Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The "Big Dig" highway project, built largely with federal funds, has transformed vehicular travel in Boston. Defendant supplied concrete and, on occasion, secretly substituted substandard material for the concrete required by contract specifications. Certain employees, including plaintiff, learned of the deception and brought a sealed qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. The federal government intervened, and settled the case for several million dollars. Plaintiff received a percentage of the settlement. A few days after he signed the settlement, defendant dismissed plaintiff, allegedly for his refusal to take a drug test. Plaintiff sued, asserting pretext and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, applying a burden-shifting analysis and concluding that the circumstances of the firing are open to legitimate question and that the record, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to plaintiff, did not warrant the entry of summary judgment.

In 1997, a new owner purchased the hotel and employed plaintiff, an employee since 1985 as executive housekeeper. Patel was the general manager; their relationship began to deteriorate in 2003. Plaintiff attributes the change to her age, claiming that Patel made ageist comments. The owner stopped giving plaintiff annual evaluations and raises in 2004, despite company policy. Plaintiff reported Patel's behavior to headquarters; a vice president met with Patel but did not take disciplinary action. The vice president testified that the company had financial difficulties and that plaintiff's salary had maxed out. The owner terminated plaintiff in 2006. After filing a complaint with the EEOC and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, she brought claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621-624, and the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff only on her state law claim and awarded $7,650.00 in compensatory damages. The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the court's decision to give a "mixed motive" jury instruction without certifying the issue to the state supreme court and declining to give a limitations period instruction.

Plaintiffs brought separate suits alleging unlawful retaliation by their corporate employers, which are private companies that act as contract advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The district court addressed both cases in a single order, holding that the whistleblower protection provision within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1514A extends beyond "employees" of "public" companies to encompass employees of private companies that are contractors or subcontractors to those public companies if the employees report violations "relating to fraud against shareholders." The First Circuit reversed, concluding that the protections are limited to employees of public companies, as defined by the statute.

Following vacation of his original sentence for conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and remand for resentencing, the district court sentenced defendant to a 10-year term. The First Circuit affirmed. The court upheld a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm "in connection with another felony offense," USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice; and calculation of the criminal history level. The court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.