Wrongful Termination – Employment Contract in Rhode Island

Background

“The law in Rhode Island is clear that employees such as plaintiff who are hired for an indefinite period with no contractual right to continued employment are [considered] at will employees who are subject to discharge at any time for any permissible reason or for no reason at all.” (See School District v. Dube, No. 05-16, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 5, 2005)

As such, if “the time of employment was not established by the parties in advance, the employment relationship is terminable at will by either the employee or the employer.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The burden of production falls on the defendant under the McDonnell Douglas framework to come forward with legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the employee's termination once a plaintiff establishes her prima facie case.” (See Velez v. Microfibres, Inc., C.A. No. PC 01-6540, at *1 (R.I. Super. Jan. 12, 2017).)

“The elimination of the presumption of discrimination established by the prima facie case is contingent upon the defendant offering these legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.” (See id.)

“Where an employer asserts a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for terminating an employee, the United States Supreme Court has held that whether the employee actually established a prima facie case is "no longer relevant" and thus disappears and "drops out of the picture." (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“To put forth a prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. membership in a protected group;
2. qualification for the job in question;
3. an adverse employment action; and
4. circumstances that support an inference of discrimination." 

(Velez v. Microfibres, Inc., C.A. No. PC 01-6540, at *1 (R.I. Super. Jan. 12, 2017); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002) (citations omitted).

“The burden of establishing a prima facie case is easily made, and not especially onerous." (See id.)

“The threshold necessary to establish a prima facie case is relatively low." (See Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics (1998) 44 F.3d 151, 165-66.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“This Court reviews a hearing justice's grant of summary judgment in a de novo manner, applying the same standards and rules as did the motion justice.” (See Lomastro v. Iacovelli (2015) 126 A.3d 470, 473.)

“In conducting our review, we remain mindful that [s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously.” (See id.)

“However, it is well settled that [s]ummary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court determines that there are no issues of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

“In making a summary judgment determination, the hearing justice must refrain from weighing the evidence or passing upon issues of credibility.” (See id.)

“Accordingly, we have recognized that the purpose of the summary judgment procedure is issue finding, not issue determination.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “without an employment relationship with the town upon which to base a wrongful termination claim, her claim must fail.” (See id.)

It is also well settled that “upon the employer's articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to terminate the employee, the third and final prong prescribed by the McDonnell-Douglas framework shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to focus on the ultimate question of discrimination vel non. Under this prong, the plaintiff must prove that the real reason he or she was terminated was due to the employer's unlawful animus toward the employee.” (See Velez v. Microfibres, Inc., C.A. No. PC 01-6540, at *1 (R.I. Super. Jan. 12, 2017).)