Santina Caruso v. The Jackson Laboratory, 98 A.3d 221

Santina Caruso was hired as a veterinary technician at The Jackson Laboratory on February 25, 2008, with a 90-day probationary period, and was terminated on June 13, 2008.
Caruso alleged NIH-regulated humane treatment violations at the Laboratory, including toe clipping, blood draws without anesthesia, and failure to euthanize terminal mice, which she reported to supervisors and the in-house veterinarian and later to OLAW.
She had confrontations with coworkers and supervisors during this period, displaying a sarcastic and disrespectful demeanor toward staff.
On June 4–13, 2008, management discussed extending her probation due to conduct; Caruso attempted to record the meeting and resisted discussion of an action plan, and she was terminated the following Monday.
Caruso filed a Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) claim in Superior Court alleging retaliation; after a four-day trial in 2013, the jury found for the Laboratory.
The trial court instructed causation with a 'substantial difference' standard, which Caruso challenged, and the Laboratory’s closing arguments included comments about witnesses and deposition snippets.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Causation standard in WPA instruction	Caruso argues the standard should be that whistleblowing ‘made any difference’ to termination.	Laboratory contends the instruction as given correctly required a substantial difference only as a factor among others.	Erred to use 'substantial difference' but no prejudice shown.
Effect of closing-argument vouching and deposition remark	Caruso contends the four-gals comment and deposition-snippet remark biased the jury.	Laboratory argues remarks were not improper or prejudicial and were mitigated by instructions.	Not reversible error; no abuse of discretion or obvious error.

Walsh v. Town of Millinocket, 2011 ME 99, 28 A.3d 610 (Me. 2011) (causation: unlawful retaliation must be a substantial factor)
Wells v. Franklin Broad. Corp., 403 A.2d 771 (Me. 1979) (but-for/substantial factor distinction in causation)
Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142, 954 A.2d 1051 (Me. 2008) (three elements of WPA retaliation; causation standard)
Niedojadlo v. Cent. Me. Moving & Storage Co., 1998 ME 199, 715 A.2d 934 (Me. 1998) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; prejudice inquiry)
Neal v. Bowes, 159 Me. 162, 189 A.2d 566 (Me. 1963) (properly contextualizing minor instructional errors)
Kezer v. Central Maine Medical Center, 2012 ME 54, 40 A.3d 955 (Me. 2012) (need to show actual prejudice from instructional error)
Gilmore v. Central Maine Power Co., 665 A.2d 666 (Me. 1995) (adverse impact of improper statements may be harmless if curative instructions exist)
Lambert v. Tripp, 560 A.2d 1097 (Me. 1989) (trial court's discretion to address prejudicial remarks)
State v. Williams, 2012 ME 63, 52 A.3d 911 (Me. 2012) (attorney credibility and trial conduct standards)