Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

Greene, J. In this case, Petitioner, Daniel S. Yuan, M.D. (“Dr. Yuan”), challenges the Court of Special Appeals’ conclusion that there was no clear public policy mandate to support a claim for wrongful termination for reporting research misconduct in a federally funded project at Respondent institution Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (“JHU”), a scientific research institution. Dr. Yuan was a researcher employed by JHU. The suit arises from Dr. Yuan’s allegation that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his repeated protests ⁴⁴⁰ of research misconduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 289b and 42 C.F.R. Part 93. 1 We hold that these provisions regarding research misconduct do not provide a clear public policy to support a tort claim for wrongful termination of employment.

The self-regulating provisions direct the federally funded scientific institutions to provide procedures to investigate allegations of research misconduct, take appropriate action, and address retaliation. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 93.300-93.304 . The scientific institution, not this Court, is in the best position and has the expertise to determine whether the research results of its employees amounted to impermissible research misconduct or permissible error or differences of opinion. Dr. Yuan did not follow the protocol outlined in JHU’s policies for research misconduct claims.

Further, Dr. Yuan acknowledged in his brief filed in this case that the regulations do not provide him with legal redress in the form of damages and he therefore seeks tort damages based on a theory of wrongful termination. However, there was no clear violation of the research misconduct regulations to warrant a cause of action for wrongful termination. ⁴⁴¹ Dr. Yuan also alleged conversion because after the termination of his employment, he was denied access to stored research materials he had collected. However, JHU owned the research materials pursuant to its policy, and it is well settled that a party may not convert that which it owns. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Dr. Yuan alleged in a lengthy amended complaint the following facts: Dr. Yuan was Board-certified in General Pediatrics and Pediatric Gastroenterology. He was employed by JHU as a researcher with the Pediatrics Faculty. In July 2001, he joined the lab of Dr. Jef Boeke (“Dr. Boeke”), a Professor in the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics and the head of a yeast genetics lab. The lab was largely funded through the National Institute of Health (“NIH”), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).

Between February 2002 and June 2011, the NIH provided over $11.8 million to the lab for research on the Synthetic Lethality Analyzed by Microarray (“SLAM”) project, which was an ambitious yeast genetics research project using a novel methodology, as well as a $34 million grant for a project related to the SLAM research. In Dr. Boeke’s lab, Dr. Yuan was initially responsible for developing the computational infrastructure to manage the SLAM project’s massive data-sets. When SLAM entered its Production phase, in 2004, Dr. Yuan discovered and reported to the Production team a concern that contaminating traces of DNA from preceding SLAM experiments had led to false positive results. However, the team resisted his concerns and suggestions for addressing the issue and instead began withholding data files from him.

Dr. Yuan stated that from 2005 through 2011, he repeatedly reported research misconduct concerning the yeast genetics research claiming that the SLAM researchers were falsifying the results. In particular, on November 28, 2005, Dr. Yuan ⁴⁴² emailed Dr. Boeke about issues he identified in research completed by Xuewen Pan (“Dr. Pan”), a postdoctoral fellow in Dr. Boeke’s lab. Dr. Yuan stated that Dr. Pan’s “genes are preselected,” and that continuing with those research projects “will only generate more useless data.” He also stated that the SLAM team had already established that “most of the [SLAM Project] hits being identified are bogus.” Dr. Pan’s research was published in a biomedical journal, Cell, with Dr. Boeke as the senior author in early 2006. Moreover, Dr. Boeke cited Dr. Pan’s research when he applied for grant renewals through the NIH.

After the NIH renewed the SLAM project funding in late 2006, Dr. Boeke issued a new organizational chart which had the effect of excluding Dr. Yuan from extensive involvement with the SLAM research. Dr. Yuan maintained that he protested his lack of a definite professional role in the SLAM Project and found himself increasingly marginalized and excluded from the data management. Between 2006 and 2008, the SLAM research was unsuccessful; the lab did not have significant results to report to NIH. Dr. Boeke asked other researchers to review the SLAM project data, excluding Dr. Yuan.

