Complainant alleges that he was discharged because he was cooperating in a government investigation. It is clear that Mr. Simon was cooperating in a government investigation of heptachlor problems in the area. John Ray and John Eikel both testified about Mr. Simon's involvement in helping provide information for the heptachlor task force. I am persuaded by the contention that once Complainant produced Eikel's business card and declined further comment during his meeting with Carl Hall, a reasonable inference may be drawn that Respondent was aware of his cooperation with a government investigation. The presence of a retaliatory motive is a legal conclusion and provable by circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can include a suspicious sequence of events.
In this case Complainant was terminated shortly after Respondent became aware of his protected activity, an arguably suspicious sequence of events. I find this sufficient to suggest the presence of at least a partially retaliatory motive. However, once an employee shows that illegal retaliatory motives played some part in the discharge, the employer may prove that it would have discharged the employee even if he had not engaged in protected activity. The Eighth Circuit, in which this case arises, has adopted the Wright Line analysis, noting that its application will protect the rights of employees while preserving an employer's right to discharge an employee for a valid cause. In this case Respondent asserts that Complainant was discharged because of false statements he made to Bob Applegarth.