Opinion ID: 178296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Facility Access Denial

Text: Next Vega contends that Wyeth wrongfully discharged and then reinstated him while he was away on military leave. This claim is based on the incident in which Vega attempted to enter Wyeth's plant but was turned away by a security guard. Wyeth admits that it restricted Vega's access over security concerns but denies that it terminated Vega. We find that Vega has failed to raise a cognizable claim with respect to this issue. Though there is some factual dispute surrounding this claim, such dispute is immaterial. Specifically, it is irrelevant whether Vega's access to the plant was restricted in response to an alleged comment about the Virginia Tech massacre or not. To be considered material, a disputed fact must have the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). In this case, why Vega's access was restricted does not affect the outcome of this suit. What is relevant is this  the evidence conclusively demonstrated that while Vega's access to the plant was restricted on that one occasion, he was not terminated from employment. Most notably, he continued to receive a salary and benefits, and never received a termination letter. For this court to conclude that Vega was terminated solely based on a comment by a security guard, which may have been incorrect or misconstrued, would require us to draw an improbable inference. Although employment discrimination cases deal with elusive concepts such as motive or intent, summary judgment is compelled if the non-moving party rests his case merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation. Mariani-Colón v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 511 F.3d 216, 221 (1st Cir.2007) (internal citation omitted). Thus Vega was not denied retention in employment pursuant to USERRA. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). Further, Vega's restricted access to the plant cannot be deemed a denial of a benefit of employment because he was on leave at the time and had no need to access the plant. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 4303(2), 4311(a). Nor can it constitute an adverse employment action in retaliation for Vega's VETS complaint, because the incident took place prior to Wyeth's learning about the complaint. See 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b). As Vega has failed to set forth an actionable claim based on this one incidence of restricted access, Wyeth is entitled to summary judgment.