The researchers corroborated Dr. Yuan’s findings and found that the data had an extraordinarily high “False Discovery Rate.” In the summer of 2008, Dr. Boeke decided not to renew the NIH grant for SLAM, although, some funding remained available to operate SLAM. In January 2009, after analyzing Dr. Pan’s microarray data from his Cell publication, Dr. Yuan determined that Dr. Pan could not have obtained the results he claimed. His conclusion was not that Dr. Pan fabricated the results; instead, Dr. Yuan asserted that Dr. Pan likely conducted the experiment with preconceptions of the results he wanted to find—and then managed to find those results. Dr. Yuan also concluded similarly with respect to a paper published in 2008 by Dr. Yu-yi Lin (“Dr. Lin”) in Genes & Development In January of 2009, Dr. Yuan also notified both Dr. Boeke and SLAM’s project ⁴⁴³ manager, Dr. Meluh, of the problems with Dr. Pan’s 2006 and Dr. Lin’s 2008 papers.

Dr. Yuan was informed by Dr. Boeke in December 2009 that Dr. Boeke would not be renewing his faculty contract for 2011, unless he was able to secure self-sustaining funding within the next year. Dr, Boeke explained this was due to limited funding; however, at that time, Dr. Boeke established three new full-time positions with the SLAM Project for three other individuals. Dr. Yuan again reported problems with SLAM research, in January 2010, at a lab seminar where he identified bizarre zigzag patterns after plotting data for individual genes in SLAM’s Production data in chronological order. Dr. Yuan concluded that these zigzags were both non-random and unpredictable and were also large enough to masquerade as the genetic interactions that SLAM was looking for; thus, according to Dr. Yuan, attempts to interpret SLAM’s data were doomed to fail.

Further, during the last week of the NIH funding of SLAM, on June 29, 2010, Dr. Yuan wrote to Dr. Boeke that after analyzing the production team’s last 118 experiments, he found about ten percent had “noise” (bad data) with no apparent cause and only about ten percent “looked pretty good.” In October 2010, two of the grant applications Dr. Yuan sought funding for had failed. Dr. Yuan asserted that Dr. Boeke falsely conveyed to him that there was no available funding to support him. On December 14, 2010, Dr. Carol Greider (“Dr. Greider”), the director of the Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, offered Dr. Yuan a part-time support staff position for the 2011 year to expire at the end of that year. The salary was $24,800, well below his salary as a researcher.

Dr. Yuan accepted the employment contract; however, from January 2011 forward, Dr. Boeke excluded Dr. Yuan from lab activities. On April 29,2011, Dr. Lin held a seminar in Dr, Boeke’s lab. Dr. Yuan alleged that the data results were inaccurate because when he asked Dr. Lin several questions regarding the ⁴⁴⁴ research neither Dr. Lin nor Dr. Boeke could provide adequate responses. Further issues arose when on June 29, 2011, Dr. Yuan submitted a publication and listed himself as the sole author.

Dr, Boeke asked Dr. Greider to issue a written reprimand to Dr. Yuan for failing to offer Dr. Boeke shared authorship of the published manuscript. Dr. Greider issued a reprimand to Dr, Yuan. This led to Dr. Yuan meeting with Joan Johnson, a human resources representative for JHU School of Medicine, on July 8, 2011, to discuss Dr. Yuan’s concerns about Dr. Greider’s reprimand. Dr. Yuan also initiated JHU’s Grievance Appeals Process.

He explained that his employment problems arose over the context of results produced in the lab, and that there was an inexplicable vehemence that Dr. Boeke and Dr. Greider exhibited towards him. JHU denied Dr. Yuan’s grievance appeal on December 22, 2011. Dr. Yuan’s employment contract was set to end on December 81, 2011. Prior to his end date, he requested a property pass from Dr. Boeke, which would allow him to move his research collection of archived cells out of the lab.

