uscourtappeals6thdistrictcase02no3035

7/30/2019 USCourtAppeals6thDistrictCase02No3035

1/21

MARK J. KELLY,Plaintiff-Appellant.

LAMBDARESEARCH,NC.,Defendant-Appellee.

ON APPEALFROMTHE LINITEI)STATES ISTRICTCOURTFORTHE SOUTHERN ISTRICTOF

NOT RECOMN{ENDEDORPUBLICATIONNo.02-303-5

UNITED STATESCOURTOF APPEALSFORTHE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILEllli4nQ : : 20Lri

LE0NARDREEN,ier

NCTRECOMMENDEDOR UII.TEtrTPUBLICATIONSixthCircuil .ule 8{gi imifs iroiiono specificifuotionsPleoseeeRule 8{g)beiore iling n o prxeciing in o cortin heSixfhCircuit.f cited, ccpvmust e served n olherportier nd heCourt.Thitnoticc s tc be promrnenliyisplopd f thisdecision

OHIO

rr cproouco.

BEFORE: BOGGS,ChiefJudge;KRUPANSKY and CLAY' Circuit Judges.KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff-appellant, r. Mark J. Kelly ("Kelly"). has

assailed he trial court's awardof summary udgment to his former employer,defendant-appelleeLambdaResearch,nc. ("Lambda")" y which his amended omplaintstatingclaimsarisingunderfederal ndstate aw wasdismissed ith prejudice.On review,Kelly hascontested nly the districtjudge'sdismissal f hisemploymentetaliation ndconstructive rongfuldischarge auses f actionfounded espectivelyn the Ohio Whistleblower tatute ndOhiopublicpolicy.

DuringJuly1998.Kelly,a Ph.D. esearchhemist, egan orking n Lambda'sCincinnati -raydiffraction laboratory,designated Lab II." In December1998, Lambda elevatedKelly to Lab IISupervisor.TheLab I employees,ncludingKelly. conductedesearchndgathered xperimental ataconcerning he physicalproperties ndcapabilities f materials nd echnicalcomponents or diversecommercial, cademic, ndgovernmental ustomers,ncluding henuclear ower ndustry.At the imeof Kelly's retentionby Lambda, ts soleshareholderndmanagerial rincipal,PaulPrevey "Prevey"),


2/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.informed heplaintiffthatLambda's racticesonformedo allprevailing igh-techndustrl'standards.However. hortlyafter heplaintifflspromotiono management.e began o suspect ither hatcertainof Lambda'swrittenstandard perating roceduresailed ndustry orms. r thatLambda's mplor,eesoften nadequatelydheredo thecompany'snternally-developedrittenprocedures.herebr.'riskinginaccuraciesn test esults.

Nevertheless,uring approximately is first yearof employmentwith the defendant. ellvremainedmuteconcerning isunverified uspicionsf pastandongoing efectiveeadings aused r,deficientaboratory rocedures.n June1999. issuperior revev onducted ell1,'snauguralomralwrittenperformance valuation.PreveypraisedKell,v or his managementkills, esponsivenessotraining,practicalknowledgeof x-ray diffraction,and utureproductivepotential.

During hatsamemonth" Lab I technician, hrisBarger "Barger"), erformedoutine -ra1,'diffraction rystallographicexture nalysesn three irconiumalloypipecladding pecimens. hichconsisted f segments etachedrom sheets r tubescomposed f heavymetallic nsulating oi ldesignedo encase uclear ue l lines, or GeneralElectric'sNuclearDivision ("GEND"). If thelaboratory esults eflected apabilities ithin the expectedange. he subject irconium oil tubin_r{materialwouldbe nstalled n uel ods n ndustrial uclearreactorstcommercialpowerlants.whichfunctionasdeliveryconduitsor enriched ranium uel pellets.'However, fter eviewingLambda'sJune 10, 1999 aboratory eport,a GEND employee, harlesMcKinney.concludedhat onecritical

'At deposition,heplaintiff xplained:Zirconiumubes re sed s ladding aterialsornuclearuel ods, sednnucleareacrors.a littlebi t redundanthere. n anycase,he exture orrelatesithstrength f thematerial nd henalsowithstressorrosion.racking nder ome ircumstances.

a


3/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. LambdaResearch, nc.piece fresearch atum the pole igure"measurenlentfor zirconium ubespecimen o.986985-01was lawed,which n tum distortedhe exture nalysisesult.He requestedha tLab II investigatetsexperimentaldataextractedfromthatstudiedexemplar.elly'ssubsequentinquestexposedLambda'slab echnician's eglect o adhereo Lambda's ertinentwritten esting rocedure P1066.01,n that.prior to testing,he misapplied ontact ementand epoxl,to securehe sample o the glassnrountinusurface. Consequently. argerhad ailed o ensurehat he examined ample emained lat on themountingglassplateduring esting,which hadskervedheresearch ata. When properlvre-testetlaccording o the defendant'sstandardwritten procedure.he tubing sample n controversl,l,ieldedresultswithin the expectedange. Subsequently,n June 10, 1999.via a letteraccompanied 1..aresearcheport,Lambda eportedo GEND that ts initial anomalousesulthadbeen he productof"samplemountingerror"committedby the echnician.

Although the GEND incidentwasevidentlyattributable o a detected umanerrorwhich hadbeencorrected,Kelly nonethelessoncludedhatLambda'swrittenstandard peratingproceduresbrthe pole igure" esting f zirconium ubingmightbe nherentlylawed, nd huscouldyield.or n thepastmay have yielded,unreliabledata n any instance,rrespective f the technician's erbatimadherenceo Lambda's roceduralnstructions.n thecomplainant'spinion. hose rocedures. hichrequired sample latness" o be within 0.002 nchesbut which did not specifyanv technique ormeasuring latnessbeyondvisual nspection, id not. as a practicalmatter.demandadequate ampleflatness, ecause irconium oil tubing tends o "buckle" and hencebecome wavy" and/or "rough"if not properly lattened ndstabilized: nd urtherbecause.n his words. l can't ell what latness crwithin 0.002 nches ooks ike." '


4/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.

