United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 96-1245
STEPHEN R. MARQUES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KEVIN J. FITZGERALD,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Tauro,* District Judge.
Thomas S. Brown with whom Stephen A. Rodio was on brief for
appellant. Kathleen M. Powers with whom Marc DeSisto was on brief for
appellee.
October 28, 1996
*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. This case concerns several
claims brought by plaintiff-appellant, Stephen R. Marques,
against the city of East Providence, Rhode Island, based on his
discharge while a probationary employee of the city. Marques,
who had refused to continue a work assignment on a boat at a city
pond due to his fear of capsizing and was subsequently
terminated, sued the city under both state and federal law; the
city removed the case to federal court. The district court
granted directed verdicts for the city on all claims. We affirm
on two claims, and vacate as to Marques' claim under the Rhode
Island Whistleblowers' Act.
BACKGROUND
Marques was hired as a laborer by the city of East
Providence in June 1993.1 On December 22, 1993, several days
before the expiration of his six-month probationary period,
Marques was assigned to work at Jones Pond, cutting weeds in the
pond from an aluminum row boat. Marques, who is unable to swim,
expressed some concerns about the assignment to Gregory Gammell
("Gammell"), the Superintendent of the Parks Department, but was
told by Gammell not to worry about it. On his arrival at Jones
Pond, Marques noticed that there were no life preservers in the
boat, and asked Gammell for one. Gammell initially questioned
Marques' need for the life preserver, but told him he would get
1 We take the facts from the pleadings and from the testimony at trial. See PHC, Inc. v. Pioneer Healthcare, Inc.,
75 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1996).
-2-
one; however, this life preserver was not forthcoming.2 Marques
nevertheless performed the assignment.
On the following day, December 23, 1993, Marques, who had
again been assigned to duty in the boat cutting reeds, told lead
worker Robert Barlow ("Barlow") that he was nervous about working
in the boat, that he would like a life preserver, and that he had
asked for one on the prior day but not received it. Barlow
questioned the need for a life preserver, given the depth of the
water, but said he would call Gammell. Gammell arrived, but sans
life preserver, and subsequently left the site. Marques
testified that he began to feel nauseous during the morning while
working on the boat, which he attributed to motion sickness. At
the morning break, he therefore told Barlow that he wasn't going
back in the boat because he was feeling sick. Barlow indicated
that if Marques didn't return to the boat, Barlow would call
Gammell. During subsequent general conversation between workers
at the pond site about the safety of the project, Marques and
others expressed concerns about the lack of life preservers and
other safety devices. Gammell returned to the pond, and
2 Testimony was presented by city witnesses at trial indicating that the depth of Jones Pond varied between two and five feet. The Pond was created artificially by dredging, and measures approximately 300 feet by 250 feet, with retaining cement walls. We also note that Paul Lemont, the City Manager of East Providence, who gave the original order for the work project at Jones Pond, testified that the weed cutting project could have been performed by laborers in a boat, as actually occurred, or alternatively by laborers wearing boots. On the other hand, Marques testified that at one point during the December 23rd session, he lost hold of a five foot rake he was using; when he grabbed it, the rake was almost fully submerged in the water, and had not yet touched bottom.
-3-
instructed Marques and Barlow to get in his car. On their
arrival at Gammell's office, Gammell instructed Marques to "punch
out" and then terminated him.3 Marques did not discuss his
safety concerns with Gammell during the car trip or at his
termination. Gammell informed Marques that he was being
terminated because he wouldn't get back in the boat and because
of his attitude.
Marques subsequently met with City Manager Lemont to discuss
his firing. At this meeting, Marques explained his concerns
about safety and his physical ills to Lemont; however, Lemont
later wrote Marques a letter informing him that the decision to
terminate Marques would stand.
Shortly after his termination, Marques began experiencing
physical symptoms such as tightness in his chest and difficulty
breathing, which his physician attributed to situational anxiety
brought on by his firing. His doctor prescribed medications and
counseling. Marques also began experiencing marital
difficulties.
Marques sued the city in state court, alleging violations of
a number of state statutes, including the Rhode Island
Whistleblowers' Act, as well as federal claims including the
Americans with Disabilities Act. He also claimed that the city's
actions constituted negligent or intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and that the city had violated the Rhode
3 During the probationary period, city employees could be fired for any reason, with or without cause, and also could not file a grievance with the city regarding a discharge.
-4-
Island Regulation of Boats law.4 The city removed the case to
federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. At
the close of the evidence, the district court granted a directed
verdict for the city on all counts.5 This appeal on three of
the claims followed.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the directed verdicts on the appealed claims
is plenary; as such we must apply the same criteria used by the
district court, with all proof and inferences reasonably drawn
therefrom viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
Gibson v. City of Cranston, 37 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir. 1994). To
affirm, we must find that the evidence on each count would permit
thoughtful factfinders to reach but one conclusion. Fashion
House v. K Mart Corp., 892 F.2d 1076, 1088 (1st Cir. 1989).
