On July 25, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Finley v. Kraft Heinz Inc. upending the grant of summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation case. While the case considered a narrow claim for retaliation under the Food Safety Modernization Act, its reasoning will have ramifications for all employers facing retaliation claims under federal or state whistleblower laws.  

The plaintiff alleged that he was fired after repeatedly raising concerns about leaking packaging and bone fragments in the company’s production of bacon. The frequency of his complaints increased over time and culminated with a complaint on March 12, 2020. Fourteen days later, the company fired him. Like many other whistleblower laws, the statute at issue required the plaintiff to show that his complaints were a contributing factor to the adverse action. This is a lower standard of causation than applies in other contexts, such as Title VII, but still requires persuasive evidence tying the adverse action to the protected activity.  

The company moved for summary judgment and argued that the plaintiff was fired for an intervening act. Specifically, the company claimed that the plaintiff had signed the termination form for one of his employees on March 12 but failed to inform the employee, who continued working until March 24. When asked about the situation by HR, the plaintiff allegedly falsely claimed that he had walked her out and deactivated her badge. The company terminated the plaintiff for this purported dishonesty.  

While both the magistrate judge and district court judge were convinced that this intervening act broke the chain of causation, the Fourth Circuit disagreed. The court explained that "an 'intervening event' is not a talisman that makes all other evidence of causation disappear, establishing conclusively that there can be no connection between protected activity and an adverse action." Instead, intervening events should be considered in conjunction with other evidence of causation. When viewing the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that summary judgment was improper. The plaintiff had shown close temporal proximity, was disciplined more severely than another supervisor involved in the non-firing of an employee, and that company HR employees disagreed whether the plaintiff’s had actually been dishonest. Consequently, the court determined that a jury must ultimately decide the plaintiff’s "dishonesty" was the sole reason for termination or instead whether his internal complaints contributed to the decision.  

What should employers take away from this decision? An "intervening event" is not a get-out-of-jail free card when you fire a chronic complainer. Instead, it is just another fact that must be weighed against all others when assessing whether a plaintiff can show causation. Before terminating an employee with a history of complaints, employers should carefully assess their justifications and candidly assess whether they would be taking adverse action in the absence of the employee’s complaints.  

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.