An Interesting Case of “Mandatory” Bank Reporting of Suspected Elder Abuse
Here’s a summary of interesting, key findings from the complicated case of Moylan v. Citizens Sec. Bank, an “elder abuse” and wrongful termination claim with a long litigation history in Guam:
- Bank Comptroller Moylan realizes his grandparents have certificate of deposit accounts in his bank, with assets totaling more than $1 million.
- He notes that when the accounts rollover, they are no longer in the names of his grandparents, but rather solely in the names of two individuals identified as “caretakers” for the grandparents.
- Moylan proceeds to “investigate further” and concludes that multiple transactions on the accounts were suspicious, given his “personal knowledge of his Grandparents’ advanced age and deteriorating mental condition.”
- Moylan discusses his findings with his brother, an attorney, thus revealing bank account information without getting the permission of his Grandparents or the “caretakers” who were listed on the accounts.
- The brother advises that the findings may constitute “elder abuse” and thus trigger a mandatory duty to report the activity to Adult Protective Services.
- Moylan, fearing he may lose his bank job, encourages his father to make the report — thus again sharing banking information without the consent of the listed account holders, the Grandparents and their caretakers.
Eventually, a guardians is appointed for the grandparents, the bank becomes a subject of the guardian’s complaint about handling of the grandparents’ accounts, the caretakers (one of whom is a family member) object to Moylan’s “misuse” of his access to account information as a bank employee — and, lo and behold, Moylan is fired in 2007. Moylan challenged his termination as wrongful.
In 2015, after more than 7 years of litigation in the courts below, the Supreme Court of Guam overturned summary judgment in favor of the bank on Moylan’s wrongful termination claim. That’s the good news for Moylan, as the Court recognizes a public policy exception to the “at will” nature of his employment contract:
Because the object and policy of the [Adult Protective Services Act] is to protect the elderly and disabled adults, the reporting requirements of 10 GCA §21003(a) should be construed liberally in favor of promoting the reporting of suspected abuse. This approach is consistent with the fact that the legislature chose to include the term “immediately” instead of a specified reporting deadline. Therefore, we hold that in the limited context of the facts of this case, Scott’s oral reporting within seven days after the discovery of alleged abuse qualifies as sufficiently immediate….
Termination motivated by Scott’s mandatory reporting would jeopardize the public policy to protect elderly and disabled adults from abuse because it would discourage future reporting. Scott presented evidence that at least one Bank executive knew that Scott had caused a report to APS before Scott was terminated.
Under Guam law, mandatory reporting of suspected elder abuse applies to “banking and financial institution personnel.” 10 GCA §21003(b).
The bad news is the reversal sends the case back to the trial court for “further proceedings.” The full opinion by the Supreme Court of Guam, issued November 20, 2015, linked above, is well worth reading, as it demonstrates both weaknesses and strengths of statutory attempts to mandate that banks report suspected elder abuse.