On November 13, 2023, in USA ex rel, Morgan-Lee, et al. v. The Whittier Health Network, LLC, et al., a Massachusetts federal district judge concluded that although the plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she raised suspicions about billing fraud under the False Claims Act, her termination was not retaliatory where she engaged in erratic, confrontational, and insubordinate communication exchanges with superiors and colleagues. Morgan-Lee is a positive development for employers because it reinforces that engaging in protected activity does not shield an employee from the consequences of insubordination and other company policy violations.


The plaintiff worked for Therapy Resources Management, LLC (“TRM”), as a Director of Clinical Services, responsible for identifying and reporting billing discrepancies. Notably, the plaintiff could make recommendations but the authority to implement resided solely with TRM’s executives.

In spring or summer 2011, TRM increased the plaintiff’s duties after the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services rolled out its overhauled billing requirements and procedures set to take effect that fall. The plaintiff’s relations and interactions with her peers and superiors began to sour after the plaintiff raised concerns about TRM’s operations and documentation. In particular, the plaintiff conveyed her concerns “stridently” and took great offense when TRM did not implement her recommendations. Additionally, despite several emails from TRM’s president reminding her she lacked implementation authority, the plaintiff issued directives to TRM employees and insisted on their discipline for what she deemed “insufficient[] respons[es] to her recommendations.” The plaintiff grew increasingly incensed and felt undermined when TRM’s president attempted to mediate the plaintiff’s “increasingly strained” relations with her peers and superiors. The plaintiff then complained about her colleagues and her “work-related stress,” to which TRM’s president expressed genuine concern for her well-being and offered to help her find an alternative, less-stressful role.

By the fall of 2011, relations between the plaintiff and her superiors reached a tipping point after she angrily stormed out of a client meeting because “although [she] did not know precisely how the claim was being handled, she was certain that [the client’s] approach was fraudulent[.]” Upon leaving the client’s office, the plaintiff had a “contentious phone call” with TRM’s president.

Shortly after the plaintiff’s contentious phone call, she abruptly took time off with little notice. TRM then engaged employment counsel and emailed the plaintiff to address her unexcused absences, to offer formal leave, and to help resolve any issues with the plaintiff’s supervisor and colleagues. In response, the plaintiff invoked whistleblower protections and accused the company of retaliation and harassment. TRM then allowed the plaintiff to take a formal leave of absence.

When TRM sought to address the plaintiff’s allegations, she refused to provide any specifics of misconduct or otherwise cooperate with TRM’s investigation. Accordingly, TRM extended the plaintiff’s leave through Thanksgiving and terminated her employment in December 2011.

In 2013, the plaintiff sued, alleging unlawful retaliation under the False Claims Act and the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act.


Judge Woodlock concluded that, although the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity under the False Claims Act, her termination was not retaliatory. First, Judge Woodlock found that the six-month period between the plaintiff’s “explicit and specific reports of misconduct in the spring of 2011” and her termination in December “undercut[] her contention that her discharge was actually in retaliation for whistleblowing about problematic billing practices.” Judge Woodlock also concluded that TRM’s attempts to accommodate the plaintiff despite her lack of professionalism, insubordination, and unexcused absences “suggest[ed] that the company was more interested in retaining her as a productive employee in some capacity than in firing her.”

Second, Judge Woodlock found that the plaintiff’s own insubordination justified her termination.  Specifically, the Judge reasoned: “the breakdown of [the plaintiff’s] employment relationship was the culmination of an escalating pattern of erratic, confrontational and frequently insubordinate communications by [the plaintiff] with superiors and colleagues, rather than the product of any retaliatory animus on the part of TRM.” While the plaintiff’s insubordination alone sufficiently justified her termination, Judge Woodlock found that she “was discharged because of a spate of unapproved absences and an outright refusal to provide specifics about purported fraudulent activity, even though that was her job.” In doing so, Judge Woodlock relied heavily on contemporaneous email exchanges that often undercut the plaintiff’s credibility.


 Morgan-Lee is a favorable decision for employers as it reinforces that engaging in protected activity does not shield an employee from the consequences arising from acts of insubordination and violations of other company policies. Morgan-Lee also underscores the importance of documenting all behaviors and incidents underlying employee discipline. Of course, every whistleblower case is fact-specific, and the outcome can vary depending on the applicable statutory scheme and jurisdiction, so employers should proceed with caution and consult employment counsel before subjecting a whistleblower to an adverse employment action.

Back to Workforce Bulletin Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Workforce Bulletin posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.