Ma v. American Electric Power, Inc.
123 F. Supp. 3d 955
| W.D. Mich. | 2015Background
- Mary Ma, an engineer/supervisor at AEP’s Cook Nuclear Plant (2000–2011), filed a May 2010 Condition Report alleging coworkers withheld safety-related information and later objected to AEP’s chosen “relay failure” fix for a LOCA safety analysis.
- Ma had a record of strong technical performance and awards, but also recurring, documented interpersonal conflicts with coworkers (notably Greg Hill) spanning years and affecting group collaboration.
- AEP management repeatedly counseled Ma about professionalism, referred her to the Employee Assistance Program, and warned her that continued conduct would lead to discipline; Ma returned from EAP leave but conflicts persisted.
- Ma refused to participate in the team-implemented “relay failure” solution; AEP concluded her conduct was insubordinate and disruptive to safety culture and terminated her in June 2011.
- Ma complained to the NRC after termination; the NRC found insufficient evidence to support her safety claim. She filed a timely complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act and, after the Secretary of Labor did not decide within a year, sued AEP in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ma engaged in protected activity under the Energy Reorganization Act | Ma’s May 2010 Condition Report and objections to the relay-failure fix implicated concrete safety concerns | AEP did not contest protected activity but disputed the characterization of Ma’s objections | Held: Yes — both the Condition Report and her stated belief that the relay proposal violated NRC rules were protected activity |
| Whether termination was an adverse action causally connected to protected activity | Ma argued termination was retaliation for her safety reports and objections | AEP argued termination was for longstanding interpersonal and teamwork failures, not retaliation | Held: Ma established protected activity was a contributing factor to termination (prima facie satisfied) |
| Whether AEP proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have terminated Ma absent protected activity | Ma argued AEP’s stated non-retaliatory reasons were pretextual; highlighted positive evaluations and awards | AEP argued persistent unprofessional conduct, failure to follow explicit managerial directives, and disruption to safety culture justified firing | Held: AEP met its burden by clear and convincing evidence; termination was for interpersonal/professional failures, not retaliation |
| Whether judgment for AEP was appropriate under the ERA | Ma sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 5851 for retaliatory discharge | AEP sought judgment affirming termination for non-retaliatory reasons | Held: Judgment for AEP; no violation of 42 U.S.C. § 5851 was found |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 567 Fed.Appx. 334 (6th Cir.) (discussing contributing-factor standard and evidence of hostility in retaliation cases)
- Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 278 Fed.Appx. 597 (6th Cir.) (interpretation of protected activity under the ERA)
- American Nuclear Resources, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing protected safety complaints from general workplace grievances)
- Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Herman, 115 F.3d 1568 (11th Cir.) (noting Congress intended a difficult defense standard for employers in nuclear whistleblower cases)
- Hoffman v. Solis, 636 F.3d 262 (6th Cir.) (employer reliance on evidence predating protected activity can undercut retaliation claims)
- Riddle v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., 497 Fed.Appx. 588 (6th Cir.) (employer met clear-and-convincing burden where warnings and continued poor performance supported termination)
- Yadav v. L-3 Communications Corp., 462 Fed.Appx. 533 (6th Cir.) (unprofessional conduct and poor interpersonal skills can justify termination despite safety-related context)