Opinion ID: 616359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fact-Finders

Text: Tepperwien contends that three fact-finders were retaliatory: (a) January 2006, regarding the missing gas mask; (b) January or February of 2006, regarding Tepperwien's letting an apparently drunk security officer onto the work site; and (c) July or August 2006, regarding Tepperwien's carrying out of orders to watch a truck while he was in the BRE. [7] The district court correctly held that the three fact-finders were not materially adverse as a matter of law. First, fact-finders at Entergy were not disciplinary in nature. They fell outside of Entergy's four levels of discipline and could not be grieved by the union. They were common occurrences at Entergy, as the shop steward testified that he reviewed thirty fact-finders a week. They were triggered when there was a reason to investigate, e.g., to determine whether corrective action should be taken. Indeed, Tepperwien acknowledged that in most situations, fact-finders are there to be helpful, get everybody in a room and see if some other action has to proceed after that. Second, there was good reason for Entergy to initiate these fact-finders, and thus no reasonable employee would have found them to be materially adverse or stigmatizing. In the first, a gas mask was discovered missing on Tepperwien's assigned route; another security officer was subjected to a fact-finder for the missing gas mask as well. In the second, Tepperwien permitted a security officer to pass through a security checkpoint and enter the work place; the officer was apparently intoxicated and was later sent home as unfit for duty. In the third, while Tepperwien was on watch, an unidentified truck was permitted to remain in the yard outside a nuclear power plantfor at least two hours. Even assuming Tepperwien acted perfectly appropriately in all three incidents, there certainly was good reason for Entergy management to at least look into these situations. Third, while fact-finders certainly could lead to disciplinary action, they did not here. Although a counseling letter was issued with respect to the gas mask incident, it was later rescinded. In fact, Tepperwien never complained to the ECP or his union about the fact-finders because, as he acknowledged, [t]here was no reason to, because they all died. They didn't go anywhere. (Tr. at 224-25). He admitted that none of the fact-finders resulted in any discipline. Finally, Tepperwien argues that he had not been subject to a fact-finding for the three years prior to his filing of his various complaints. The testimony cited for this proposition, however, is equivocal, [8] but even assuming that Tepperwien was not subjected to any fact-finders until after he complained of sexual harassment, this is proof only of causation and a retaliatory motivenot of materiality. Again, Title VII does not protect an employee from all retaliation, but only retaliation that produces an injury or harm. Burlington, 548 U.S. at 67, 126 S.Ct. 2405; see Hicks, 593 F.3d at 164-65. Even assuming they were causally connected to Tepperwien's protected activity, the three fact-finders occurring over the course of approximately eight months, consisting only of brief inquiries, and resulting in no discipline were merely trivial harms or petty slights or minor annoyances. Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405.