United States Ex Rel. Hamrick v. Glaxosmithkline LLC
814 F.3d 10
1st Cir.2016Background
- Blair Hamrick, a GSK senior sales rep, corroborated a coworker’s off‑label marketing allegations and later filed a sealed qui tam FCA suit; he struggled with alcohol and took medical leave after a DWAI conviction.
- After returning to work in Jan 2004, Hamrick complained of coworker retaliation and told HR he wanted to “pull out the trachea” of a coworker; HR and Employee Health were concerned because he owned guns.
- At a March 2004 GSK conference in Dallas, while apparently intoxicated, Hamrick made multiple graphic threats identifying coworkers; GSK sent him home and placed him on paid administrative leave.
- GSK learned Hamrick had not disclosed his DWAI conviction and suspended license (a potential Safe Driver Policy violation) and engaged in severance negotiations that later broke down.
- Hamrick refused to meet with HR on GSK’s standard terms (his attorney sought broader attendance rights); GSK ultimately terminated him in October 2004.
- Hamrick amended his qui tam complaint to add a §3730(h) retaliatory discharge claim; the district court granted summary judgment for GSK and denied Hamrick’s motion for in camera review of documents withheld as privileged. Hamrick appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hamrick's Argument | GSK's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by declining in camera review of documents GSK withheld as attorney‑client privileged | Hamrick: lawyers acted as decision‑makers, so privilege may not apply; in camera review warranted given sparse nonprivileged records and apparent privilege slip | GSK: communications were routine legal advice about a sensitive employment matter; log was detailed and counsel involvement appropriate | Court: no abuse of discretion; privilege log and context justified withholding and denial of in camera review |
| Whether Hamrick made a prima facie retaliation claim under the FCA and met but‑for causation | Hamrick: termination was retaliation for qui tam activity; timing and procedural anomalies raise inference of pretext | GSK: legitimate nonretaliatory reasons—threatening conduct, failure to disclose DWAI, failure to cooperate—motivated termination | Court: assumed plaintiff met prima facie burden but held no reasonable jury could find pretext; affirm summary judgment for GSK |
| Whether GSK’s investigation/timing (delay, severance attempts, limited FFD) suggests pretext | Hamrick: delay and negotiated severance indicate GSK waited for excuse to fire him; inconsistent procedures point to pretext | GSK: removed him immediately from workplace, negotiated severance, then pursued termination after negotiations and refusals to cooperate; caution explains timing | Court: process explained by legitimate caution and negotiation; deviations not sufficient to show pretext |
| Whether temporal proximity of counsel’s communications (identifying relator status) creates inference of retaliatory motive | Hamrick: communications confirming he was a relator and firing 19 days later shows causation | GSK: evidence shows discharge path began months earlier; final deadline for response preceded counsel’s letter | Court: temporal link insufficient given earlier, independent grounds for termination; no jury could infer retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (discretionary nature of in camera review)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for employment retaliation claims)
- Harrington v. Aggregate Indus., 668 F.3d 25 (application of McDonnell Douglas in First Circuit retaliation cases)
- Soto‑Feliciano v. Villa Cofresí Hotels, 779 F.3d 19 (summary judgment review and discovery gap discussion)
- Medina‑Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5 (conclusory allegations and speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)