Fitch v. Reliant Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Fifth Circuit

Fitch v. Reliant Pharmaceuticals, LLC

192 F. App'x 302

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2006

Docket06-10253

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 F. App'x 302 (Fitch v. Reliant Pharmaceuticals, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fitch v. Reliant Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 192 F. App'x 302 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-appellant Candance M. Fitch appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee Reliant Pharmaceuticals. We affirm.

Texas is an employment-at-will state. 1 The Texas Supreme Court carved a “narrow” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Sabine Pilot v. Hauck. There, the Texas Supreme Court held that a terminated employee can recover damages against the former employer if the terminated employee can show that the “sole cause” of her termination was her refusal to perform an illegal act. 2 However, “An employer who discharges an employee both for refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason or reasons cannot be liable for wrongful discharge.” 3

Fitch claims she was terminated for refusal to violate the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”). Assuming without deciding that Fitch was asked to violate the PDMA, she has failed to create a fact issue on whether such refusal was the “sole” cause of her termination. Reliant submitted the affidavit of Doug Tate, one of Fitch’s supervisors at Reliant. Tate averred that an internal audit revealed inconsistencies in Fitch’s call reports, that he received complaints from doctors that Fitch failed to show up for scheduled appointments, that doctors refused to schedule appointments with Fitch, and that Fitch submitted inconsistent expense reports. Fitch’s responded by pointing to deposition testimony in which she testified that she could not recall whether she had missed any appointments. These equivo *304 cal statements are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 75, 10 S.W. 99 (1888).

2

. Sabine Pilot v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985).

3

. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-appellant Candance M. Fitch appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee Reliant Pharmaceuticals. We affirm.

Texas is an employment-at-will state. 1 The Texas Supreme Court carved a “narrow” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Sabine Pilot v. Hauck. There, the Texas Supreme Court held that a terminated employee can recover damages against the former employer if the terminated employee can show that the “sole cause” of her termination was her refusal to perform an illegal act. 2 However, “An employer who discharges an employee both for refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason or reasons cannot be liable for wrongful discharge.” 3

Fitch claims she was terminated for refusal to violate the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”). Assuming without deciding that Fitch was asked to violate the PDMA, she has failed to create a fact issue on whether such refusal was the “sole” cause of her termination. Reliant submitted the affidavit of Doug Tate, one of Fitch’s supervisors at Reliant. Tate averred that an internal audit revealed inconsistencies in Fitch’s call reports, that he received complaints from doctors that Fitch failed to show up for scheduled appointments, that doctors refused to schedule appointments with Fitch, and that Fitch submitted inconsistent expense reports. Fitch’s responded by pointing to deposition testimony in which she testified that she could not recall whether she had missed any appointments. These equivo *304 cal statements are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 75, 10 S.W. 99 (1888).

2

. Sabine Pilot v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985).

3

. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 F. App'x 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitch-v-reliant-pharmaceuticals-llc-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack