Opinion ID: 6221815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Coroner’s Statements

Text: Litzsinger first claims that certain statements made by the Coroner demonstrate the Coroner had a retaliatory motive when she terminated Litzsinger. 3 Litzsinger briefly mentions temporal proximity as evidence of pretext in her reply brief. We agree with the district court that the timing of Litzsinger’s probation and termination is “reasonable evidence of pretext.” App., Vol. II at 219. But our caselaw is clear that the timing of an adverse employment action is insufficient on its own to demonstrate pretext. See Proctor v. United Parcel Serv., 502 F.3d 1200, 1213 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Although we may consider evidence of temporal proximity—typically used to establish a prima facie case— in analyzing pretext, temporal proximity alone is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext.”). 11 Appellate Case: 21-1106 Document: 010110645319 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 12 According to Litzsinger, these statements are strong evidence of pretext because they show that “a discriminatory reason more likely motivated” the termination decision than the Coroner’s proffered legitimate justification. See Zamora, 478 F.3d at 1166 (citation omitted). In her email to Nicoletti-Flater Associates, the Coroner explained that she had planned to meet with Litzsinger on August 9 to discuss Litzsinger’s performance and her refusal to perform an external exam on a decomposed body. The Coroner then described how prior to the planned meeting, Litzsinger “began having ‘chest pain’ and left the office in [an] ambulance” and that it “now appears that she is going on FMLA via that route.” App., Vol. II at 145. In the closing paragraph of the email, the Coroner said, “I implemented this mental health program through your organization to promote employee resiliency. It is obviously highly suspect that this employee was going to try to abuse this.” Id. While Litzsinger concedes these statements are not direct evidence of retaliation, she argues the email shows the Coroner thought Litzsinger was abusing the FMLA process, faking her disability, and that a “natural human reaction is to retaliate against the person for such abuse.” Aplt. Br. at 22. The district court acknowledged that the email shows skepticism but concluded that it cannot reasonably be read as showing an intention to retaliate. The court concluded that the email “suggests that the Coroner believed that Plaintiff chose to use FMLA leave to avoid a discussion with her regarding employment performance issues.” App., Vol. II at 217. 12 Appellate Case: 21-1106 Document: 010110645319 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 13 We agree with the district court that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the Coroner’s email casts doubt on the Coroner’s proffered reason for terminating Litzsinger. The broader context shows that the Coroner was frustrated with the way that Litzsinger sought FMLA leave, not with the fact that she used leave. Specifically, the Coroner was concerned that instead of seeking FMLA leave through her primary psychiatrist, Litzsinger had improperly used Nicoletti-Flater. 4 The response email from Dr. Knadler reinforces this interpretation. After discussing a few options for how the Coroner could respond to Litzsinger’s situation, including disciplinary action, Dr. Knadler told the Coroner, We will ensure that . . . all of your employees are aware of the objectives and limitations of the wellness sessions. This includes that requests for FMLA would be completed through their primary therapists and that they are encouraged to discuss any concerns/problems they are experiencing directly with their supervisor/management. Id. at 144. This response addresses the concerns raised by the Coroner—that Litzsinger’s use of the firm to seek FMLA leave and avoid talking to her supervisors exceeded the scope of the firm’s purpose, which was to provide stress-relief services and resiliency training. The full context of the Coroner’s email and Dr. Knadler’s response therefore demonstrate that the Coroner’s 4 The Coroner was also displeased that Litzsinger had used Nicoletti-Flater to avoid telling the Coroner why she could not perform her assigned external exam on the night of August 3. Litzsinger had told the Coroner that someone from Nicoletti-Flater would call to explain why Litzsinger could not do the exam. 13 Appellate Case: 21-1106 Document: 010110645319 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 14 concerns about Litzsinger abusing the process referred to the improper use of Nicoletti-Flater rather than Litzsinger’s decision to take FMLA leave. Thus, the email does not show pretext. Litzsinger also claims the Coroner thought Litzsinger was faking her disability because she put “chest pain” in quotation marks in her email to Dr. Knadler. But the record shows that the Coroner understood many of her employees suffered from mental health problems due to the nature of the work. That is the precise reason she hired Nicoletti-Flater—to provide resiliency training for staff. Other evidence in the record shows that the Coroner and Chief Deputy Coroner knew about Litzsinger’s mental health struggles and asked her on multiple occasions whether she needed any help or accommodations. 5 Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could not conclude the Coroner retaliated against Litzsinger for faking her disability. Litzsinger analogizes her situation to that of the plaintiff in Fassbender v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 890 F.3d 875 (10th Cir. 2018). In Fassbender, we found evidence of pretext where a prison contractor terminated a pregnant employee for taking an inmate’s handwritten note home in violation of the contractor’s fraternization policy. Id. at 881. We concluded a reasonable jury could find pretext because the employee’s supervisor had made several hostile 5 In her yearly performance appraisal, Litzsinger and her supervisors agreed that one of Litzsinger’s 2018 performance objectives would be to “[m]aintain mental health awareness and seek assistance before impacts to performance arise.” App., Vol. I at 104. 14 Appellate Case: 21-1106 Document: 010110645319 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 15 statements about pregnant workers and the employer’s proffered reasons for termination changed over time. Litzsinger compares the comments made by the supervisor in Fassbender to those made by the Coroner to Dr. Knadler. But the Coroner’s comments do not come close to the level of hostility and discrimination exhibited by the supervisor in Fassbender. As explained above, the Coroner’s comments reflect frustration with the way Litzsinger utilized Nicoletti-Flater, not with her disability or the fact that she took FMLA leave. The Coroner’s email also does not indicate a desire to terminate or otherwise discipline Litzsinger in retaliation for taking FMLA leave, which is distinguishable from Fassbender. In sum, the Coroner’s statements do not show that the Coroner’s Office “didn’t really believe its proffered reasons for action and thus may have been pursuing a hidden discriminatory agenda.” See Johnson, 594 F.3d at 1211.