Dr. Boeke refused to provide him the pass until they could come to an understanding of all the issues relating to which files and materials Dr. Yuan could take. On November 30, 2011, Dr. Yuan requested an affidavit or other confirmation that Dr. Boeke would give Dr. Yuan access to Dr, Yuan’s archived cells for five years. According to Dr. Yuan, Dr, Boeke initially accepted this request, but later failed to mention the matter in any correspondence between Dr. Yuan, Dr, Boeke, and JHU. Later, JHU declined to provide such access.

On December 15, Dr. Yuan went to JHU to seek access to his materials and was escorted from the workplace by JHU Security Officers. After Dr. Yuan’s employment contract with JHU had expired, in early 2012, a “Letter” (equivalent to a research paper) was published in a scientific research journal, Nature, with Dr. Lin and Dr. Boeke named as the authors. After reviewing the publication, Dr, Yuan believed there were seri ⁴⁴⁵ ous conceptual errors in the paper. He concluded that the underlying data was not reproducible.

Dr. Yuan’s counsel, on May 14, 2012, told Ronald J. Daniels, the president of JHU, and Edward D. Miller, the president of the School of Medicine, about these “serious scientific problems” in the publication. Patricia L. McClean, JHU senior associate general counsel, responded on May 21, 2012 stating that, “[t]he School of Medicine is looking into the allegations of research misconduct made in your letter under its Procedures for Dealing with Issues of Research Misconduct.” No one from JHU, however, sought further information from Dr. Yuan nor contacted him regarding the Nature paper. On July 24, 2012, Dr. Yuan submitted a “rebuttal analysis” to Dr. Lin and Dr. Boeke about the Nature article for submission to Nature. Dr. Yuan requested that both Dr. Lin and Dr. Boeke respond.

A response was due on August 7, 2012. Neither doctor responded. On August 8, 2012, someone emailed Dr. Yuan, using Dr. Lin’s account stating, “Dr. Yuan, Yu-yi [Dr. Lin] passed away this morning. Now you must be very satisfied with your success.

Congratulations[.]” The death appeared to be a suicide as news accounts in Taiwanese media made clear that Dr. Lin had died in his lab from a self-administered overdose of sedatives. Moreover, the media reported he had attempted to jump off a building the previous evening. His wife stated that Dr. Lin was concerned about a “conduct-of-research” case and had trouble sleeping from the pressure. Dr. Yuan received an email from Dr. Boeke on February 11, 2013, asking if he would sign a “correction” that was prepared for the 2006 Cell paper. “The gist of the correction was that the fraction of genetic interactions that could be traced back to the paper’s SLAM-based microarray data was 75[%], not 90[%] as originally stated.” Dr. Yuan responded to Dr. Boeke that he would not sign a correction, but Dr. Boeke still submitted them to Cell, which published it as an “Erratum” on May 23, 2013.

On November 6, 2013, the Nature paper was also retracted. There was no “correction.” Dr. Boeke admitted that “the Methods section in our Letter is inaccurate, and that ⁴⁴⁶ for 38% of the interactions found by the primary screen there was discordance in sign,” which was consistent with Dr. Yuan’s findings. Dr. Yuan implies that this acknowledgment of incorrect data indicates that research misconduct occurred. On December 13, 2013, Dr. Yuan filed, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a complaint for damages against JHU.

He alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Dr. Yuan based this wrongful discharge action on 42 C.F.R. §§ 93.100-93.104 , which provides that DHHS, including NIH, must investigate and punish intentional, knowing, or reckless “research misconduct” that represents “a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.” The regulations direct the federally funded institutions to provide procedures to investigate misconduct, take appropriate action, and address retaliation. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 93.300-93.304 . “Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.103 . Dr, Yuan also brought claims for conversion and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

JHU filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and a request for a hearing. On May 12, 2014, the Circuit Court held a hearing and granted JHU’s motion to dismiss because Dr. Yuan failed to identify a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill, for the Circuit Court, explained: There certainly are ample allegations that Dr. Yuan raised and continued to raise issues within his lab with Dr. Boeke and with others about the conclusion being reached by the research, [and] the manner in which the research was conducted. But the allegations very carefully skirt the line of fraud, falsification of data or manipulation of data.

