Opinion ID: 169955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: W rongful Discharge

Text: M r. Hare also claims that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy under Colorado common law . He argues that ARI’s decision not to permit him to pay out bonuses under the old plan to himself and M r. Klein was somehow illegal and therefore that it violated Colorado public policy to fire him for refusing to carry it out. To survive summary judgment on this claim, M r. Hare must show that (1) his employer directed him to perform an illegal act as part of his w ork related duties; (2) the act directed by his employer w ould violate a specific statute relating to public health, safety or welfare; (3) he was terminated as a result of refusing to perform the act directed; and (4) his employer was aware or reasonably should have been aware that M r. Hare’s refusal to comply with the directive was based on his reasonable belief that the act was illegal, contrary to clearly expressed statutory policy relating to M r. Hare’s duty -17- as a citizen, or violative of M r. H are’s legal right or privilege as a worker. Roe v. Cheyenne M t. Conf. Resport, 124 F.3d 1221, 1235 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing M artin M arietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo. 1992)). W e are skeptical that M r. Hare has established any of the elements necessary to describe a wrongful discharge claim under Colorado common law. Because failure to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to one of the elements is fatal to M r. Hare’s claim, we shall focus only on the issue of causation. As the district court held, a reasonable jury could not find on this record that there was a causal connection between M r. Hare’s refusal to follow management’s directive not to pay bonuses and his termination twenty months later. The temporal distance between the two events, without more, cannot support an inference of causation. See Miller v. Auto. Club of N.M ., Inc., 420 F.3d 1098, 1121 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding a six month window between protected activity and adverse action insufficient to satisfy causal connection); Connor v. Schnuck M kts, Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1395 (10th Cir. 1997) (finding four month time lag between protected activity and termination insufficient by itself to justify an inference of causation). Although M r. Hare claims that documentation of the bonus dispute was reviewed at the time of his termination, nothing in the record supports such a conclusion. The head of ARI’s human resources, M r. Lane, only testifies that documentation of the dispute between M r. Hare and M r. Cook -18- regarding bonuses w as copied to him as the head of human resources. M r. Phillips mentions M r. Hare’s “insubordinate attitude” as one of the reasons for M r. Hare’s termination, but there is no evidence to support the conclusion that M r. Phillips was specifically referring to the bonuses incident. App. 318. Therefore we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants by the district court.