Consequently,Kelly worried that an unknorvn number of past zirconium allol, testmeasurementsayhavebeenmisleading ecause f such latnessrregularities 4richpotentiallr, adbeenundetected nd/oruncorrectedrre.spectivef the company,"spplication f its standardestingprocedures.n turn,Kelly fearedhatsome ucleareactor'suel ineu,rapped ith unidentiflabiemis-analyzed irconium oil tubingmight someday osea significantpublic safetl,hazardand/or llellaceto humanhealth,shoulda malfunction ause toxic radiation eak.because e kneu, hat someofGEND'spast purchaserders or zirconium ube esting btttnot theMal l999 GEND sert'ice rderfor the tube estingat issue)haddisplayed nuclearsafetywarning.r Seegenerally 19 C.F.R.2(codifying he NRC's regulations overning he "Reportingof Defectsand Noncompliance"bysuppliers f materialsandserviceso the nuclearpower ndustry).

Accordingly,n July 1999.Kelly'recommendedo Prevey hat GEND be notif iedof hisconcerns, o that he customer ould evaluate ossible isksand/orconsider orrective lternatives.Prevey instructed Kelly to memorialize the zirconium testing issue and his correctiverecommendation(s)n a written nternalQualityAssurancencidentReport "QA Report"). Kellycompleted isQA Report nJuly 6.1999.throughwhicliheagain dvised reveyha tLambda hould.

'GEND's boilerplate dvisorynformed uppliers f nuclear nergy omponenrsr related ervites hat 0 C.F.R.2l requires,nteralia, hat he supplier nform he buyer GEND) of anydefector noncompliance it h a purchase rdesign pecif ication hichcouldcontributeo a signif icantadiolo-eicalazard; nd urther o advise he purchaser fan ydefect rnoncompliancehichcouldhave neffect nknowno theprovider, o ha tGEND canassesshepotentialhazards osed.See 0 C.F.R.$ 2l .21(outlining nuclear ndustry upplier's uty o not ifo he buyerof i ts ailure ocomplywith standards,r of theexistence fa defect,fthat failureor defect couldcreate substantialafety azard,were t to remainuncorrected;" r if a deviation rom, or failure o complywith,standards xists, ut "the supplierdetermineshat t does othave hecapabilityo performheevaluationo determinef a defect xists,he n hesupptiermust nform thepurchasers r affected icenseeswithin five workingdaysof this determination o that thepurchasersor affected icenseesmay evaluate hedeviationor failure o comply.").

In some nstances, i l l ful violations f I 0 C.F.R.2l may rigger riminalpenalties. 0 C.F.R.S2 t .62.-4 -


5/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. LambdaResearch, nc.among ther hings, lertGEND that tspast pole -lgure"exture nalysisesearch ataon zirconiuminsulation pecimens ightbe unreliable.Kelly furtheropined hat suchan advisory vas ompelledby l0 C.F.R.2l. He alsosuggestedhat he echnicianshould ot relysolell,onevesighto verifv ha ra sample s pressed nd cemented ompletely lat on the glassplate testingsurface: atlrer. ameasurementrverifiable riteria or surfacelatness" hould eestablishedo avoiddistortionsn thetest eadines.

However,Prevey edacted ellv's reportby strikinghis recommendationhatLambda nformGEND hatallof itspreviously-furnishedpole igure"data ollectedn past irconiumexture nalyseswasquestionable;Preveynstead ubstitutedisownhandwritten otationo heeffect hatGEND rcrlalreadybeennotifiedthatLambdahadcollected typicaltexturaldatan thepastbecause f a samplemountingdeficiency,iPrevey lsodeletedKelly's recommendationhatLambda's amplemountingprocedurese improved,bu t he retainedKelly's advisory ha tLambda's echnicians nd engineersshould eceiveadditional raining o ensure hat hey executehe standard rocedures roperly.

Thereafter, elly produced secondQA Report, atedAugust 26,lggg,concerning heJune1999 ncident nvolvingGEND specimen umber986985-01 He reiteratedhereinhis observationsand ecommendationsoncerninghe sample latness" rocedural uestion.Kelly testified hat Preveybecame nragedwhen presented ith his August 26, 1999 eport.and demanded,n high-decibellanguage unctuated y profanity. o know why his modifications o Kelly's JulyQA Reportwerenot

'A t deposit ion, revey oncededhat,contrary o his revision o Kelly's QA Report, ambdaha dnot informedGEND oftheprocedural efectsn Lambda'smounrinq rocess lleged y Kelly. preveyexplainedha theha dconfusedthat ssue ilha previously-discoverednrelated roceduralata-collectionlaw concerningheninetv-degree-rotationof samples uring esting.


6/21

No. 02-3035Kel\t t' ' LambdaResearch"nc'reproducedn Kelly's August report. According o Kell.v-.vhenhe explained hat.contrar\ to titestatementdded y Prevel' o theJuly I 999 report,GEND n facthadneyerbeenapprised f'the onc-termproceduralsample latness"esting roblem.but nstead adbeenalerted nlv to theunrelated"ninety-degree-rotation"ssue.Prevey irmlf instructed elly not to expend nvmorecompan)'tinteon his flatness-perfectionrusade, or o discusshe matterwith anyone nderpenaltvof dismissal.

Theplaintiffhasclaimed hat, ollowinghis August1999 onfrontation.vith revev.Prevey'sbehavioror.vardsim deteriorated.n thathe egularly emeanedndantagonized ellr'.andallegedh,threatenedo discharge im because f variousunrelatedncidents. Unbeknownsto Kelly untilrevealed y litigationdiscoverv, n September and 14,1999"Prevey dded wo criticalmemorandato Kelly's personnel ile. On September 8, 1999,Prevey onducted elly's second nnual outineperformanceeview. Prevey educed elly's qualitymarks n eightof thirteen valuative ategories.Kelly has urtheraverredhat,also n September 999,Preveyhreatenedo shoothim if hepersistedin his campaigno pressure ambdanto notiff ng GEND of hispersonal onclusionhatLambdahadused ubstandardpole igure" estingechniquesor anextended eriod, lthoughKelly hasconcededthat he believed hat Preveywas speakingigurativelyandhad not intendedn September 999 omenace im with literalgunshot-inflictedeath r bodill,harm.

