Federal District Court Says Proximity of Firing to Filing Claim Was Alone Insufficient to Survive Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Construing Colorado law, a federal district court granted, in relevant part, a former employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case filed against it for retaliatory discharge [Donez v. Leprino Foods, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68681 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2020)]. Acknowledging that close proximity in time between the filing of the employee’s claim and the termination of employment was some evidence that the termination had been in retaliation for the filing, the court found that the employer had come forward with a valid, non-pretextual reason for the termination. The former employee had been involved in a fight at work and the employer had concluded that the employee’s participation violated its workplace violence policy.

Background

Plaintiff was a long-term employee of the defendant employer, working in several jobs beginning in 1998 and ending with his termination on February 29, 2016. On February 9, 2016, a heavily-disputed incident took place between plaintiff and a co-worker, which left plaintiff hospitalized. It was undisputed that the co-worker pushed plaintiff and that plaintiff pushed the co-worker in response. Plaintiff contended that he pushed the co-worker only in self-defense, and the employer countered that plaintiff escalated the altercation by pushing the co-worker. Plaintiff was found unconscious and taken to the hospital.

The employer terminated the co-worker two days after the incident, indicating the employer had a zero-tolerance for workplace violence. On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff was given a written termination for essentially the same reason.

Procedural Aspects of the Case

Plaintiff filed a civil action on February 1, 2019, after filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. In his complaint, plaintiff asserted two claims against the former employer — (1) a Title VII claim for race discrimination and (2) a Colorado state law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. As to his second claim, plaintiff asserted that the defendant terminated him in violation of public policy under two theories: (1) that the defendant terminated him in retaliation for applying for workers’ compensation benefits, and (2) that the defendant terminated him for acting in self-defense. The defendant moved for summary judgment as to all claims.

Retaliatory Discharge

The district court acknowledged that Colorado law recognized that an employee should not be terminated because of his or her exercise of a job-related right or privilege granted to workers. Citing state case law, the court further noted that under Colorado law, since an employee was granted the specific right to apply for and receive compensation under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer’s retaliation against such an employee for the exercise of those rights violated Colorado’s public policy.

Is Temporal Proximity Alone Sufficient to Deny Summary Judgment

Plaintiff cited to Metzler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006), to support his position that temporal proximity alone warranted a denial of summary judgment as to his workers’ compensation retaliation theory. The court stressed, however, that while under Metzler, temporal proximity was sufficient to satisfy the causation element of a plaintiff’s prima facie retaliation case, it was insufficient alone to establish pretext and, thus, could not defeat summary judgment where the defendant had articulated a legitimate reason for the plaintiff’s termination. In order for plaintiff to raise a fact issue of pretext, he had to present evidence of temporal proximity plus circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive.

Employer Articulated Legitimate Reason For Termination

Here, the defendant had articulated a legitimate reason for plaintiff’s termination: that plaintiff violated company policy by participating in an incident of workplace violence. Under Metzler, therefore, plaintiff was required to provide evidence of pretext — or temporal proximity plus circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive — to survive summary judgment. Unfortunately for plaintiff’s case, he had solely presented evidence of temporal proximity; he had failed to present any circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive.

Additional Telling Fact

Moreover, the district court noted one additional compelling fact: one of the defendant’s employees brought workers’ compensation paperwork to plaintiff while he was in the hospital recovering from his injuries. It is difficult to see how it had a retaliatory motive, given that action on its part.