Unsupported Allegations and PADS Waivers: Fifth Circuit Narrows Mississippi’s McArn Exceptions in Greene v. Entergy Operations

1. Introduction

In Greene v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 24-60603 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed a multifaceted employment dispute arising out of a nuclear-plant employee’s termination for alleged drug-testing violations.

The appellant, Jairus K. Greene, was an Assessor in Entergy’s Nuclear Independent Oversight team at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi. He asserted that Entergy wrongfully and retaliatorily terminated him, defamed him, maliciously interfered with prospective employment, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Central to his theory was the contention that Entergy (1) fabricated or mishandled drug-test results and (2) sought to punish him for refusing to falsify internal safety reports.

The district court granted summary judgment for Entergy on every claim. On de novo review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that:

Greene’s evidence was too “weak or tenuous” to raise a genuine dispute of material fact under Rule 56;
He failed to satisfy either of Mississippi’s narrow public-policy exceptions to employment-at-will (McArn exceptions); and
Entergy’s disclosures to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Personnel Access Data System (PADS) were truthful, privileged by federal regulation, and independently shielded by Greene’s express written waiver.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Jurisdiction — Diversity jurisdiction was undisputed: Greene (Colorado) versus Entergy (Delaware); amount in controversy satisfied (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

2. Standard of Review — Summary judgment rulings reviewed de novo; evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Greene (Batiste; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).

3. Wrongful/Retaliatory Termination — Mississippi’s two “public-policy” carve-outs (McArn) require (a) refusal to commit an illegal act, or (b) termination for reporting an employer’s illegal activity. Greene offered no competent proof of criminality, no actual report of wrongdoing, and thus fell outside both exceptions.

4. Defamation & Malicious Interference — Entergy merely uploaded accurate, federally-mandated drug-test data to PADS. The publication was privileged, truthful, and consented to via Greene’s PADS waiver, defeating both tort theories.

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) — Absent evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct, Mississippi law does not extend IIED to ordinary employment disputes.

6. Outcome — Summary judgment affirmed in full; no reversible error identified.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603 (Miss. 1993)
The cornerstone Mississippi case establishing two narrow public-policy exceptions to employment-at-will. The Fifth Circuit applied McArn strictly, demanding concrete evidence of illicit activity or whistleblowing. The opinion underscores that speculative or generalized allegations cannot trigger either exception.
Armstrong v. City of Dallas, 997 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1993)
Cited for the proposition that summary judgment is proper where critical evidence is “so weak or tenuous” that it cannot sustain a verdict. The court repeatedly invoked this standard to discount Greene’s unsupported assertions.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
Establishes complete diversity requirements. Used only to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction.
NEI 03-01 & 10 C.F.R. pt. 26, pt. 73
Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance and regulations requiring drug/alcohol testing, Medical Review Officer (MRO) procedures, and cross-licensee data sharing through PADS. These federal mandates framed Entergy’s obligations and provided a regulatory shield against state-law defamation claims.
Mississippi Employment Cases — Senseney, Pegues, Speed
Reinforce the stringent standards for wrongful discharge and IIED in Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit leaned on these cases to highlight how rarely Mississippi departs from pure employment-at-will.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Employment-at-Will and McArn Exceptions
Mississippi allows at-will terminations “for a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason.” Only two public-policy exceptions exist. The Fifth Circuit demanded: (a) Specific evidence that Entergy directed Greene to violate criminal statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1001 false statements), or (b) Proof that Greene actually reported Entergy’s illegal conduct.

Greene’s declaration, devoid of dates, documents, emails, or corroborating testimony, was insufficient. The court labeled it “conclusory” and “speculative,” failing Rule 56’s requirement of concrete facts.
Truth & Qualified Privilege in Defamation
Publication of true statements cannot be defamatory. Entergy’s PADS entries merely reflected Greene’s positive drug screens and access revocations—facts Greene never disproved. Additionally, federal regulations compelled the disclosures, establishing a qualified privilege that negates the “unprivileged publication” element of defamation.
PADS Consent Form as Contractual Waiver
Greene’s signed PADS Consent released Entergy from liability for the very disclosures he later attacked. The Fifth Circuit joined other circuits (e.g., Gerhart v. Exelon) in enforcing this waiver, emphasizing employee assent and the nuclear industry’s heightened safety regime.
IIED Threshold
Mississippi courts reserve IIED for “wanton and willful” conduct evoking “outrage or revulsion.” Even assuming test-result irregularities, Greene lacked evidence that Entergy orchestrated them with malice. Ordinary employment disputes, even unfair ones, lie well below the IIED bar.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

Tightening of McArn Pathways — The Fifth Circuit’s insistence on documentary or testimonial corroboration raises the proof burden for employees alleging wrongful discharge under Mississippi’s public-policy exceptions.
Enforceability of PADS Waivers — The opinion underscores that written PADS consents constitute enforceable contractual waivers, foreclosing state-law tort suits over mandated NRC disclosures. Expect employers in the nuclear sector to rely on this ruling when moving to dismiss similar claims.
Summary-Judgment Strategy — By cataloguing the deficiencies in Greene’s evidence, the court provides a blueprint for employers to defeat factually thin retaliation and tort claims at the Rule 56 stage.
Regulatory-Compliance Shield — Where federal safety regulations require data sharing, truthful compliance will generally trump state-law causes of action, reinforcing pre-emption and privilege defenses.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Employment-at-Will: The default rule in Mississippi (and most states) that an employer can fire an employee for any reason—or no reason—unless there is a specific contract or statutory protection.
McArn Exceptions: Two narrow carve-outs: (1) firing an employee for refusing to commit a crime; (2) firing an employee for reporting the employer’s crime. Evidence of actual criminal activity or reporting is mandatory.
Fitness for Duty (FFD) Program: An NRC-mandated screening system to ensure nuclear-plant personnel are not impaired by drugs or alcohol.
THCV Testing: Laboratory analysis for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin, a cannabinoid present in marijuana but not in the prescription drug Marinol (Dronabinol). Used to differentiate between legal prescription use and illicit marijuana use.
Personnel Access Data System (PADS): A nationwide NRC database containing security clearance and drug-testing information for nuclear-plant workers. Licensees must upload certain data; employees must sign a consent form to obtain unescorted access.
Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A procedural device allowing the court to dispose of claims lacking factual disputes for a jury to resolve. The movant must show no genuine issue of material fact.

5. Conclusion

Greene v. Entergy Operations reinforces three key propositions:

The McArn public-policy exceptions remain extremely narrow and evidence-driven; mere allegations of wrongdoing will not suffice.
Truthful, regulation-compelled disclosures—especially those authorized by an employee’s written waiver—are insulated from state-law defamation and interference claims.
Mississippi’s high bar for IIED continues to shield employers from liability absent shocking or malicious conduct.

Practitioners should view the decision as both a cautionary tale for plaintiffs (document, corroborate, and substantiate) and a strategic manual for employers (obtain explicit waivers, preserve testing records, and move promptly for summary judgment when the evidentiary record is thin). In the broader legal landscape, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion harmonizes nuclear-safety regulations with state tort principles, cementing the primacy of federal compliance and contractual consent in high-risk industries.