Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND PETER COBURGER v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. * * * Civil No. JFM-99-1405 * * *****

MEMORANDUM

Peter Coburger has instituted this action against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Coburger alleges that he was wrongfully discharged by his former employer, Central Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc. ("CAT") (which has now been merged into Toyota U.S.A.). Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion will be granted. No extensive discussion of the facts is necessary. Coburger was an at-will employee. He asserts that prior to the termination of his employment, he had become "a thorn in the side" of CAT complaining about its violations of corporate policies of Toyota against false sales reporting. He also asserts that he made numerous complaints about Toyota's failure to fund an incentive program known as "Cash Blast '97" at the level it promised dealers it would. He alleges that the failure to fund that program as promised, constituted theft, an unfair deceptive trade practice, and false advertising, and fraudulent misrepresentation by a corporate officer in violation of various Maryland criminal and civil statutes. Maryland does recognize the tort of wrongful discharge. See generally Adler v. American Standard Corp., 432 A.2d 464, 467 (Md. 1981). In order to be actionable, the discharge must "contravene a clear mandate of public policy." Id. at 467. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff to

"demonstrate the policy in question with clarity, specificity and authority . . ." Coburger has not done so here. Mere invocation of statutes that CAT arguably violated is not sufficient. The gravity of CAT's alleged wrongdoing must also be considered. Assuming that CAT acted improperly in submitting false sales reports and that Toyota underfunded the "Cash Blast '97" program, its misconduct is not so clearly criminal or otherwise as to violate fundamental public policy. Moreover, in order to state a cognizable wrongful discharge claim under Maryland law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he was discharged either because he refused to engage in conduct violating a clear mandate of public policy or because he intended to comply with a statutorily prescribed duty to report the unlawful activity. See Adler v. American Standard Corp., 830 F.2d 1303, 1307 (4th Cir. 1987). On deposition plaintiff admitted that he complied with all directives given to him in connection both with the sales reports submitted by CAT and with the "Cash Blast '97" program. He has cited no authority establishing a statutory duty imposed upon him to report the activities of which he complains, and he has come forward with no evidence to demonstrate that he was discharged because he intended to comply with any such duty. Cases such as this are extremely difficult; they require balanced judgment. Employees should not be discharged because they legitimately raise concerns about corporate policies they believe to be unethical or unlawful. However, every disagreement an employee has about his or her employer's activities cannot be converted into a wrongful discharge suit. To do so would undermine the very concept of at-will employment contracts and subject the courts to

2

virtually unlimited litigation. That would be the effect of finding that on this record Coburger has a viable claim against Toyota, and Toyota's motion will therefore be granted. A separate order to that effect is being entered herewith.

Date: March 13, 2000

_________________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND PETER COBURGER v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. * * * Civil No. JFM-99-1405 * * ***** ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 13th day of March 2000 ORDERED 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted; 2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

___________________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

4



Download Coburger v Toyota Motor.pdf

Maryland Law