On September 2, 1999,withoutPrevey's nowledge ndcontrary o his orders,Kelly \,vroteto theUnited StatesNuclearRegulatoryCommission "NRC") to express issafety oncerns temmingfrom his conviction hat Lambda'sstandard pole figure" testingproceduresor zirconiumcoveringtubeswere sufficiently aulty o yield unreliable esults.and hat Lambdawas llegallyconcealing hatproblem rom its clients. Thereafter, elly spokeby telephone n at least wo occasions September

6-


7/21

No. 02-3035Kelly t,. Lambda Research, nc.

30 andOctober , lggg)with NRC investigators,ndmet on October27. ggq rvithanNRC agent bra personalntervieu'.

Subsequently,heNRC consultedwo technical xpertsn the zirconium exture nalr,sisleld.both of whom concluded that textureanalysis. lone.cannotbe used o determine he intrinsicmechanical roperties f zirconium-basedubingmaterial.Rather. s one expertsuggested.extureanalysis anbeused o estimatemechanical ropertieselative o certain irections f the ubing e.g..the esults f atextureanalysismayshorv hat he ensile trength f the ube n theaxialdirection slarger, r smaller,han he ensile trengthn the adialdirection)."

On December 6, 1999. heNRC mailed o Kelly its comprehensiveepon andanaly'sisf itsinvestigativeindings, oupled vitha cover etterwhich summarizedts conclusions.Among otherthings, he cover etter ecited:

Based n our reviewand he nformation btainedrom heexperts, e believe hat heproblemswith LambdaResearchextureanalysismay be attributed o poor control ofspecimen reparation nd extureanalysis rocedures.Further.we believe hat extureanalyses,n general, annot eused o nadvertentlyualifyunacceptable aterial.Theintrinsicmechanicalpropertiesf zirconium-basedubingmaterial annotbedeterminedfrom texture analysis. Therefore.we have concluded hat errors resulting rom thetextureanalysis t LambdaResearchn thedevelopment f engineeredomponentssnot a safety oncern.NRC did notpursuehe ssueurther incewe determinedt is nota safetyconcem.

TheNRC's letteradvisedKelly that"[u]nless heNRC receives dditionalnformation hatsuggestsour conclusions houldbe altered,we planno furtheractionon thismatter."

KellyhadnofurthercontactwiththeNRCthereafter.onetheless.withoutevidentjustification.theplaintiffremained teadfastn hisconvictionha tLambda'sesting roceduresnvited esearchata

.|


8/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. LambdaResearch,nc.elrorswhichcouldultimatell'affecthesafet.v-f nuclearuel ods.rHor,r'ever,elll remainedilent

"I n relation o the NRC letteran dreport,Kelly asserted ia affidavir: "This removedmy immediare earsofsafetvhazards aused y qualificationof bad materials n safetycritical applicarions ue o bad extureanalysisdata.However, my concernsaboutuseof bad extureanalysisdata n engineering tudiesused n designor developnrenrof nuclear eactorsafety elatedcomponents r otheractivitieswere unresolved.-Theplaintiffha spositedha thi songoing oncerns er ebuttressed-v-isearlier rof'essionalxperiencesanemployee f t he GeneralElectricAircraft EnginesDivision,which led him to concludeha t faulty,marerialexrureanalysis anmislead n-qineersntooverestinratingheuseful ifespan f thatmaterialn specif ic tressful pplications:matched it h heNRC's observationn tsanalytic eport hat [w]e areunsure orvGE Nuclear r LambdaResearch'sother l ie nts se he exture nalysisesults."However. s hedistrict ourtcorrectl l. ,remarked.hecitedpassaueiclnrth eNRC's eport,aken n ul l proper ontext,ndicatedhat heprecise se o vhich uclear nergv ients ut Lanrbda'stexture nall 'sis ata s rrelevant, ecause.sstatedn heNRC's etter, n ant'nuclearndustry sage. rroneousexture

analysis f thezirconium ncasementn uel od swill no thave dverse afety ons equences.ikeu,ise, iven heNRC'sanalysis nd expertconclusions,he plaintiffs opinion hat erroneousirconiunrexture nalysis esults or.rld av enegative afety amifications henthat naccurately'-testedaterial s installed n a je t aircraftengine s faciallrimmaterialo thepotential azards, r lack hereof, f thatsamematerialwhenapplied scladding o a nuclear ue l odin an atomic eactor.Moreover. he NRC's letter n effect nformedKetly hat,unless eprovided t rvithadditionalinformation hichwoulddiscredittsconclusionha tnosafety iskwa sposed y anyzirconium uclearue l od claddingwhichLambdama yhave ncorrectlyestedor "pole igure"data, t wouldconsiderhecase losed. ellv nade o effortto persuadeheNR C thatan yvalidsafety oncernemainedor further nquiry,whether ased n hi sprior experiencewithaircraft ngines,heprecise pplicationsf exture nalysisnformation y Lambda's atrons. r anl,.otheractor(s)whichha dnot beenaddressedn theNRC's reportand/or etter.Accordingly, scorrectly oundby the rial iudge.heundisputed vidence, he nconstrued ost avorablyor th eplaintiff, evealednescapablyhat,af terapproximatelvDecember 6,1999,Kelly either id not havea reasonableelief hat Lambda's ssailedesting roceduresosed n1 ,risk o publicsafety r human ife,or thathe knowingly ad ailed o noti0/ he NRC of thecomplete ccurateactualbasis or his ongoingallegedly easonableelief ha tLambda's ubject racticeshreatened si_qnif icantadiologicalhazard.

