851 F. Supp. 2d 196
D. Me.2012Background
- Manfield was a site supervisor at EPS Corp, then worked for the Defendants when they took over security at PNSY on June 5, 2009.
- Defendants began transitioning the contract for PNSY in May–June 2009 and subsequently shipped ammunition and firearms before a Navy MOU was executed.
- Manfield refused to accept frangible ammunition and later the gun shipment without an MOU; he reported the discrepancy to Defendants’ project manager.
- Defendants conceded frangible ammunition violated the contract; Manfield observed and reported equipment deficiencies (holsters, belts) and pay discrepancies for security officers.
- Manfield was terminated on July 28, 2009, with Defendants citing defiance and uncooperativeness; Hendricks, a Lieutenant and openly gay employee, also faced non-selection for a site supervisor role after raising pay concerns.
- Hendricks alleged discrimination based on sex/sexual orientation and retaliation for complaining about illegal paycheck deductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCA retaliation sufficiency | Manfield engaged in protected FCA conduct by reporting contract violations. | Complainants’ reports did not relate to an FCA violation or constitute protected conduct. | Count I survives |
| FCA knowledge and causation | Defendants knew of protected conduct via internal complaints and retaliated. | Knowledge and causal link not adequately shown. | Adequate factual predicate shown; knowledge established |
| FLSA retaliation – Manfield | Manfield’s informal filings and communications protected by FLSA retaliation. | FLSA protection requires formal or adequate notice of action against employer. | Count II dismissed for Manfield |
| FLSA retaliation – Hendricks | Hendricks notified HR of illegal pay deductions citing FLSA; relevant to retaliation. | Not sufficient to show causal link to adverse action. | Count II denied for Hendricks; retaliation claim survives for Hendricks |
Key Cases Cited
- Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 2004) (protected conduct requires relation to FCA violation; retaliation can be pled with plausible facts)
- Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2012) (framework for Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility and pleading standard)
- Nowak v. Medtronic, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Mass. 2011) (post-FERA definition of protected activity in FCA retaliation)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) (FLSA retaliation notice can be oral or written; filing requires notice)
- Gargano v. Liberty International Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (contextual pleading standards for plausibility under Iqbal/Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jewell v. Lincare, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Me. 2011) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation in retaliation claims)
- Nowak v. Medtronic, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Mass. 2011) (FERA amendments broaden protected conduct in FCA retaliation)