR investigation based on unrelated complaints, favorable treatment post-complaint, and clear-and-convincing evidence it would have taken same action	Court held temporal gap and legitimate intervening events negate causation; Tyco proved by clear-and-convincing evidence it would have acted the same

Key Cases Cited

Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment standard; view facts favorably to nonmovant)
Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonmoving party must present record facts at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standards)
Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2015) (review standards for summary judgment)
Araujo v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 708 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2013) (SOX burden-shifting framework)
Feldman v. Law Enforcement Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (definition of "contributing factor")
Duffy v. Paper Magic Group, 265 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2001) (constructive discharge standard)
Abels v. DISH Network Serv., LLC, [citation="507 F. App'x 179"] (3d Cir. 2012) (court will not reweigh employer’s personnel decisions on review)