Donn Milton, Dr. v. Iit Research Institute
138 F.3d 519 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Maryland law, a wrongful discharge claim for whistleblowing requires that the employee was terminated for fulfilling a specific, statutorily prescribed legal duty for which they would be held personally responsible, not merely for acting on a general fiduciary duty to the corporation.
Facts:
- IIT Research Institute (IITRI), a tax-exempt organization, employed Donn Milton at its facility in Lanham, Maryland, promoting him to Vice President in 1995.
- Milton came to believe IITRI was improperly failing to report taxable income to the IRS.
- He raised these concerns with IITRI's President, John Scott, and its Treasurer, but no corrective action was taken.
- An outside legal opinion obtained by IITRI suggested that some of its income was likely taxable.
- In November 1996, Milton informed the Chairman of the Board, Lew Collens, that President Scott had falsely reported to the board that no tax issues existed.
- On January 1, 1997, Scott demoted Milton.
- On February 12, 1997, Milton's attorney contacted IITRI, alleging the demotion was retaliation.
- Two days later, on February 14, 1997, Milton received a termination letter from Collens at his Maryland office.
Procedural Posture:
- Donn Milton filed a lawsuit for wrongful discharge and breach of contract against IITRI in a Virginia state court.
- IITRI removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The district court granted IITRI's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)).
- The district court applied Virginia choice-of-law rules, determined Maryland law governed the dispute, and found Milton's claim was not viable under that law.
- Milton (appellant) appealed the dismissal of his wrongful discharge claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with IITRI as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Maryland law, does firing a corporate officer for internally reporting potential corporate tax fraud violate a clear mandate of public policy sufficient to support a wrongful discharge claim, when the officer has no specific, personal legal duty to make such a report?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkinson
No. Terminating a corporate officer for reporting potential tax fraud internally does not violate a clear mandate of public policy unless the officer was fulfilling a specific legal duty for which he was personally responsible. The court first determined that under Virginia's choice of law rule, lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong), Maryland law governs because the termination occurred in Maryland, where Milton worked and received notice of his dismissal. The court then analyzed Maryland's 'narrow exception' to the at-will employment doctrine, which allows claims for wrongful discharge that contravene a 'clear mandate of public policy.' Such a mandate exists only when an employee is fired for refusing to break the law or for exercising a specific legal right or duty. Milton was not asked to break the law, and his claim rested on fulfilling a duty. The court found that this duty must be a specific, statutorily prescribed obligation for which the employee could be held personally liable, citing cases where protection was granted for mandatory reporting of child abuse but denied for reporting internal regulatory issues that were the company's responsibility. Milton's broad, common-law fiduciary duties of 'care and loyalty' as a corporate officer were deemed too general to qualify as the kind of specific legal duty required to support a wrongful discharge claim. To hold otherwise would transform Maryland's 'narrow exception' into a broad protection for any internal disagreement, a step the court, especially a federal court interpreting state law, was unwilling to take without a clear legislative directive.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the public policy exception to at-will employment for corporate whistleblowers under Maryland law. It establishes that protection does not extend to employees, even high-ranking officers, who report misconduct based on general fiduciary duties. The ruling requires whistleblowers to identify a specific statute or regulation that imposes a personal, non-delegable duty upon them to report the wrongdoing in order to state a claim. This raises the bar for such lawsuits and emphasizes judicial reluctance to expand public policy exceptions without explicit legislative guidance, thereby reinforcing the traditional strength of the employment-at-will doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Donn Milton, Dr. v. Iit Research Institute