After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the district
court on the intentional infliction of emotional distress and
4 The specific statutes under which Marques' claims were brought are as follows: the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act (R.I. Gen. Laws 28-50-1 - 9); the Americans With Disabilities Act (on the grounds that the city saw him as disabled) (42 U.S.C. 12100 et seq.); the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (R.I. Gen. Laws 28-50-1 - 28-50-9); the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (R.I. Gen. Laws 42-112-1 et seq.); and Rhode Island's Regulation of Boats law (R.I. Gen. Laws 46-22-1 - 19).
5 Marques voluntarily dismissed a claim that the city's actions violated Rhode Island's safe boating practices public policy. After the trial court had granted directed verdicts on all the other claims, Marques moved to reinstate this count; however, the district court denied this motion. We need not address this issue because appellant did not brief it. See
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Public Service Com'n of Puerto Rico,
906 F.2d 25, 40 (1990) (appellant waives any issue not adequately raised in initial brief).
-5-
Rhode Island Regulation of Boats claims, but vacate on the
appellant's claim under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act. We
deal first with the most significant claim.
A. Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act Claim
The Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act provides in relevant
part that:
An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, location, or privileges of employment (1) because the employee [...] reports or is about to report to a public body, verbally or in writing, a violation which the employee knows or reasonably believes has occurred or is about to occur, of a law or regulation, or rule promulgated under the law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States, unless the employee knows or has reason to know that the report is false....6
Accordingly, an employee must demonstrate that there was a causal
connection between the report and the termination.
The statute does not explicitly define what constitutes a
"report" or "reporting" a suspected or known violation. However,
it does define "public body" as follows:
(4) "Public body" means all of the following:[...] (iii) A county, city, town, or regional governing body, a council, school district, or a board, department, commission, agency, or any member or employee thereof.7
6 R.I. Gen. Laws 28-50-3(1) (1995). The current Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act was enacted in 1995, and replaced an earlier version of the Whistleblowers' Act that carried a different statutory number, (R.I. Gen. Laws 36-15-1 - 10); however, the terms of this section were unchanged.
7 R.I. Gen. Laws 28-50-2(4)(iii) (1995).
-6-
The district court concluded that this statute is
inapplicable in the circumstances of this case because Marques'
statements could not be construed as "reports" to a "public
body." The district court reasoned that the statute contemplates
a situation in which an employee reports or threatens to report a
violation of a law to a third party with jurisdiction over the
violation. For the district court, Marques' statements were
merely explanations for his refusal to return to the boat, rather
than reports to an appropriate individual or body of known or
suspected violations.
Marques argues on appeal that the district court gave an
overly narrow interpretation to the statute's provisions. He
claims that his statements to Barlow could fall within the
statute and that both caselaw (albeit from other jurisdictions)
and public policy support his view. The city, on the other hand,
contends that the district court properly construed the
provision; it maintains that Marques made no statements to Barlow
or other supervisors that reasonably could be construed as
reports of violations to a public body.
Our task is complicated by the lack of guideposts. There is
no relevant legislative history indicating the intent of Rhode
Island lawmakers concerning the interpretation of these terms.
Furthermore, Rhode Island courts have not directly interpreted
"report" or "public body" under the statute. We do, however,
have the statutory language, which must be construed consistently
with its purpose. Our review of the language of the statute,
-7-
together with an examination of similar statutes from other
jurisdictions, with an eye to the public policy underlying such
whistleblowers' statutes, counsels a broader view of the statute
than that adopted by the district court.
We begin with principles of statutory construction. Where
the terms of a statute are clear, a court must give the words
their plain and obvious meaning. See Ellis v. Rhode Island
Public Transit Authority, 586 A.2d 1055, 57 (R.I. 1991);
O'Connell v. Shalala, 79 F.3d 170, 176 (1st Cir. 1996) (courts
are bound to give statutes a practical, commonsense reading).
Furthermore, a statute may not be construed in a manner that
results in absurdities or defeats its underlying purpose. In re
Falstaff Brewing Corp., 637 A.2d 1047, 1050 (R.I. 1994). As
noted, the statute explicitly includes municipal employees in the
definition of "public body"; however, the boundaries of the
definition of "report" are still unclear. Therefore, we turn to
Rhode Island's sister states in search of further clarification.8
Similar whistleblowers' statutes are found in Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Of these, the Connecticut
statute bears the closest resemblance to the Rhode Island statute
at hand, although it, too, has not been the focus of relevant
caselaw.9 Generally, these whistleblowers' statutes appear to
8 We look first to those states within our own circuit, and then to the state (Connecticut) with the statute that most resembles the one at issue here.
