Sherman v. Berkadia Commercial Mortgage, No. 19-1373 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Berkadia in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the employer terminated him in retaliation for actions protected by the False Claims Act (FCA) and Missouri law. The court held that defendant failed to establish direct evidence of retaliation. Although defendant produced evidence that Berkadia management did not implement, and were at times critical of, some of his suggestions regarding compliance with HUD regulations, there is also evidence that plaintiff's supervisors disapproved of other parts of his job performance. Therefore, he failed to prove that his termination was solely motivated by protected activity under the FCA.
The court also held that, even assuming that his wrongful discharge claim was not waived, none of the HUD compliance issues plaintiff raised internally during his tenure amount to "serious misconduct" on the part of Berkadia or its employees. Therefore, plaintiff's wrongful-termination claim failed, because he failed to show that Berkadia's activity violated clearly mandated public policy.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment law. In action alleging defendant improperly terminated plaintiff's employment in retaliation for actions protected by the Missouri False Claims Act, the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; plaintiff failed to present direct evidence of retaliation and the indirect evidence he presented would not allow a reasonable jury to find that defendant fired him solely for protected activity; without meaningful argument specific to his claim for wrongful discharge, plaintiff waived the claim; even if he had preserved the claim none of his evidence showed that Missouri's very narrowly-drawn public-policy exception to at-will employment applied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.