Additionatly,Kelly ha sciteda passagerom the testimony f Dr. MichaelGlavicic ("Glavicic"). Kelly'serstwhile olleague ndhis successorsLab I t supervisor. hichpurportedly onoboratedhe en_gineeringoundnessof theplaintiff ls ontinuing afety oncel'nsos t heNRC's December 6, 1999 eportand etter.However.Glavicicmerely explained hat GEND usedzirconiutn extureanalysisdata as "a n engineering arameter o relate hecrystallographicaltructure f the ubes,which s relatedo th emechanical roperties, hich s nherentlymportant,"andopined hata potential afety roblem rightexist fa n operational uclearuel odcoated vithinferiorzirconiumtubingwere o break. However, ven f that estimon-vouldbe reasonablyonstrued san expertopinion hat aultyzirconiumexture n alysis ata ouldcause ngineeringrrorswhichcouldsonreday ermita ruptured uclear uel odto eak azardousadiation,he rialcourt ecordsabsent nyevidenceha tKelly haddiscussedhematter vithGlavicicat any imepertinento the nstantawsuit indeed.Kelly testified hat Preveyhad orderedhim not to discusshe safety,issuewith anyone,ncludingGlavicic), nd hereforehe plaintiff ntroduced o evidenceha tGlavicic'sprofessionilopinion ontributedo Kelly's allegedlyeasonableontinuing elief,af terDecember 6, 9gg. ha tsignif icant afetyissues emained nresolved.No r di d Kelly offer any proof that he had notif ied he NRC of Clavicic's .ontruryprofessionaljudgmentnd his scientif ic ationaleor differingwith the NRC's conclusion. n an y event,no recordevidence ndicated hatGlavicic's conclusion hatdistorted irconiumanalysis resented otentialsafetyhazardswassupported y any specificquantifiedexperimental r engineering esearch esults,as opposed o nakedspeculationloosely ased n hisgeneral ducation ndexperience.n counterpoint,heNR C report 's nalyic conclusionha tno -safetymenace xistedwas heproduct f a specif icnvestigationnto hepotential angers osed y zirconium-cladded

8-


9/21

No. 02-3035Kell-,- . LambdaResearch, nc.

on thematterbetween he endof September 999and February 6,2000. On the atterdate. rlarieMarawi ("Maralvi"), he defendant's eu,QualityAssuranceManager,endered rer.ised ditionofKelly's August 26, 1999 incident report for his signature. That version \vas absent he tu'orecommendationshichhadmostoffended reve\'. ameh,ha tGENDshould e nformedof nossibledatadisiortionsand inaccuraciein all of Lambda'szirconium exture esearchesults.ancl ha rLambda's testing procedures hould be revised to correct chronic potential sample-flatnessinegularities.5

The following day,February 7 2000, Preveymet with Kelly to discusshe sanitized eport.Kelly claimed hat,whenhe efusedo executehatallegedlymisleading ocument. n enraged reve)'"got into [his] face" n a physicallyntimidatingmanner, ccused elly and his staffof deliberately,'sabotagingab est esults, ndannouncedhatall salariesn Lab I wouldbe "frozen." Subsequently.onFebruary 8,2000,Preveynsertedwo additional egative erformancevaluationsntoKelly's ile,although heplaintiff di d not know of theirexistence ntil theywere aterproducedn discovery.

Also on February18 , 2000,Prevey e-assigned omeof Kelly's supervisory uties o Dr .Glavicic. Theplaintiff surmisedha tPreveyntended oon o removehim from management. ellytestified hat,over theensuingdays,Preveycontinuallycriticizedhis performance, nd eveledangryaccusations f malfeasancendnonfeasancegainst im. Assuming hathe would soonbe confronted

fuel odswhich adbeennaccuratelyestedor "pole igure" roperties,onductedyNR Cconsultantsncludingasenior ngineerfone fthemajor uclearuel abricationompanieshohas xperiencen exturenalysisroma uelcladdingesign erspective."y contrast,ellyandGlavacic ere esearchhemists;either ossessedngineeringcredentials.5l nF"bruary 000, arnbdaefinedts exturenalysisrocedureo requirehat amplesestabilizedyuse f hotsetepoxy nstead f less eliable ontactement.

9-


10/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.

with thealternativesf either igning heedited ndpurportedll'deceptiveA Report. r resigning rsposition.Kelly, on theevening f February 4.2000.preparednemplol,mentesignationetter.Tirefollowing day, February25. 2000. Preve,v emandedhat Kelly' execute he revisedQA Reportimrnediately, ithoutalteringanypartof its text. Ultimately.Prevey ermittedKellv to examine tscontentsior nghour.Upon heexpiration f that nterval. elly tendered revey is resignationetterin lieu of the signed ncident eport.

On August15,2000, heplaintiff nstituted five-count iversity omplaint gainst ambda."by whichheallegedOhio aw ( I ) emplo,vmentetaliationn offenseo thestateWhistleblorver ct . (2 )constructive ischarge ndother etaliatory mploy'mentiscipline ontrary o state ublicpolicy. 3)intentional nfliction of emotionaldistress.4) breachof contract, nd (5) misrepresentation. nJanuary 1,2001,Kelly odged is irstamended omplaint, ywhichheadded sixthcause f action.for avenednfringement f the ederal anhamAct. 15U.S.C.$ I 125 creating private ightof actionagainst ersonswho misrepresentertain acts n a commercial ontext). Following the closeofdiscovery,hedefendant oved or summaryjudgmentn all counts.SeeFed.R. Civ.P. 56. After full

6PlaintiffKelly esidesn ndiana. efendantambdasanOhio orporationavingtsprincipal lace f businessin Cincinnati,hio. Theamountn controversyxceeded75,000. ee 8 U.S.C. 1332.-10-


11/21

No. 02-3035Kell-vv. Lambda Research, nc.briefing, he district udge,on December .2001 grantedhat motion.T nd dismissed achcauseofactionwith prejudice.on Januar.v,2002.Kelly noticeda timelyappeal.

On review, heplaintiffhasassailed nly he dismissal f his firstandsecond auses f action.namely or (1)retaliationn ernploymentn violationof theWhistleblower tatute. nd 2) consrmctit,e

"'The [summary]udgment soughtshall be rendered orthwith if the pleadings. eposit ions. ns\\,ersointerrogatories,ndadmissionsn file, ogether it h theaffidavits.f any,shorv hat here sno_genuinessue s o anr.material act and hat hemovingparty s entit led o a udgmentasa matrer f law." Fed.R. Civ. p. 56(c) brackeisadded).

