227 A.3d 67
R.I.2020Background
- Michael Crenshaw, hired as a CCRI college police officer in November 2013, had earlier been a Southborough (MA) police officer and had reported alleged misconduct there and sued that department in federal court.
- While employed at CCRI he sought a waiver from the Rhode Island Police Training Academy; CCRI officer Captain Poulin submitted supporting materials that Crenshaw alleges included false Southborough documents.
- Lieutenant Scott Raynes (Training Academy director) raised concerns in a letter; CCRI informed Crenshaw on November 5, 2014; CCRI terminated Crenshaw on December 5, 2014, allegedly due to denial of the waiver.
- Raynes later (January 10, 2017) admitted providing a fraudulent document that CCRI relied on; Crenshaw received certain materials January 25, 2015.
- Crenshaw filed an amended complaint (Jan. 10, 2018) alleging (1) wrongful termination under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and (2) § 1983 claims; the trial justice granted defendants’ dismissals on Count One and denied Crenshaw’s motion to amend his § 1983 claim as time‑barred; judgment for defendants was entered and Crenshaw appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28‑50‑3 protects an employee for reporting illegal activity by a prior employer that has no nexus to the current employer | Crenshaw: statute does not require the report to concern the current employer; any report to a public body is protected | Defendants: statute limits protection to reports about the (current) employer; present‑tense wording indicates protection for activity while employed by the defendant or an employer closely related | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Act does not protect reports about a previous, unrelated employer; protection is limited to activity concerning the employer (or one in close nexus) while employed there |
| Whether the hearing justice abused discretion denying leave to amend to add § 1983 claims because of statute of limitations and discovery‑rule tolling | Crenshaw: claim relates back and discovery rule tolled accrual until he learned of defendants’ wrongdoing (Jan. 25, 2015 and Jan. 10, 2017) | Defendants: Crenshaw knew of his injury by Nov. 5, 2014 (waiver denial meeting); the 3‑year limitations period therefore ran | Court: Affirmed denial — discovery rule inapplicable; Crenshaw was aware of the injury by Nov. 5, 2014 so § 1983 claim was time‑barred and amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 954 A.2d 1051 (Me. 2008) (interpreting state whistleblower statute to protect reports about violations committed by that employer)
- Kimmelman v. Heather Downs Mgmt. Ltd., 753 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (different result where reported misconduct involved an owner of the defendant employer)
- Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019) (discussing accrual and limited application of the discovery rule)
- Behroozi v. Kirshenbaum, 128 A.3d 869 (R.I. 2016) (awareness of potential claim can preclude tolling)
- Ho‑Rath v. Rhode Island Hosp., 115 A.3d 938 (R.I. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Chase v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 160 A.3d 970 (R.I. 2017) (Rule 12(c) standard is tantamount to Rule 12(b)(6))