9 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 31-51m (West 1987)("No employer shall discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize any
-8-
fall into two broad categories: statutes like Rhode Island's and
Connecticut's, which are broadly drafted, and do not explicitly
include statements to an employee's supervisor within the rubric
of reports to a public body, and more detailed statutes like
those of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire. The statutes in
this second category are considerably more complex than those of
the first type; these explicitly include statements to a
supervisor within protected behavior, and indeed, require it as a
preliminary reporting step.10 Clearly, under this type of
statute, Marques' statements to Barlow would come under the
umbrella of protected actions. Such is not as clearly the case
here, where we must deal with a more broadly drafted statute.
Marques, confronted with a paucity of Rhode Island
authorities on this issue, points to two cases from other
jurisdictions dealing with whistleblowers to support his
assertion that public policy supports a broad reading of the
Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act. Appeal of Bio Energy Corp.,
607 A.2d 606 (N.H. 1992), concerned an employee who was
terminated after bringing to her supervisor's attention a
employee because the employee ... reports, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of any state or federal law or regulation or any municipal ordinance or regulation to a public body ....").
10 See, e.g., N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 275-E (1987 & Supp.
1995) ("[the protections of this section] shall not apply to any employee unless the employee first brought the alleged violation to the attention of a person having supervisory authority with the employer, and then allowed the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct that violation...."); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 149, 185(b)(1) et seq. (West 1996); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26 831(1) - 833(2) (West 1988).
-9-
violation of State Department of Labor rules regarding payment of
wages. Id. at 607. The court there found that the New Hampshire
statute, which mandates an initial report to a supervisor,
applies to employees from the point of this initial report. Id.
at 608-09. The court noted the dual purposes of the New
Hampshire Act: "to encourage employees to come forward and
report violations without fear of losing their jobs and to ensure
that as many alleged violations as possible are resolved
informally within the workplace." Id. at 609. Similar purposes,
Marques argues, undergird the Rhode Island statute. The city,
however, distinguishes Bio Energy from our case on the grounds
that the Rhode Island statute, unlike the New Hampshire one, does
not contain specific language including supervisors within the
group to whom reports may be made, and that no intent to do so
should be inferred.
Bechtel Construction Co. v. Labor Sec'y, 50 F.3d 926, 931-32
(11th Cir. 1995), concerned an internal complaint made pursuant
to the whistleblowers' provisions of the Energy Reorganization
Act, rather than to a state whistleblowers' Act. There, the
court broadly construed the Act's terms (which prohibited
discharging or discriminating against employees who assisted with
or participated in "proceedings") to encompass the actions of an
employee who called violations of procedures for handling
radiation-contaminated tools at a nuclear power plant to the
-10-
attention of his supervisor. Id. at 931-32.11 Marques argues
that public policy counsels a similarly broad reading of the
Rhode Island statute. The city, however, maintains that the
Energy Reorganization Act's inclusion of the "catchall" phrase
"or any other action" at the end of the whistleblowers' section
in question indicated an intent not present in the Rhode Island
statute to extend the protections afforded employees beyond
"proceedings" to include internal complaints.
As the whistleblowers' provisions at issue in Bechtel do not
mirror those at issue in this case, the comparison of the Rhode
Island Whistleblowers' Act to the Energy Reorganization Act,
while informative, is not dispositive. But, we take from both
this case and Bio Energy an important and applicable public
policy consideration -- that employees should not be discouraged
from reporting suspected violations initially to supervisors. We
see no significant policy served by extending whistleblower
protection only to those who carry a complaint beyond the
institutional wall, denying it to the employee who seeks to
improve operations from within the organization. The latter
course appears to us as more likely to lead to prompt resolution
of issues related to suspected violations of laws or regulations.
11 The court partially based this finding on the fact that whistleblowers' provisions in other regulations such as the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have been deemed to include internal complaints. Bechtel, 50 F.3d at 932.
The court also noted that deference is given to administrative interpretation of regulations under Chevron v. Natural Resources
Defense Counsel, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984).
-11-
We therefore conclude that a jury permissibly could find the
Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act applicable to statements made by
an employee to a supervisor concerning known or suspected
violations of the law. The terms of the statute specifically
define a "public body" as including "[a]...city...governing
body...or any...employee thereof." We do not read this language
as covering all municipal employees, such as a co-worker, but as
including a superior charged with carrying out the policies and
decisions of the city. While the Act does not explicitly address
statements to supervisors, as do other states' whistleblowers'
statutes, the public policy behind these statutes is surely
similar: to encourage the prompt reporting and early, amicable
resolution of potentially dangerous workplace situations, and to
protect those employees who do report such violations from
retaliatory action by employers.