The amiliarstandardsoverning ummaryudgments avebeen ummarizedy thiscourtas ollorvs:A courtmay grant ummaryudgment nderFed.R. Civ. P. 56 only l afterconstruingl. lerecordevidence, nd he easonablenferences hichmaybe drawn herefrom,most avorably oi thepartyopposinghemotion, heproofcouldnot support udgment n favorof t he nonmoving art1,.Matsuslt ita lec. ndus.Co. v. ZenithRadio Corp.,475 U.S.574,587-88 (1986). .,CreOiUiti ivdeterminations,heweighing f theevidence, nd hedrarving f legit imatenferencesrom he actsare ur y functions, ot hose f a udge . . . . Theevidence f the non-movants to be believed. ndal l just i f iable inferencesaretobedrarvninhisfavor. "ndersonv.LibertyLobby.TU.s.242.25S(1986) (citationomitted).SeealsoEasttnanKodak Co. t'. nrage TechnicalServices,nc.,504U.S.451,456 1992); dants . Met iva,3 l F.3d375.379 6thCir . t994).All legal onclusionsy owercourts rescrutinizedenovo.Griderv.Abrantsott, lS0F.3d

739,746 n.7 (6th Cir.),cert.denied,120S. Ct . 528 ( 1999);Brennan r'.To.tvnshipf Northville, TgF.3d 152. I154, l56 (6thCir . 1996).Hence, lower ourt 's ummaryudgment ward ssub. jectto plenary eview,becausehesufficiencv fthe recordevidence. onstrued ost avorably ortheopponentofsummaryjudgment ,posesaquest ionof law.eeDoet , .Cla ihorneCoun^, .103F.3d495.50 5(6thCir. 1996).The ouchstones "whetherthe vidence resents sufficient isagreemenrorequiresubmissiono a ur y or whether t is so one-sidedha ton epartymustprevailas a matteroflaw." Bookerv.Brown&l l / i l l iamsonTobaccoCo. ,STg.2d1304. 3l0(6thCir . 1989) quot ingAnderson,477 U.S. at 25 -52).Graham'Humphreysv.MemphisBrooksMuseum f Art , lnc. ,209 F.3d 552,556-57 .7 (6thCir.:OOO)(ell ipsisnoriginal).

It should eemphasizedha tcourts harged ith hedutyof resolving requestor summaryjudgmenthouldassess// reliable elevant ecordevidence, ot merell, he evidenceavorableo thenon-movingparty. SeeReeves.SandersonPl t tmbingProducts, lnc. ,530U.S.33.150(2000)(comment ingthat , indisposingoiurur , . , . ,ury judgmentmotion, court must eview he ecord takenasa v,hole,"'whichmeansal l of theevidencen the ecord." ernphasisadded) (quoting MatsushitaElec. Industt'ialCo. t'. Zenith Radio Corp..475 u.s. 242,250-51 (19g6)): Aka .v .lryashingtonospitalCenter.156F.3d 1284,1290 D.C. Cir. 1998) instructinghat, whenreviewinga summaryjudgment, thecourtmustconsider ll theevidencen itsfull context ndeciding vhetherhe plaintiffhasmethis burdenof showingha ta easonableur y could oncludeha thehadsuffered iscriminationndaccordinglv ummaryudgmenris inappropriat e.")emphasis dded).

11-


12/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. LambdaResearch,nc.

discharge ndother etaliatory mployment isciplinen violation f Ohiopublicpolici'. Becausehoseclaims ie within he ederal iversityjurisdiction.hi scourtadhereso Ohiosubstantiveari'. ncludingthepublished dicts f theOhioSupreme ourt.See, .g.,RouseT'y.tnited tates'.715.3d g+. j97(6th Cir. 1997) instructinehatonll' published ispositions f the forum state'shighestCourtbirrdfederal ourts as precedential ase aw in diversit,v ctions:by contrast. ntermediate tatecourrdecisions onstitute. t most. relevant ata" o be considered1, hg ederal our-t longn ith a hosto{,othermaterialsf thestate's ighestCourthasnot resolvedhepertinent uestion.husreciuiringhefederal ourt o "predict"how thestateSuprente ourtwoulddecide he ssue).

TheOhio Whistleblower aw provides:If an employee ecomes ware n the course f the employee'smployment fa violationof anystateor federalstatute r anyordinance r regulation f a politicalsubdivision hat he employee'smployer asauthority o correct.and he employeereasonablyelieveshat heviolationeither s a criminaloffense hat s likely to causean mminent isk of physicalharm o persons r ahazardtopublichealthor safetyor isa felony, heemployee rallyshallnotify heemployee'supervisor r other esponsible

officerof theemployee'smployer f theviolationandsubsequentlyhall ile with thatsupervisor r officer a writteri'report ha t providessufficientdetail o identify anddescribe he violation. If the employerdoesnot correct he violation or rnake areasonablendgood aith effort to correct he violationwithin twenty-fourhoursafterthe oralnotification r the eceipt f the eport.whicheversearlier, heemployeema).file a written eport hatprovides ufficient etail o identifyanddescribeheviolationwith the prosecuting uthorityof the county or municipal corporationwhere theviolationoccurred, ith a peace fficer.with the nspector eneral f the violation swithin the nspector eneral'surisdiction. r with anyotherappropriateublicofficialor agency hat has egulatory uthorityover the emplover nd he ndustry. rade.orbusinessn which he employers engaged.OhioRev.Code$ 4113.52(AXlXa).

SubsectionB) of section 1 3.52posits, nteralia,thatexcept n cases f employee bad aith"(developed elow)."no employershall akeany disciplinaryor retaliatoryactionagainstan employeb

1 a


13/21

No. 02-3035K9ll1'v. LambdaResearch. nc.

for making any reportauthorized y division (AXl) or (2) of this section" r as a result of t|eemployee's avingmadeanv nquiryor takenanyotheraction o ensure he accuracl.ofanf infbrmatiorrreported ndereither uchdivision." OhioRev.CodeS4l 13.52(B).Thatsubsectionurtherspecitiesthat"disciplinary r retaliatory ctionby theemplover" ncludes:

(i ; Removing r suspendinghe emplol,eerom employment:(2 ) Withholding romtheemployee alaryncreasesr employee enefitso whichtlieemployees otherwise ntitled;(3 ) Transfening r reassigninghe employee;(4) Denying heemployee promotion ha totherrvise ould havebeen eceived;(5) Reducing heemployeen payor position.rd.

