Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC
301 A.3d 26
Md.2023Background
- Bridget Romeka was Chief Radiation Therapist employed by RadAmerica (a MedStar subsidiary) at Mercy Medical Center’s Radiation Oncology Center.
- In April–May 2018 internal reviews and interviews revealed that Romeka had falsified an EMR consent entry and backdated charting and that she had mistreated staff and acted incompetently in ways raising safety concerns.
- RadAmerica managers (Dr. Rosen and Mr. Osik) recommended termination on May 10; MedStar HR (Wendy Greer) conducted a separate investigation May 14–16 and confirmed termination for conduct, performance, and falsification.
- On May 17 Romeka objected to performing SRS treatments with a manually-rotated/partially-broken treatment couch and said she intended to file a grievance; decisionmakers who authorized termination (RadAmerica president Spearman, Dr. Rosen, and Greer) were not aware of that complaint when they decided to terminate her between May 16–18.
- Romeka sued under the Maryland Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (HCWWPA). The trial court granted summary judgment for Employer; the Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation standard under HCWWPA: whether "but‑for" is required or a "contributing factor" suffices | Romeka: statute requires only that protected conduct motivated or contributed to the adverse action (contributing-factor/motivating-factor standard) | Employer: statute’s language ("reprisal" and "because") and §1‑506 defense require but‑for causation; McDonnell Douglas framework applies | Court: HCWWPA requires but‑for causation; plaintiff may prove but‑for causation using McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Romeka: genuine disputes of material fact exist as to timing, credibility, and pretext so summary judgment was improper | Employer: uncontested record shows termination decision was made for nondiscriminatory reasons before decisionmakers knew of Romeka’s complaint; Romeka failed to identify evidence creating a genuine dispute | Court: summary judgment proper—Employer met its burden under §1‑506 and Romeka failed to rebut or generate a genuine factual dispute about pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (but‑for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) (McDonnell Douglas incorporates but‑for analysis for retaliation claims)
- Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Heller, 391 Md. 148 (2006) (Maryland whistleblower statutory scheme requires but‑for causation; McDonnell Douglas used to analyze causation)
- Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC, 254 Md. App. 414 (2022) (Appellate Court decision affirmed by Supreme Court of Maryland)