Morrison v. B. Braun Medical Inc.
663 F.3d 251
6th Cir.2011Background
- Morrison was an at-will medical sales representative for B. Braun from Oct 1998 until her termination on Apr 2, 2007.
- She repeatedly objected to off-label promotion and to anti-kickback violations; she warned supervisors and engaged Compliance over legality concerns.
- Key incidents included: teaching staff promoting off-label uses in 2000 and Morrison objecting; a 2003 meeting about kickback schemes and her decision not to sign a compliance form; and a 2006 pricing request from Oakwood tied to a potential kickback issue.
- Morrison reported concerns to Compliance and refused to grant a pricing adjustment or rebate that would constitute an illicit kickback; she faced a second Performance Improvement Plan and severance pressure before termination.
- The case progressed to trial where Morrison prevailed; B. Braun challenged causation and the notion of an employer directive to violate the law; the district court denied JMOL and the jury returned for Morrison; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- Michigan public-policy wrongful-discharge claim here rests on a failure or refusal to violate the law, not on a required employer directive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does wrongful discharge require an employer directive to violate the law? | Morrison argues no directive is required; refusal to violate suffices. | B. Braun asserts a directive to violate the law is the threshold element. | No, directive not required; causation shown by refusal to violate the law. |
| Was there sufficient causation evidence that Morrison’s refusal to violate the law caused termination? | Evidence shows refusals, reporting, PIP placements, and timing with termination. | Termination could be linked to performance, not solely to moral objections. | Yes, sufficient evidence supports causation; JMOL denial proper. |
| Was the district court's jury instruction requiring a directive to violate the law appropriate? | N/A (plaintiff argued standard differed). | Requested instruction misstates the applicable law. | District court did not err in not instructing on a directive requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Humenny v. Genex Corp., 390 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (wrongful discharge for failure to violate a law; public policy)
- Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982) (established public-policy wrongful termination doctrine)
- Pratt v. Brown Mach. Co., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1988) (evidence of employer's request to violate law used to prove refusal to violate)
- Silberstein v. Pro-Golf of Am., Inc., 750 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (causation standard for wrongful discharge under Michigan law)
- Lulaj v. Wackenhut Corp., 512 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for review of JMOL in wrongful-discharge context)
- Potti v. Duramed Pharms., Inc., 938 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1991) (application of Michigan-law standards; causation and directed verdict references)