And it is a good illustration of why this tort needs to be drawn narrowly [so] that it does not amount to the opportunity for courts to litigate debates, intellectual debates within the scientific community about methodology or research methods or conclusions. Based on the allegations, even giving them full credit, until after Dr. Yuan was fired, his objec ⁴⁴⁷ tions amounted to those types of intellectual debates and challenges within the lab.... “[W]hile there’s not [sic] question that academic integrity and research integrity is an important value, I conclude that it does not rise to the level that the Court of Appeals would recognize as the clear public policy necessary to support [a] cause of action for the tort of wrongful discharge in Maryland. • The Circuit Court also rejected the conversion claim: [Although it may be that there is a policy at Johns Hopkins University to on a case-by-case basis allow research material or research data to be released for the individual or non-Hopkins use by researchers who have developed it at Hopkins, the basic policy, which is clearly stated and has not been challenged here, is that Hopkins asserts its ownership of all research material and all research data that has been developed within labs of the University.... Hopkins could not have converted what it in fact had ownership of. Dr. Yuan filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 227 Md.App. 554 , 135 A.3d 519 (2016). The intermediate appellate court concluded: [T]hat the broad language and complex nature of these federal provisions, their deference to institutions, such as Hopkins, for the prevention and detection of research misconduct, and the difficult line they draw between scientific errors and wrongdoing and between falsity and fraud, make this a poor State public policy vehicle to carry a wrongful discharge action. Because the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not err in rejecting this claim and others advanced by Yuan, we affirm.

Yuan, 227 Md.App. at 558 , 135 A.3d at 522 . Dr. Yuan filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. We granted the Petition for Certiorari to answer the following questions: 1. Did the Court of Special Appeals err in precluding Md. employees from bringing wrongful termination claims based on retaliation for reporting research misconduct, ⁴⁴⁸ by refusing to recognize the federal law prohibiting research misconduct as a public policy basis, contrary to this Court’s recognition of wrongful termination claims? 2.

Did the Court of Special Appeals err in precluding Md. employees from bringing conversion claims based on the employer’s conversion of the employee’s personal research materials, by improperly drawing inferences in favor of Respondent when it interpreted Respondent’s research materials policy? Yuan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 449 Md. 412 , 144 A.3d 706 (2016). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. We hold that the provisions regarding research misconduct do not provide a clear public policy to support a tort claim for wrongful termination of employment.

The self-regulating provisions direct the federally funded scientific institutions to provide procedures to investigate allegations of research misconduct, take appropriate action, and address retaliation. Dr. Yuan did not follow the protocols outlined in JHU’s policies for such claims. Although Dr. Yuan is correct that the federal regulations do not provide him a legal remedy and damages because the public policy he is alleging is not clearly discernible, there is no basis to support a claim for wrongful termination and tort damages. Dr. Yuan was not wrongfully terminated and his at-will employment came to an end due to the expiration of his employment contract.

Moreover, Dr. Yuan’s allegation of conversion must fail because JHU owned the research materials pursuant to its stated policies. Accordingly, JHU, as a matter of law, cannot convert property that it already owns. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a motion to dismiss this Court has stated: On appeal from a dismissal for failure to state a claim, we must assume the truth of, and view in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, all well-pleaded facts and allegations contained in the complaint, as well as all inferences ⁴⁴⁹ that may reasonably be drawn from them, and order dismissal only if the allegations and permissible inferences, if true, would not afford relief to the plaintiff, i.e., the allegations do not state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. We must confíne our review of the universe of “facts” pertinent to the court’s analysis of the motion to the four comers of the complaint and its incorporated supporting exhibits, if any.