Ohio aw creates civil cause f action or anemployee.vho anprove ha the or shesatisf-reclal l the requisiteelements f predicate whistleblower" tatus, nd further hat his or her emploversubsequentlyisciplined r retaliated gainst im or her in a egallymaterialmanner asa resultof tireemployee'shavingfi ledareportunderdivision(A)ofthissection."hioRev.Code5S113.52(D);secalso$ 4i13.52(E). However, f the erhployee ad ailed o exert a reasonablendgood aithelfortto determinehe accuracy f any nfornrationeported nderdivision AXl) or (2) of this section . .theemployeemay be subjecto disciplinary ctionby theemployee'smployer,ncludingsuspensionor removal, or reporting nformationwithout a reasonable asis o do so underdivision (AX I ) or (2)of thissection."OhioRev.Codeg 4113.52(C).

"l n order or anemployeeo be afforded rotection sa'whistleblower,'suchemploveemuststrictlycomplywith hedictates f R.C. 4113.52. ailure o do sopreventsheemployeeromclaiming

-13-


14/21

No. 02-3035Kelfi;v. LambdaResearch,nc.the rotectionsmbodiedn he tatute." ontreras'.FerroC'orp..652.E.2d 40.941Ohio1995)(syllabus).Emphasisdded).

Kelly's evidence, hen construedn the ight most avorableo hi s case. annot carrr, ha tdemanding urden. Even assuming rguendo.without deciding, hat the piaintiff iias sufficientl-r'evidenc6d ctsof employment iscipline nd/or etaliationwhichfit into catesoriesbrbiddenby theWhistleblower ct, virtuallyal l of thesignificant ctsof discipline r retaliation llegedlvmposed 1Lambda gainst elly, ncluding hose elatedo theFebruarl' 7.2000confrontation etr.r,eenrever.andKelly, heFebruary 8,2000 e-assignmentf certain f Kelly'serstwliile ab I supervisory utiesto Glavicic,and he plaintifflsFebruarl' 5,2000 alleged onstructive ischarge.8ll occurrcd lliarKelly had eceived ndstudied heNRC's December 6,1999 eportand etterby which thatagencv

sForrruron, llustrated erein,heplaintiffs casewasproperly ismissedrrespectivef whether r notheha dbeen"constructivelydischarged"onFebruary25,2000.evertheless,becausetheplaintiffsavenedconstructiverernrinationwas he majorpunit iveactionallegedly xacted gainst im by Lambda,he nstant ourtobserveshat,on therecordevidence,Kelly wa s lot constructivelyisehargedsa matterof Ohio aw. SeeMau4,, . Kelh,seryices,nc.,664N.E.2d1272 Ohio I996) syllabus'lJ4)dictatingha tconstructiveischargexistsn Ohio f workingcondirions er eobjectively so intolerablehat a reasonableerson nder he circumstancesouldhave el t compelled o resign.").Kelly hasofferedabsolutely o evidencehat heoverallworking conditions t Lambdawereso intolerableha tanobjectively easonableersonwouldhave elt compelledo resign. ndeed,he record eflectedha tKelly elected oresign n February 5, 2000only because erefusedo approveheedited ersion f hi sQA Repor-t,rom which rvobits of his advicehad beenomitted: l) that GEND an d other clientsof Lambdabe notif ied hat all of Lambda'szirconium exture nalysisesultswerequestionableecause f taultytesting rocedures,nd herefore ll zirconiumtubinganalyzed y Lambdawas possibly afety-threatening;nd (2 ) thatLambda hould correcti hoseproceduralproblemso avoid uturesafetyhazards.However. y thatdate. heNR C ha dunequivocallynfonnedKelly that nosafety azardwa sposed y an y naccuraciesn Lambda's irconium exture nalysiseadings.

Accordingly, nder hose ircumstances,n objectivelyeasonableersonwouldno t haveconcludedha thi semployer's emandsha theexecute revised ersion f an ncidenteportwhichomitted acially ituation-inappropriate"advice" herefrom resentedim witha demand o ntolerableha thehadno realistic ptionbu t o insteadesign.Tothecontrary, l l Kellyneededo do o keep is ob wa ssign hedocument bsenthe naccuracieshichhehaO ncludedin his originaldraft,which, or his own subjective ersonaleasons, e refusedo do. Indeed,he Lab II technicianBarger, hoalsoexperiencedonflictswith Prevey verzirconiumestingssuesndhad hreatenedo resign ver hemon prioroccasions,mmediately xecutedhe evisedncident eportwhenasked y Preveyo do so, husdemonstratingcompellingly hat thedemandwasnot objectively ntolerable.-14-


15/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.hadarticulatedts final conclusion, ased pon he carefully onsidered pinionsof expertscientistsand. ngineers xperiencedin textureanalysis rom a fuel claddingdesi-un erspective",scc,ote-labove), hatabsolutely o safety azards ereposedb1,'Lambda'slleged racticesvhichKelly hadfaulted.

tn tigtrtofthatundisputedvidencendKeliy'sadmissionshat heNRC'sconclusion lleviatedhis "immediate ears,"no reasonableury could ind that,on andafterapproximately ecember 6.1999, he plaintiff reasonably elieved ha t Lambda'spractices,which had been he targetof hrscomplaints o management nd his "whistleblower" report o the NRC, were risking humansafet1,.After approximately ecember 6,1999 andarguablv rior o thatdate),Kelly indisputably asno lprotectedwhenLambda ookthealleged etaliatoryanddisciplinaryactionso.fFebruary 2000 gainsthim v,hichwere rig}eredby Kelly'scontinuing ost-Decentber 999 ngagementn "u,histleblou,er-relatedactivities.

Kelly hasprotestedhatLambdahad etaliated gainst im, and/ordisciplined irn. br hi sallegedly rotected ctivity rior to Decentber 6. 1999.whenheat leastarguablv ossessed goodfaith belief that Lambda'szirconiumcladdinganalysis roceduresmay haveviolatedcriminally-sanctionedederalsafety egulations nd husmayhave hreateneduturephysicalharm o persons.ecFoxv.Bou'lingGreen,668N.E.2d 98 Ohio1996) syllabus); nd herefore is"whistleblower" laimshouldproceedo trial to thatextent.However,Kelly hasproduced o evidenceof anypre-December16,lggg retaliation r discipline y thedefendant f a kind whichcouldevendebatably atisfvOhio

Rev.Code$ 4113.52(8) .

