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

Heading: Workers’-Compensation Retaliation

Text: ¶ 13. We first address Gauthier’s argument that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Green Mountain on his claim for workers’-compensation retaliation because Green Mountain’s firing of him upon his return from workers’-compensation leave, in conjunction with the asserted weakness or implausibility of Green Mountain’s proffered 6 reason, indicates that Green Mountain used its internet policy as a pretext to fire him in retaliation for making a workers’-compensation claim. To this end, Gauthier contends that the trial court erred in applying the summary judgment rule in that it did not grant him the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences and that the trial court erred in relying on a variety of the “honest belief” rule which he claims “has been widely criticized and rejected” by federal courts. We disagree and affirm. ¶ 14. We review summary judgment decisions de novo, using the same standard as the trial court. Wentworth v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 171 Vt. 614, 616, 765 A.2d 456, 459 (2000) (mem.). Summary judgment will be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” V.R.C.P. 56(a); see also In re Estate of Fitzsimmons, 2013 VT 95, ¶ 13, 195 Vt. 94, 86 A.3d 1026 (“An issue of fact is material only if it might affect the outcome.” (quotation omitted)); Kelly v. Town of Barnard, 155 Vt. 296, 305 n.5, 583 A.2d 614, 619 n.5 (1990) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” (quotation omitted)). Although we view the record as a whole, “[i]n determining whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, we will accept as true the allegations made in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, so long as they are supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” Robertson, 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15; see also Pierce v. Riggs, 149 Vt. 136, 139, 540 A.2d 655, 657 (1987) (explaining that we accept facts as alleged by nonmoving party as true only “if [they are] supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material” (quotation omitted)). In examining the record, “the nonmoving party receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Robertson, 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15. ¶ 15. Under Vermont law, “[n]o person shall discharge or discriminate against an employee from employment because such employee asserted . . . a claim for benefits under [Vermont’s Workers’-Compensation Law] or under the law of any state or under the United 7 States.” 21 V.S.A. § 710(b). In the absence of direct evidence of unlawful discharge or discrimination, as is the case here, we apply the three-part burden-shifting framework as laid out by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Robertson, 2004 VT 15, ¶ 18 (“If the plaintiff presents only circumstantial evidence of discrimination . . . the three-step burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas is applied.” (citing Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150, 162, 624 A.2d 1122, 1129 (1992)). Thus, for Gauthier to withstand Green Mountain’s motion for summary judgment on his claim of unlawful retaliation for filing a workers’-compensation claim, he must first present a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination. See Murray v. St. Michael’s Coll., 164 Vt. 205, 210, 667 A.2d 294, 299 (1995); see also Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 (1981) (“First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination.”). If he succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, Green Mountain must then come forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged conduct. Murray, 164 Vt. at 210, 667 A.2d at 299. If Green Mountain can articulate such a reason, then Gauthier will be required to show that the proffered reason was a “mere pretext” for discrimination. Id. If Gauthier cannot do so, then Green Mountain is entitled to summary judgment. Id.
¶ 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));