Parks v. Alpharma, Inc.
25 A.3d 200
| Md. | 2011Background
- Debra Parks, employed by Alpharma, marketing drugs in Maryland from 2001 to July 2006, alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- Terminated in July 2006 after raising concerns about Alpharma's Kadian promotion and dose-dumping issues and potential FDA/labeling noncompliance.
- Parks alleged Alpharma's practices violated FDA labeling regulations, FTC Act, and Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and that termination followed her reporting of these concerns.
- Circuit Court granted Alpharma's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, citing lack of external whistleblower reporting as required by Wholey v. Sears.
- Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review the dismissal and affirmed, holding Parks failed to identify a sufficiently clear public policy mandate to sustain a wrongful discharge claim.
- Opinion emphasizes Adler framework: wrongful discharge requires a clear, articulable public policy; FDA labeling or federal enforcement doctrines alone do not establish the required mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parks identified a clear public policy mandate. | Parks asserts public policy via FDA labeling, FTCA, and CPA. | Alpharma contends none of these sources provide a sufficiently clear mandate. | No clear public policy mandate identified. |
| Whether internal reporting suffices for a whistleblower wrongful discharge claim. | Internal reporting to Alpharma supervisors is adequate per Lark. | External reporting is required as a condition for protection. | Court did not reach external reporting as dispositive; affirmed on lack of clear policy. |
| Whether the FDA labeling regulation alone creates a Maryland public policy basis for wrongful discharge. | FDA § 201.57 creates a duty that could support public policy. | Regulation lacks a specific Maryland public policy mandate. | FDA labeling standard is not a sufficiently clear public policy mandate. |
| Whether any precluded remedy under the False Claims Act bars Parks' claim. | FA Act remedies may bar duplicative wrongful discharge claims. | Not necessary to decide given outcome on public policy clarity. | |
| Whether the claim fails for lack of a specific duty by Alpharma. | Alpharma violated duties under federal/state statutes and regulations. | Parks failed to plead a specific legal duty that Alpharma violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 (Md. 1981) (recognizes public policy limits to at-will discharge; requires clear mandate)
- Wholey v. Sears, 370 Md. 38 (Md. 2002) (limits on new public policy grounds for wrongful discharge; must be clear policy source)
- Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc., 414 Md. 215 (Md. 2010) (recognizes internal reporting can support whistleblower claim; discusses healthcare act specifics)
- Szaller v. American National Red Cross, 293 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2002) (federal regulations cannot automatically define Maryland public policy for wrongful discharge)
- Insignia Residential Corp. v. Ashton, 359 Md. 560 (Md. 2000) (discusses limits of wrongful discharge where statutory remedies exist; abusive discharge doctrine)
- Watson v. Peoples Security Life Ins. Co., 322 Md. 467 (Md. 1991) (public policy protection for exercising legal rights; retaliation concerns)