The well-pleaded facts setting forth the cause of action must be pleaded with sufficient specificity; bald assertions and conclusory statements by the pleader will not suffice. Our goal, in reviewing the trial court’s grant of dismissal, is to determine whether the court was legally correct. Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59, 72 , 25 A.3d 200, 207 (2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the interpretation of a statute or regulation requires reviewing the decision of the Circuit Court de novo.

Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 181 , 909 A.2d 694, 699 (2006) (“The resolution of these issues [by the Court] requires statutory interpretation. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and, therefore, we review the decision of the Circuit Court de novo.”). DISCUSSION Parties’ Contentions Dr. Yuan contends this Court should hold that the Court of Special Appeals erred in upholding the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Dr. Yuan’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, when both courts below refused to recognize the federal statutes and regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 289b and 42 C.F.R. Part 93, that prohibit research misconduct as sources of public policy. Further, according to Dr. Yuan, the intermediate appellate court erred in upholding the Circuit Court’s dismissal of his conversion claim.

Dr. Yuan states either (a) JHU’s policy expressly recognizes his entitlement to possession of the research cell lines he created, or, in the alternative, (b) JHU’s policy is ambiguous on Dr. Yuan’s ⁴⁵⁰ entitlement to those cell lines and further discovery is thus necessary. JHU, however, contends Dr. Yuan’s claim for wrongful termination fails because the regulations related to research misconduct are too vague and variable to give rise to a clear public policy of Maryland supporting a claim for wrongful termination under the circumstances. According to JHU, sound public policy should promote debate among researchers, protecting this process from the specter of jury adjudication and damages, rather than impose a wrongful discharge penalty for unfettered discussion. In addition, JHU maintains that Dr. Yuan does not own the materials which he claims JHU took from him and, as a matter of law, JHU cannot convert what it already owns.

Wrongful Termination Claims Based on Public Policy of Retaliation for Reporting Research Misconduct “The common law rule, applicable in Maryland, is that an employment contract of indefinite duration, that is, at will, can be legally terminated at the pleasure of either party at any time.” Adler v. Am. Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 35 , 432 A.2d 464, 467 (1981). “The doctrine was bom during a laissez-faire period in our country’s history, when personal freedom to contract or to engage in a business enterprise was considered to be of primary importance.” Suburban Hosp., Inc. v. Dwiggins, 324 Md. 294, 303 , 596 A.2d 1069, 1073 (1991). However, there are limitations to the at-will employment doctrine. This Court has recognized the competing interests in at-will employment including the employer’s interest in terminating an employee without reason and an employee’s and society’s interest in ensuring employees are not terminated in violation of public policies.

Adler, 291 Md. at 42 , 432 A.2d at 470 . According to Maryland law, there is a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule for wrongful termination “when the motivation for the discharge contravenes some clear mandate of public policy!.]” Adler, 291 Md. at 47 , 432 A.2d at 473 . ⁴⁵¹ [F]ew courts have flatly rejected the notion that the wrongful discharge of an at will employee may give rise to a cause of action for damages. Where courts differ is in determining where the line is to be drawn that separates a wrongful from a legally permissible discharge. This determination depends in large part on whether the public policy allegedly violated is sufficiently clear to provide the basis for a tort or contract action for wrongful discharge.

Adler, 291 Md. at 42 , 432 A.2d at 470-71 . For an at-will employee to establish wrongful termination “the employee must be discharged, the basis for the employee’s discharge must violate some clear mandate of public policy, and there must be a nexus between the employee’s conduct and the employer’s decision to fire the employee.” Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 370 Md. 38, 50-51 , 803 A.2d 482, 489 (2002) (citations omitted). This Court held: ‘The truth is that the theory of public policy embodies a doctrine of vague and variable quality, and, unless deducible in the given circumstances from constitutional or statutory provisions, should be accepted as the basis of a judicial determination, if at all, only with the utmost circumspection. The public policy of one generation may not, under changed conditions, be the public policy of another.’ Adler, 291 Md. at 46 , 432 A.2d at 472 (quoting Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 , 50 S.Ct. 253 , 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930)).