We do not, of course, hold that a verdict for Marques is
therefore mandated; the jury must decide whether the statements
he made fall under a more expansive reading of the statute than
that allowed by the district court, and then whether Marques was
actually fired as a result of his statements to Barlow. However,
we think that the question of whether Marques' statements bring
him within the protection of the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act
was one for the jury, and not a proper subject for a directed
verdict.
Marques raised concerns about the project twice with Gammell
on December 22nd: first, when he initially received the
-12-
assignment to work in the boat on Jones Pond, and then again, at
the Pond, where he fruitlessly asked Gammell for a life
preserver. Furthermore, Marques testified on direct examination
that on December 23rd, after the morning break, he told Barlow he
did not want to go back in the boat because he felt sick, that he
did not feel conditions in the pond were safe, and that he still
had not gotten a life preserver. On cross examination, Marques
again testified that he had told Barlow he was not feeling well,
that he was not going back in the boat, and that during general
conversation on the shore, he and others discussed the safety of
the project. Moreover, as we have observed in note 2, supra, the
evidence of the depth of the pond was not so clear that Marques'
fear was completely unfounded. We do not feel that a reasoned
factfinder could have reached but one conclusion on the issue
whether these statements constituted a report of a violation
covered by the Rhode Island Act and whether Marques' termination
was the result of his statements.
Accordingly, we vacate the directed verdict on the Rhode Island
Whistleblowers' Act claim and remand it for retrial.
B. Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
Marques also appeals the district court's grant of a
directed verdict for the city on his claim that the city's
actions either negligently or intentionally caused him emotional
distress. Under Rhode Island law, a plaintiff, to succeed, must
show that 1) the defendant's conduct was intentional or in
reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional
-13-
distress, 2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, 3) there was
a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the
emotional distress, and 4) the emotional distress in question was
severe. See Champlin v. Washington Trust Co., 478 A.2d 985, 989
(R.I. 1984) (adopting standard of Restatement (Second) of Torts
46). Additionally, Rhode Island requires a physical
manifestation of the emotional distress. Id. at 990. The
district court rejected this claim on the ground that the
evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a finding that the
city's actions in terminating Marques were extreme and
outrageous.12 We agree. While being terminated several days shy
of the end of his probation period may not have been pleasant for
Marques, we do not believe that a jury would properly have found
on the evidence presented that the conduct of Barlow, Gammell,
and Lemont was sufficient to make an "average member of the
community ... exclaim 'Outrageous'." Borden v. Paul Revere Life
Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370, 380 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Torts 46, comment (d)).13
12 In assessing whether conduct is extreme and outrageous, Rhode Island courts have used three factors: 1) the conduct itself; 2) the particular relationship of the parties; and 3) the known or knowable susceptibility of the plaintiff to the emotional injury. Russell v. Salve Regina College, 649 F. Supp.
391, 401 (D.R.I. 1986), aff'd, 890 F.2d 484 (R.I. 1989).
13 Both parties note that in Moniodis v. Cook, 494 A.2d
212 (Md. 1985), the court found an employee who was discharged after her refusal to submit to a polygraph test stated a colorable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that the employer's actions were extreme and outrageous because the employer knew the employee was dedicated to her work, that she had a pre-existing nervous condition, and she was emotionally debilitated as a result of the termination.
-14-
C. Rhode Island Boating Law
Finally, Marques appeals the directed verdict on the Rhode
Island Boating Laws claim.
R.I. Gen. Laws 46-22-15 provides that
the owner of a vessel shall be liable for any injury or damage occasioned by the negligent operation of the vessel, whether the negligence consists of a violation of the provisions of the statutes of this state, or neglecting to observe such ordinary care and such operation as the rules of the common law require.
This statute therefore requires "negligent operation" of a
vessel and that a plaintiff's injuries be proximately caused by
this negligent operation. Even were negligent operation of the
boat in question to be found, as to which we express some doubt,
this claim would nevertheless founder on the proximate cause
requirement: the connection between Marques' injuries, including
his discharge and resulting alleged damages, and the city's
operation of the boat on Jones Pond is too attenuated. We
therefore affirm the district court's ruling on this claim too.
CONCLUSION
The Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Act properly may be
construed to encompass statements made by an employee to a
supervisor concerning known or suspected violations of the law.
This accords with the terms of the statute itself, and with the
public policies underlying this type of statute. As a jury could
have inferred that Marques' statements to Barlow constituted such
We find the facts of that case as they related to the employer's actions clearly distinguishable in nature and degree from those alleged here.
-15-
"reports" to a "public body" under this broader construction of
the statute, and that he was fired as a result of these
statements, we vacate the district court's directed verdict on
this claim. However, we affirm the district court's judgments on
the negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
and on the violation of the Rhode Island Boating Safety Act
claim.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. One half
costs to appellant.
-16-