Ralph Mervine v. Plant Engineering Services, 859 F.3d 519

Mervine was hired by Plant Engineering as Pine Bend site manager; initially received a positive review and promotion but faced complaints from subordinates about management style.
On Jan 28, 2014, during a conference call about seeking a rate increase from client Flint Hills, Mervine said the proposed increase might constitute illegal double billing; this statement is treated as alleged protected whistleblowing for purposes of the opinion.
After the call, multiple Plant Engineering employees (Botka, Panzer, Sandiford, Mannello, Dunlop, others) submitted complaints describing unprofessional conduct by Mervine (sleeping/dozing in meetings, threatening employees, undermining staff, breaching confidentiality).
HR (Kreuiter) conducted on-site interviews of 22 employees, summarized complaints, and concluded the allegations were more likely true than not; Mervine was given chances to respond but provided no supporting evidence.
Based on Kreuiter’s investigation and Picou’s review, Plant Engineering terminated Mervine on Feb 20, 2014 for unsatisfactory job performance (hostile work environment, retaliatory activities, unprofessional conduct).
Mervine sued under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act alleging retaliatory discharge; district court granted summary judgment for employer; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mervine established a causal connection between protected whistleblowing and termination	Temporal proximity (~3 weeks) shows causation	Intervening, corroborated employee complaints broke causal link	No causal connection; temporal proximity was undermined by intervening events
Whether employer's investigation and decision were pretextual	Investigation was timed/engineered by Picou to retaliate; positive prior review shows inconsistent reasons	Investigation was prompted by independent employee complaints; decisionmakers honestly believed complaints	No pretext: employer had a good-faith basis to believe complaints and terminate for performance
Whether shifting explanations (including alleged porn allegations) indicate pretext	Employer initially referenced other allegations, suggesting inconsistent reasons	Decisionmakers testified those allegations did not factor into termination; core reason remained performance issues	Not pretextual: elaboration not a substantial shift; core reason consistent
Whether plaintiff’s positive prior performance review undermines employer’s stated reason	Recent positive review (Dec 2013) shows employer’s proffered basis lacks basis in fact	Reviewer lacked knowledge of employee complaints at time of review; later investigation revealed distinct, serious misconduct	Positive review insufficient to create inference of pretext given intervening corroborated complaints

Grant v. City of Blytheville, 841 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard review)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.) (standard for evaluating summary judgment and inference issues)
Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822 (8th Cir.) (nonmoving party must supply probative evidence beyond speculation)
Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir.) (elements of prima facie case under Minnesota Whistleblower Act)
Freeman v. Ace Tel. Ass’n, 467 F.3d 695 (8th Cir.) (temporal proximity alone usually insufficient to show causation)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)