Courts may rely on “prior judicial opinions, legislative enactments, or administrative regulations” as the chief sources of public policy and the “declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch.” Adler, 291 Md. at 45 , 432 A.2d at 472 . We have recognized that the tort of wrongful discharge is decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. (“We have always been aware, however, that recognition of an otherwise undeclared public policy as a basis for a judicial decision involves the application of a very nebulous concept to the facts of a given case, and that declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch.”).

An employee fired for retaliation for reporting a violation of a state or federal law is alone insufficient to establish a ⁴⁵² valid wrongful discharge claim based on public policy. This Court adopted the reasoning of Szaller v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 293 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2002), in Parks v. Alpharma, Inc,, 421 Md. 59 , 25 A.3d 200 (2011) (holding that the FDA’s regulations which an employee reported that the employer allegedly violated was not sufficiently clear to provide the basis for her wrongful discharge claim). See also Adler, 291 Md. at 43 , 432 A.2d at 471 (holding that Maryland’s corporate fraud law did not clearly explain what the employer was legally bound to perform, or refrain from performing; thus, the employee’s complaint that he had been retaliated against for reporting employer’s fraud did not raise a clear wrongful discharge action). This Court stated: If a court were to announce that the FDA’s regulations were all sources of Maryland public policy, an employee could immunize himself against adverse employment action simply by reporting an alleged violation of any regulation.

And the narrow wrongful discharge exception, carefully carved out by the Maryland courts, would then supplant the general at will employment rule. Parks, 421 Md. at 86-87 , 25 A.3d at 216 (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This Court, in Parks , set forth “limitations on a court’s ability to articulate a new public policy mandate” to establish wrongful termination. Parks, 421 Md. at 79 , 25 A.3d at 212 , A court must look to the “accepted purpose behind recognizing the tort in the first place: to provide a remedy for an otherwise unremedied violation of policy.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). Also, the policy at issue “should be reasonably discernible from prescribed constitutional or statutory mandates.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Wholey, 370 Md. at 52-54 , 803 A.2d at 490-91 (“The first limiting factor with respect to adopting a ‘new* public policy mandate for a wrongful discharge claim is derived from the generally accepted purpose behind recognizing the tort in the first place: to provide a remedy for an otherwise unremedied violation of public policy....

A second limiting factor in ⁴⁵³ defining a public policy mandate as a cause of action in tort is the notion that the policies should be reasonably discernible from prescribed constitutional or statutory mandates.”). For the first limiting factor, in Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., the Court noted that “the generally accepted reason for recognizing the tort” of wrongful discharge is “vindicating an otherwise civilly unremedied public policy violation.” Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 316 Md. 603, 626 , 561 A.2d 179, 189 (1989). On the other hand, where a statute already has its own remedy, “allowing full tort damages to be claimed in the name of vindicating the statutory public policy goals upsets the balance between right and remedy struck by the Legislature in establishing the very policy relied upon.” Id. In the case at bar, Dr. Yuan has noted that the federal regulations do not authorize damages against JHU and he therefore seeks tort damages based on a theory of wrongful termination.

Under the circumstances, however, there was no clear violation of the research misconduct regulations to warrant a cause of action for wrongful termination. There is no clearly discernible public policy to support Dr. Yuan’s claim of wrongful termination. Even where there is an unremedied violation of public policy, the second limitation is that the subject policy must “be reasonably discernible from prescribed constitutional or statutory mandates.” Wholey, 370 Md. at 53 , 803 A.2d at 491 (citations omitted). The Court of Special Appeals and the Circuit Court, in the case at bar, relied on Parks , as controlling this determination.

The Court of Special Appeals noted that in Parks , this Court held that overly broad federal regulations could not form the basis for a wrongful discharge claim; specificity is important when relying on a statute or regulation. Moreover,