To show a retaliatory discharge, Gamin° was required to 

demonstrate that his filing a workers' compensation claim "was the 

proximate cause of his discharge." Allum v. Valley Bank of Nev., 114 Nev. 

1313, 1319-20, 970 P.2d 1062, 1066 (1998). Renown's motion for summary 

judgment undermined Gamino's case by showing that his termination was 

not related to his workers' compensation claim. See Cuzze v. Univ. & 

Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 602, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) 

(observing that a moving party who does not bear the burden of 

persuasion at trial satisfies the burden of production on summary 

judgment by "submitting evidence that negates an essential element of the 

nonmoving party's claim"). In order to defeat Renown's motion, Gamino 

was required to "by affidavit or other admissible evidence, introduce 

specific facts that show a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 602-03, 

172 P.3d at 134. Instead of doing so, Gamino attacked some, but not all, of 

the evidence that Renown provided as inadmissible. 

In this regard, the district court properly considered Renown's 

affidavits, which were offered, in part, to show the effect of third-party 

statements upon the listener and the reason for Renown's investigation 

into Gamino's actions. See Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 

362, 212 P.3d 1068, 1077 (2009) C[A] statement merely offered to show 

that the statement was made and the listener was affected by the 

statement, and which is not offered to show the truth of the matter 

asserted, is admissible as non-hearsay." (quoting Wallach v. State, 106 

Nev. 470, 473, 796 P.2d 224, 227 (1990))). Because Gamin° proffered no 

evidence conflicting with Renown's, it was not necessary for a jury to 

consider the declarants' credibility. See Gaxiola v. State, 121 Nev. 638, 

650, 119 P.3d 1225, 1233 (2005) ("The jury determines the weight and 

credibility to give conflicting testimony."). And finally, the temporal 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Gibbons 

proximity of Gamino's workers' compensation claim and his termination, 

in the absence of other circumstances and in light of Renown's preexisting 

investigation into Gamino's alleged breach of confidentiality, does not 

defeat summary judgment. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 

268, 272-73 (2001) (noting that an employer proceeding with an action 

that was contemplated prior to the occurrence of a protected activity 

suggests that the action was not caused by the protected activity, and that 

an adverse employment action must be very close in time to the protected 

activity in order for temporal proximity to suggest causality); Green v. 

Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 514, 518-23 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006) 

(stating that "knowledge of a workers' compensation claim alone does not 

establish a causal link between the alleged discriminatory behavior and 

the filing of a claim sufficient to defeat summary judgment," and 

upholding summary judgment when the employee failed to establish a 

causal link between termination and the workers' compensation claim). 

Accordingly, we perceive no error in the district court's summary 

judgment, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

LC\ 

Hardesty 

, C.J. 

'We have considered Gamino's other arguments on appeal and 

conclude that they do not warrant reversal of the district court's summary 

judgment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge 

Jonathan L. Andrews, Settlement Judge 

Brian R. Morris 

Littler Mendelson/Las Vegas 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A en.