-15-


16/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.Instead. t best, he record eflectedhatprior o December 6. 1999.Preve),mav ave i)

treatedKelly rudely' r with hostilitybecause f Kelly's obsessionuvithhe alleged nadequacv fLambda's tepso secure irconium ladding pecimensn aperfectl-v.-latstate uring esting. 2 adctedtwomemorandao hispersonalile withoutKelly'sknowledge hichcriticizedKelh''shandling f thematter, ha (: ) reduced elly's formalannualperformanceatings n September 999 elative o liispriorannual eviewbecausef Kelly's preoccupationith he sample latness"ssue.Trivialepisodesof unpleasantnessr admonition, r otherde minimis employment ctions. tanding lone.cannotsupply egallysufficientevidence f actionablematerialdisciplineor retaliation. ven f t[ey,u,erearguablyimpelledyprotectedactivity. ee, .g., ordv. GeneralMotorsCorp.,305F.3d54-5.55j(6th Cir. 2002) explaininghatan "adverse mployment ction" n the Title VI I context equires nadversealteration n a significant erm or condition of emplo,vment.uch as "terminationol 'employment. demotion videnced y a decreasen wageor salary, ess istinguisheditle.amateriallossof benefits. ignificantly iminishedmaterial esponsibilities.rother ndiceshatmightbe .rniqueto aparticular ituation") (qttotingHollinsv.AtlanricCo., 188F.3d652,662 6thCir. 1999)); ee rl.soKocsis . Multi-care Managetntenr,nc..97 F.3d876.886(6thcir. 1996).

Accordingly,he rial court'sadverse ummary djudication f Kelly's "whistleblower" auseof actionwas egallycompelled n thesubject ecord. ecausehe plaintiffhadproffered nsufficientevidencehat he defendant admaterially unished im for havingundertaken nyactivityprotectedbv thatstatute.e

eO nreview, heplaintiffha salternatively aintainedha thea/sosuspectedha tLambdaha dviolatedOhio's awagainst riminal raud by falsif l, ing ts internaldocumentationo delete l) an y referenceo the long-term esting-procedure roblem,an d 2) Kelly's advisoriesha t he procedure houldbe improved nd hat customersncludingGEND shouldbe notif iedof the ssue.SeeOhio Rev.Code$ 2913.01. l legedly, hatsuspicioneasonablyurvived- t6-


17/21

No.02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.For the samereasons,Kelly's state-law iaim for employment ischarge r discipline n

violation f Ohiopublicpolicymustbesummarilv ejected. ecause.uring rialcourtproceedings.heplaintiff had buttressedhat claim solell'by referenceo the statepublic policy'advanced 1 theWhist leblowerStatute.eeKulchr .s l ructuralibers ,nt ' . .677N.E.2d308.328-19(Ohio997). .A,sdeveloprid bove,as a matterof law, the plaintiff could no t prove hat the defendant iolated heWhistleblower ct . Nevertheless,elly hasargued hat he egislatively-safeguardeduhlic polic't'protectingwhistleblowers rom retaliatorydischarge r disciplinesupports is contmttn av' cctusa .faction rrespectivef his nability o satisfy he echnical lementalequirementsf theWhistleblotverstatute.0

theNRC'sDecember 6,1999 eporl nd efter, ecauseve n f Lambda adnot mpinged0 C.F.R. 1, t sti l lma yhavecommitted tateaw eloniousfraudby deception" ecause.llegedly. ustomersr prospectiveustomers f Lambdawereoccasionallyennitted ccesso its nternalQA Reports.Consequently.heplaintiffha sargued hat.because isalleged easonableuspicionha tLambda adcommitted riminal raud emained iable n February 000.al l of thealleged ctsof retaliation nd/ordisciplinewhich ranspired uring ha tmonthsupport is "whistleblorver" laint.

Th eplaintiff nadequatelyramedha targument efore hedistrict ourt. nd hu shas orfeited t. Theappellatecourtcan, n its discretion, xcuse procedurally efaulted rgulnent nlt ' i f thedistrict ud-ue ad committed plainerror" by failing to addresshe mattersua sponte rrespective f the plaintiff s neglect. "Under that test, beforeanappellate ourtca ncorrect n errornot raisedat trial. heremustbe (l)'error, '(2) that s'plain,'and 3) that'affectssubstantialights. ' f all hree on dit ions remet,anappellateourtmay henexercisetsdiscretiono noticea forfeitederror,but only if (4 ) th eerror seriously ffects he faimess,ntegrity, r public reputation f judicial proceedings."UnitedStates . Cotton,535U.S. 625,631-32 2002). (Citationsandbrackets mitted). Because his reviewing courtconcludesha t he rialjudge id notcommit plainerror"by fail ing o develop elly's criminal raud" heory or hint -a claimwhich,at bottom,wa s acially ubstantively isconceivedor reasonsncludingKelly's failure o sufficientlydevelop t in eitherhiswritten eport(s)o Lambdaor in his writtenreport o the NRC (or in a written report o any otherappropriateaw enforcement gency) -- it cannotsetasidehis procedural orfeitureofthat contention.

'0Corrpor" Pytlinskiv.Brocar Products, nc.,760N.E.2d 385(Ohio 2002)(resolving hat a former employeewhowas ired or fi l ing an OSHA complaintma yprosecute common aw claim or employment ischargen violationofpublic policy even houghhis statutorywhistleblower"claim was ime barred)with Wilesv. Medina Auto Parts,773N.E.2d 52 6 (Ohio 2002) (pronouncinghat, n Ohio, employees re generally erminable t will; wherestatutoryremedies, uc has hoseprovidedby the federalFamilyand MedicalLeaveAct, ar eadequateo insulatean at-willemployeerom illegaldiscipline, o supplementalublicpolicyclaimshould e availableo thatat-wil l employee).-r7 -


18/21

No. 02-3035Kelly v. Lambda Research, nc.Theplaintiff s assertion as ll formulated.n hecasenstanter.the vidence. henconstrued

most avorably or Kelly. couldnot support finding hat.at he ime thatKellr,sustained isallegedmaterialpunishmentsforhis"whist leblou'er"activit ies-namelyhispost-December16.gggemploveradmonitions,eleaserom supervisorv uties.andallegedultimateconstructive ischarge that re vasprotected itherby the etteror the spiritof thestate ublic policyundergirdinghe Whistleblorver au'.As evolvedherein,by Februarl' 000.rvhen he allegedemployer's eriousactsof disciplineandretaliation, swell theplaintifflsactionswhichhad ncited hoseesponses,ookplace.Keil.,,-new hathis conductwasnot substantivelyrotected y the Whistleblower ct. Ohio publicpolicl' doesnolprotect nuncooperativemployee hounjustifiably omplainsomanagementr heauthorities boutnon-existent mployermisconduct;o hecontrarv,Ohio au,expressly tipulateshatsuch ecalcitrantemployeesmay awfully bediscipline or di.scharged See hio Rev.Code$ 4l I 3.52(C).

