Tommy Wright secures summary judgment in wrongful termination lawsuit

ACB Partner, Tommy Wright, recently secured a complete summary judgment on behalf of a Mississippi state agency and two individually named defendants in a highly contested wrongful termination lawsuit, resulting in the dismissal of all claims made against all defendants.

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed that the state agency wrongfully terminated her at-will employment in retaliation for exposing the allegedly criminal activity of another employee and that two individually named defendants (above the Plaintiff in the chain of command at the state agency) tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff's employment contract.

Generally speaking, Mississippi follows the employment-at-will doctrine, which provides that an employee may be discharged “for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, excepting only reasons independently declared legally impermissible.” Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 254 (Miss. 1985). However, Mississippi courts also recognize a narrow public policy exception to this doctrine called the McArn exception, which allows a tort claim for wrongful termination when an employee is discharged for reporting illegal acts of her employer or a co-employee. See McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603 , 607 (Miss. 1993); Brandi 's Hope Cmty. Servs., LLC v. Walters, 391 So. 3d 162 ,170 (Miss. 2024).

Tommy successfully argued that the state agency was entitled to immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA") and, more specifically, the statutory discretionary-function exception, which immunizes government entities and employees from liability for acts involving judgment or choice, provided they are based on social, economic, or political policy decisions. The Court noted that employment decisions have consistently been found to be discretionary acts protected the MTCA, and further ruled that the individual defendants were clearly acting within the course and scope of their employment with the state agency when they participated in the decision to terminate the Plaintiff’s employment.

Even though the Court ruled that the MTCA immunity grounds were sufficient to grant summary judgment for all defendants, it still addressed the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. In doing so, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to produce competent evidence of actual criminal conduct that would normally be sufficient to invoke the McArn exception. Recognizing that the Plaintiff offered only her own testimony and two pieces of hearsay, the Court found that speculation about what might have been criminally charged does not constitute the “actual illegality” McArn requires. The Court further ruled that the Plaintiff was not terminated for reporting a co-employee’s allegedly criminal conduct and could not establish the requisite causal link between the reporting and termination.

As the Court stated in its Order, the Plaintiff’s claims against the individual employees for tortious interference fared no better than the claims asserted against the state agency. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to support an allegation of malice or bad faith with any competent evidence and echoed Tommy’s argument by ruling that neither employee could be individually liable for a retaliatory discharge claim.

By focusing on the governing legal standards and developing a clear factual record, Tommy successfully demonstrated that the Plaintiff could not establish the essential elements of the claims. The Court’s ruling brought this case to an efficient resolution, sparing our clients the expense and uncertainty of trial. This result reflects Anderson Crawley & Burke’s disciplined approach to defending clients and achieving successful outcomes.

#tommywright