🗞️ Complaint Dismissed: NLRB Judge Finds No Link Between Nurses' Complaints and Their Firings

A federal labor judge has dismissed a complaint accusing Johns Hopkins Medical Associates of firing two nurses in retaliation for raising workplace safety concerns, finding that the evidence fell short of establishing any causal link between the nurses' complaints and their terminations.

Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued the ruling on April 24, 2026, concluding that the NLRB's General Counsel had not met the legal burden required to prove the case. The dispute had wound through the National Labor Relations Board for nearly three years. At its core, it asked a question that labor lawyers encounter with some regularity: when an employer fires workers who have also been complaining about conditions on the job, which came first, the misconduct or the motive?

The two nurses at the center of the case, Ashley Garcia and Chantal Lightsy, worked at Johns Hopkins Medical Associates' outpatient surgical center in Lutherville, Maryland. Both were terminated on May 24, 2023. In the months before their firing, they had raised concerns with management about staffing shortages, defective blood pressure monitors, and mandatory weekend overtime. That kind of collective advocacy is protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which covers employees acting together to improve working conditions, with or without a union.

The NLRB's General Counsel argued those complaints cost the nurses their jobs. Johns Hopkins maintained the firings had nothing to do with workplace grievances and everything to do with a separate matter: videos showing nurses receiving intravenous saline drips without a physician's order or any documentation. The footage was captured by a departing coworker, Cathy Torgeson, who emailed it to company Vice President Sarah Disney on April 26, 2023. A human resources investigation followed in early May. Garcia was terminated for alleged theft of medical supplies and improper IV use; Lightsy, the unit's lead nurse, was let go for failing to report the conduct to management.

Judge Amchan was not without criticism of how Johns Hopkins handled the matter. He found troubling the company's treatment of Abby Chen, a nurse who appeared in the same video as the other employees but was never disciplined. The company claimed it could not identify her. The judge rejected that explanation outright, noting that only six nurses worked the unit and that management had ready means to identify everyone in the footage. He concluded the investigation had been conducted, at least in part, with a view to building a case against specific employees. He also agreed with the General Counsel that the nurses were never clearly informed they were being investigated for IV misuse before they were called in and terminated.

Even so, the complaint did not survive. Under the Wright Line burden-shifting framework, the NLRB's established standard for cases where an employer's motives are disputed, the General Counsel must first demonstrate that protected activity was a motivating factor in the termination decision. Judge Amchan concluded that burden was not met. The sequence of events that led to the firings began with Torgeson's reports, which predated the nurses' protected complaints becoming known to anyone beyond their direct supervisor, Madalyn Biggs. Whatever animus the record revealed toward the Charging Parties, the judge wrote, it was not shown to be connected to their safety and staffing complaints.

The decision reflects a principle that has shaped NLRB case law for decades: an employee may be lawfully terminated even when an employer's investigation is selective or its stated rationale is partly pretextual, provided the General Counsel cannot tie the adverse action to the protected conduct. As Judge Amchan noted, current Board precedent established in Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 34 (2019), holds that a finding of pretext alone does not satisfy the General Counsel's initial burden under Wright Line.

Key Points

• Garcia and Lightsy were fired on May 24, 2023, after a departing coworker provided management with videos showing nurses receiving IV saline without physician orders or documentation.
• Both nurses had raised complaints about staffing shortfalls, faulty equipment, and mandatory overtime, conduct that qualifies as protected concerted activity under the NLRA.
• The NLRB's General Counsel alleged the firings were retaliatory; Johns Hopkins maintained the terminations were based on policy violations and misconduct.
• Judge Amchan found the company's claim that it could not identify nurse Abby Chen, who appeared in the same video, to be false, and concluded the investigation was directed at specific employees.
• The complaint was nonetheless dismissed because the General Counsel could not demonstrate that the nurses' protected complaints were a motivating factor in the terminations, as required by the Wright Line test.
• The chain of events leading to the firings traced back to a coworker's reports that predated the nurses' protected activity becoming known to anyone above their direct supervisor.
• The Maryland Board of Nursing took no action after Johns Hopkins filed reports regarding the circumstances of the terminations.
• The ruling reflects established Board precedent that investigative irregularities and selective discipline, absent a demonstrated connection to protected activity, are insufficient to establish an NLRA violation.

Primary Source Author: Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge

Primary Source: Johns Hopkins Medical Associates and Ashley Garcia / Chantal Lightsy, Cases 05-CA-319331 & 05-CA-322175, JD–24–26 (NLRB Div. of Judges, April 24, 2026)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Division of Judges Decision JD–24–26

Supplemental References

• NLRB: Concerted Activity — Employee Rights Overview
• NLRB: Protected Concerted Activity — Enforcement Examples
• Wright Line Burden of Proof — Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld Analysis
• Miller Plastic Products Inc. v. NLRB — Third Circuit on Protected Concerted Activity (2025)
• Protected Concerted Activity — Wikipedia Overview
• NIWR Report: Concerted Activity Retaliation at the NLRB (2015–2020)