Therefore,evenassuming.without deciding, hat, in a propercase.an Ohio plaintiff couldprosecute publicpolicyclaim or wrongfuldismissal r discipline nimated y hisor her good aith""whistleblower"-like activitieseven fhe or she ailed to fulfill all substanriveechnical equisites fWhistleblower ct protection, n therationaleha t soundpublicpolicy s advanced y encouraging"good faith" whistleblowing,Kelly's public policy cause f actionnonetheless ust be discarded.because,n thesubject videntiaryecord, t is beyond ontroversyhatKelly objectivelyackedany"good aith" contemporaneouselief ha this actionswhichprecipitatedis alleged iscipline ctuallyfurtheredhe broaderOhio publicpolicyencompassed-v he Whistleblower tatute.rl

I rOn appeal, he claimanthas nsistedhata rationalury could ind thathis terminationoffendedadditional O6iopublicpoliciesbeyond heprotection f "whistleblowers."ncluding heencouragementf overallhonestyn businessdealings,o the extent ha t a ur y allegedly ould reasonably onclude ha t Lanrbda isciplined nd constructivelycashiered elly in February 000because e would not cooperate ith Lambda's chemeo defraud ts clientsby-18-


19/21

No. 02-3035Kellv v. LambdaResearch.nc.Accordingly, he districtcourt's inal summaryudgmentdismissingKell1,''s laimsagainsr

Lambda s AFFIRMED.

concealingrom hempossibleefective orkmanshipnd/orheunreliabilityf Lambda-furnishedn-eineeringata.See' .g.,Collins . Rizkana,652.E.2d 53 Ohio1995)propoundingha tpublic olicy hields nemployeiro,nterminationor refusingo cooperateith heemployern perpetratingllegalor immoral cts).

However, y neglectingo properly oset below,Kellyhas orfeitedheargumenthat he urtherancef anypublic policy,other han he encouragementf good-faithwhistleblowing,"nvalidated is allegedemploymenrdiscipline'Becauset was ot plainerror" or he rialadjudicatorot o consideruasponte dditionalubtic oticieswhichmightbenegativelympactedy Kelly'sdiscipline,his eviewingourt annor xcuseheplaintiifsproceduraldefault. Seeote9. At any ate, venf theclaimant adpreservedhatcontentioneforehe rialcourt. i wouldbeamenableo summaryismissal,ecausehe ecord videnceould otsupport finding hatLambda adasked ellyto do anythingllegalor whichmightmateriallyeceivenypersonn a mannerantamounto fraudor theft.-19-


20/21

No. 02-3035Kelly t,. Lambda Research, nc.

BOGGS,ChiefJudge,concurring. I concur n the ud-ement.utu'riteseparatell'to laboratebr ief lyontwopoints .e l lybaseshisreadingofOhio 'sWhis t leblorverAct .OhioRev.Code5\ '111on an unpublished hio appellate outtopinion: O'Brienv. LibbeyOv'en.s ord C'o..No. L-96-333.lggTWL 67g522,at2 (OhioApp. Oct.3 . I 997).We hereforemayproperly ejecthis nterpretarionof the stitute that the employeemusthavea goodfaith belief that the emplover s creatinga "hazardto publicsafety"or is engagedn a crime. S/eshouldalsonote.however,hat hiscourtandan Ohioappellateourthavebothdeterminedha tprotection nderOhio'sWhistleblower ct is onli'triggeredwhen an employeehasa good aith belief hata criminal violationhasoccurred. Dood1, ,. (lenteriorEnergyCorp.,739N.E.2d85 , 855 OhioApp.2000);Brooks .Martin MariettaUtilitl, Sert,icesnc...No. 97-4068, 998WL 739890. t*5 (6thCir.Oct.8. 1998) unpublishedpinion).Therefore. notlrerclear groundexists or rejectingKelly's contentionha ta good aith concern boutpublic safetl rvassufficiento qualify or protection nder he ohio whistleblowerStatute.

I alsoconcur n the conclusionhatKelly may not at this atestage oint o additional safetl,concerns hat he might have had in order to bolster his Greeleyclaim and distinguish t fron'rhisunsuccessful histleblower laim. Because elly treatedhemas dentical laims n thedistrictcourt.we mustdo thesame n appeal.Even f wewere o considerheGreeley lairnseparately.elly couldnot meet he causation lementof a Greelel,claim because e has not shown that he was fired forreportingLambda o the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission;even assuming,arguendo, hat he wasconstructivelydischarged,he record shows that action was the culmination of a long-standin_rrpersonality onflict, of which the NRC reportwas ust oneaspect. believe.however, hat it remainsan openquestionwhether plaintiffmayhavea meritorio s Greeleltclaim. ven f he hasnot strictly

-20-


21/21

Not. 2-3035Kelly v. LambdaEesearch,nc.complied iththe equirementsf theWhistleblorverct; in fact, heOhioSupreme ourtseemsohaveapprovedhispossibility: appellants entitled o maintain Greeley lainta-eainstppelleeswhether r nothecomplied ith thedictatesf R.C.4113.52theWhistleblower tatute]."Kulch '.

'/ ,Sn'ucturalFibers,677N.E.2d308,328-29(Ohio977).Therefore.wetreatthetwoclaimsasidenticalonly because f theway this particularcasewas itigated.

-21

uscourtappeals6thdistrictcase02no3035

Documents