Opinion ID: 4212198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cypress’s Alleged Retaliation

Text: Shortly after his conversation with Valenzuela, Dietz began having trouble with his supervisor Nulty. In late May 2013, Nulty arranged a phone meeting with Dietz and others to go over some recent concerns about Dietz’s performance. In particular, Nulty was troubled by three observations: (1) Dietz had updated his project schedule to show a three-week delay for an important milestone that was 6 fourteen weeks away, (2) Dietz did not immediately notify a supervisor when another manager pulled one of Dietz’s employees off of Dietz’s project, and (3) Dietz neglected to update the project-management computer system for too long a period. On June 4, 2013, after the teleconference, Nulty memorialized these concerns in a written memo to be placed indefinitely in Dietz’s personnel file. The memo instructed Dietz to prepare a memo explaining what he did wrong and stating that “[a]ny future infractions will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” AR 1401. The ALJ characterized this memo as “career ending.” AR 2230. On June 5, 2013, Dietz responded with a letter disputing the disciplinary allegations. He claimed that Nulty’s memo was “unlawful retaliation” for Dietz’s complaint regarding the Bonus Plan. AR 1412-13. Then, instead of admitting wrongdoing as Nulty’s letter instructed, Dietz countered: I will do no such thing, because I have done nothing wrong, and this requirement is nothing more than bullying with legal implications. Therefore, my response is that I am terminating my employment at Cypress. I will agree to stay onboard through July 1 as a professional courtesy to my fellow Cypress employees in Colorado Springs, and to keep the TR20005 project stable while executing an orderly turnover, unless Cypress chooses to terminate my employment sooner. AR 1413 (emphasis in original). This response “stunned” Cypress managers. AR 1067. But according to Dietz, he was not intending to resign at all—rather, he was triggering a specific employee-retention policy at Cypress called the “Turnaround Process.” AR 1249. Under that policy, Cypress would react quickly to a valued 7 employee’s notice of resignation and attempt to persuade that employee to remain at Cypress. Cypress’s response, however, was not immediate. The next day, June 6, 2013, Nulty responded with an invitation for Dietz to attend a meeting for the following day—an invitation with no attached agenda, which Dietz believed was unusual at Cypress. Dietz called Nulty about the upcoming meeting but could not reach him. Because Nulty had waited a full day to respond to the resignation notice, because the invitation had no agenda, and because he could not get in touch with Nulty, Dietz concluded that Cypress was not adhering to its turnaround process and was planning to terminate him. Dietz believed the writing was on the wall and the axe was about to fall. Thus, on June 7, 2013, before the scheduled meeting he notified Cypress that his resignation was effective immediately. That was his last day at Cypress.