Fitch v. Reliant Phrmctl

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 75 (1888).
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10253
Summary Calendar
Candance M. Fitch
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
Reliant Pharmaceuticals, LLC
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 04-CV-615
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-appellant Candance M. Fitch appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee Reliant
Pharmaceuticals. We affirm.
Texas is an employment-at-will state.1 The Texas Supreme
Court carved a “narrow” exception to the employment-at-will
doctrine in Sabine Pilot v. Hauck. There, the Texas Supreme Court
held that a terminated employee can recover damages against the
former employer if the terminated employee can show that the “sole
cause” of her termination was her refusal to perform an illegal

-- 1 of 2 --

2Sabine Pilot v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985).
3Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995).
2
act.2 However, “An employer who discharges an employee both for
refusing to perform an illegal act and for a legitimate reason or
reasons cannot be liable for wrongful discharge.”3
Fitch claims she was terminated for refusal to violate the
Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”). Assuming without
deciding that Fitch was asked to violate the PDMA, she has failed
to create a fact issue on whether such refusal was the “sole” cause
of her termination. Reliant submitted the affidavit of Doug Tate,
one of Fitch’s supervisors at Reliant. Tate averred that an
internal audit revealed inconsistencies in Fitch’s call reports,
that he received complaints from doctors that Fitch failed to show
up for scheduled appointments, that doctors refused to schedule
appointments with Fitch, and that Fitch submitted inconsistent
expense reports. Fitch’s responded by pointing to deposition
testimony in which she testified that she could not recall whether
she had missed any appointments. These equivocal statements are
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient
to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --