Opinion ID: 3132339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prime Facie Case

Text: ¶ 16. To make out a prima facie case, Gauthier is required to show “that (1) he was engaged in a protected activity, (2) his employer was aware of that activity, (3) he suffered [an] adverse employment decision[], and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.” Id.; see also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 (outlining prima facie elements for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Gauthier’s burden at this stage is “relatively light.” Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 2005 VT 83, ¶ 15, 178 Vt. 244, 882 A.2d 1177; see also Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 (“The burden 8 of establishing a prima facie case . . . is not onerous.”). As the United States Supreme Court has explained: Establishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. If the trier of fact believes the plaintiff’s evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 (footnote omitted). ¶ 17. Here, the parties do not dispute that Gauthier has met the first three requirements of establishing a prima facie case. Green Mountain contends on appeal, however, as it did below, that Gauthier has not established a causal connection between his claim for workers’- compensation benefits and his subsequent termination. Specifically, Green Mountain argues that its HR department’s investigation into the eleven maintenance department workers’ internet use began prior to Gauthier’s workers’-compensation claim and that “[t]his fact eliminates any causal connection between [Gauthier’s] injury and his termination.” In support of its argument, Green Mountain cites to our decision in Robertson, where this Court concluded that there was no causal relationship between the plaintiff’s filing of gender discrimination complaints and her demotion where her demotion occurred before the claims had been filed. 2004 VT 15, ¶¶ 42, 46. ¶ 18. Robertson is distinguishable from this case. In Robertson, in part relevant here, the plaintiff complained that she had been demoted from “Senior Project Manager” to “Project Manager” as a result of her filing gender-discrimination complaints with her employer and the Vermont Attorney General’s office. Id. ¶ 43. The record revealed, however, that the plaintiff’s demotion occurred prior to her filing the complaints and thus this Court concluded that “the causation element of the prima facie case is not satisfied.” Id. ¶ 46. In this case, the record on appeal reveals that, although Green Mountain’s request for the Websense report for Gauthier’s internet use was made the day prior to his injury, Green Mountain’s decision to terminate him 9 was not made until after he had filed his workers’-compensation claim. Here, unlike in Robertson, the adverse employment action (termination) occurred after the protected activity had taken place (filing a workers’-compensation claim), and thus Robertson does not control. ¶ 19. Gauthier was injured on August 2, 2011 and Green Mountain terminated him on November 8, 2011—within several months of his claim for workers’-compensation benefits and within weeks of his return to work from the injury. This temporal proximity between the adverse-employment decision and the protected activity is sufficient under the burden-shifting analysis outlined above to meet Gauthier’s initial “relatively light” burden of establishing the causation portion of a prima facie case for workers’-compensation retaliation. See, e.g., Murray, 164 Vt. at 212, 667 A.2d at 300 (timing of adverse employment decision relative to the filing of a workers’-compensation claim is sufficient, for purposes of a prima facie case, to establish a causal connection (citing Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 163 Vt. 83, 93, 656 A.2d 635, 642 (1994));