AWUGAH v. KEY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Filing 21

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER RULE 56 - By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SUSAN AWUGAH,
PLAINTIFF
v.
KEY NATIONAL BANK
ASSOCIATION,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:12-CV-97-DBH

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER RULE 56
A pre-filing conference was held on October 23, 2012.
The defendant KeyBank is contemplating whether to file a motion for
summary judgment on the plaintiff Awugah’s complaint under the Maine
Whistleblower Protection Act. The plaintiff clarified that the only claim in this
case is her whistleblower claim under the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act.
The conference focused on two primary issues that the motion will
address: whether the plaintiff had an objective, good-faith belief that the
signing of Verifone terminals on behalf of clients was illegal; and whether the
defendant fired the plaintiff for merely pretextual reasons, or instead acted in
accordance with a strict “two-strike policy” and fired her for failing to properly
secure an ATM machine for the second time. The defendant argues that the
plaintiff’s belief that the Verifone signings were criminal was not objectively
reasonable (that perhaps they amounted to bad practice or at most commonlaw fraud), and will present evidence that the “two-strike policy” was a well-

established and strictly implemented rule with only one or two exceptions in
the past ten years. The plaintiff in turn plans to introduce evidence that she
believed in good faith that the conduct was illegal, that she was not responsible
for failing to secure the ATM (the conduct for which she was allegedly
disciplined), and that failure to secure an ATM is not always a basis for
termination (through depositions from other managers).
I suggested that this does not appear to be a strong case for summary
judgment given the plaintiff’s apparent ability to show issues of material fact,
and also because any trial in this case would be in the form of a bench trial,
giving this court the ability to render a judgment on partial findings under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 52(c) if appropriate.
The following deadlines were established by agreement:
November 16, 2012: the defendant’s brief is due.
December 14, 2012: the plaintiff’s response is due.
December 28, 2012: the defendant’s reply, if any, is due.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2