Where a plaintiff has brought a claim for retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts False Claims Act, the plaintiff cannot prove that he was terminated because of his protected conduct, so the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on that count.
“Plaintiff Kenneth Whalley has brought this lawsuit against his former employer, Diesel Direct, Inc./Diesel Direct, LLC (collectively, ‘Diesel Direct’), its Chief Executive Officer, William McNamara, Jr., and his former supervisor, Augustine Pesaturo (collectively with McNamara, the ‘Individual Defendants’). …
“Assuming Whalley has presented a prima facie case, Diesel Direct has offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Whalley’s employment, including failing to improve his sales performance under the [Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)] and insubordination. The burden thus shifts to Whalley to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual and that he was terminated because of his complaints regarding the Commonwealth contract. On this record, he has not adduced sufficient evidence under which a rational jury could find that his raising potential MFCA claims was the but-for cause of his termination. …
“… There is thus simply no basis for a jury to find that the MFCA issue was the but for cause for Whalley’s termination on this record. Thus, Diesel Direct is entitled to summary judgment on the MFCA claim asserted against it.”
Whalley v. Diesel Direct, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-112-23) (25...
US President made 7 claims, all false: Iran warns of closing Hormuz amid naval blockade: File photo (Source: Xinhua/IANS) Tehran, April 18 (IANS) Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf...