Opinion ID: 1886924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment Analysis

Text: [¶ 13] Entry of a summary judgment is appropriate only if the portions of the evidentiary record referred to in the statements [of material facts] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact set forth in those statements and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Botka v. S.C. Noyes & Co., 2003 ME 128, ¶ 18, 834 A.2d 947, 952-53. A party's opposing statement of material facts `must explicitly admit, deny, or qualify facts by reference to each numbered paragraph, and a denial or qualification must be supported by a record citation.' Doyle v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 ME 61, ¶ 10, 824 A.2d 48, 52-53 (quoting Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ¶ 6 n. 5, 770 A.2d 653, 655); see also M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2). Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). The existence of a dispute of material facts and entry of summary judgment are questions of law which we review de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment has been entered, to decide whether the parties' statements of material facts and the referenced record evidence reveal a genuine issue of material fact, and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Botka, 2003 ME 128, ¶ 18, 834 A.2d at 952-53. [¶ 14] We turn to consider the summary judgment record in this case as it pertains to (1) Stanley's prima facie case of employment discrimination; (2) the Commissioners' nondiscriminatory reasons for Stanley's termination; and (3) proof of motive in employment discrimination cases.
[¶ 15] The Commissioners concede that Stanley required an electrician's license at least with regard to the floodlight project. They also concede that Stanley told Urquhart that he was not authorized to perform that work. It is also undisputed that Stanley was terminated from employment a short time after he made the WPA-protected report. [¶ 16] These facts establish a prima facie case for discrimination pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1)(A), (B), or (D). See DiCentes, 1998 ME 227, ¶ 16, 719 A.2d at 514-15 (Proof of conduct protected by the WPA ... followed in close proximity by an adverse employment action, gives rise to an inference that a causal connection is established....). Thus, under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the Commissioners were obliged to produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Stanley's employment. DiCentes, 1998 ME 227, ¶ 16, 719 A.2d at 515. Accordingly, we examine the undisputed facts that establish a nondiscriminatory reason for Stanley's termination, and the absence of a causal connection between Stanley's termination and his complaints regarding the electrical work.
[¶ 17] The Commissioners asserted in paragraphs 38, 66, 99, and 179 of their statement of material facts that they terminated Stanley's employment for the nondiscriminatory reasons that he abused break and lunch time policies, came in late and left early without permission, poorly performed his work, and was rude and argumentative. The Commissioners also asserted in paragraphs 13, 49, 53, and 180 of their statement of material facts that Stanley's complaints about electrical work were irrelevant to their decision. [¶ 18] Stanley responded to paragraphs 38, 49, 66, 99, 179, and 180, as follows: Plaintiff admits that this is what is contained in [the] affidavit, but notes that, to the extent this statement reflects the affiant's state of mind or opinion, the Judge is free to completely disregard this self-serving statement, as it is not from a disinterested witness. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, [150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097] (2000) (citations omitted). Stanley's responses failed in several respects to dispute the nondiscriminatory reasons asserted by the Commissioners for his termination. First, the responses fail to admit, deny, or qualify the facts. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2). Second, by not expressly admitting the facts, Stanley was required, but failed, to support each denial or qualification by a record citation. Id. Moreover, by failing to controvert properly the Commissioners' asserted facts, Stanley admitted those facts. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). [3] [¶ 19] Stanley cannot avoid admitting a fact that he failed to controvert properly by inviting the court to disbelieve a sworn affidavit because it contains self-serving statements by a witness who is not disinterested. The Rules permit parties to rely on the affidavits of interested witnesses, including themselves, to establish or dispute a material fact. A cornerstone of the rationale for having a summary judgment process is that a trial is not warranted if a party cannot identify admissible evidence that establishes an actual factual dispute. If we were to interpret the Rule as Stanley suggests, Rule 56 would be rendered a nullity. As applied here, Stanley's approach would compel us to disregard the facts he asserted in his additional statement of material facts because the statement is based on his own affidavit and deposition, both of which can be characterized as self-serving statements by a witness who is not disinterested. We reject this approach. [¶ 20] Stanley's reliance on the Reeves opinion in his responses is misplaced. Reeves addressed an age discrimination claim in which the employer had rebutted the employee's prima facie case of discrimination at trial with the legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation that the employee was terminated for shoddy record keeping. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quotation marks omitted). In response, the employee introduced evidence that he had properly maintained the records in question, id. at 144-45, 120 S.Ct. 2097, thereby creating a jury issue as to the falsity of the employer's explanation. Id. at 151, 120 S.Ct. 2097. Similarly, in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa , the United States Supreme Court held that an employee is not required to present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 539 U.S. 90, 92, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), and may instead rely on circumstantial evidence, including circumstantial evidence that a defendant's explanation for an employment practice is `unworthy of credence.' Id. at 100, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097). [¶ 21] The principles enunciated in Reeves and Desert Palace, with which we agree, do not assist Stanley because Stanley's responses failed to create a factual dispute regarding the Commissioners' nondiscriminatory explanation for their decision to terminate his employment. Stanley could have generated a factual dispute by simply denying the Commissioners' assertions and, as required by Rule 56(h)(2), supporting his denials with record citations to circumstantial evidence that the Commissioners' nondiscriminatory explanation was unworthy of credence. Contrary to the view expressed by our dissenting colleagues, the principles addressed in Reeves and Desert Palace are entirely consistent with our conclusion regarding Stanley's responses and with the established requirements of summary judgment practice: To create a jury question as to whether an employer's nondiscriminatory explanation is believable, the employee must deny the material facts that establish the nondiscriminatory explanation and support the denials with record citations to admissible evidence. That did not occur here. [¶ 22] Stanley also failed to effectively controvert the factual assertions made in paragraphs 13 and 53 of the Commissioners' statement of material facts, but for reasons different than those applicable to paragraphs 38, 49, 66, 99, 179, and 180. In each instance, Stanley expressly disputed the Commissioners' assertion that they thought the electrical work issue was irrelevant. Stanley supported his responses inadequately, however, with record citations that established only that he raised the electrical work issue at the hearing, not that the Commissioners treated the issue as relevant to their decision to terminate his employment. [4] [¶ 23] Stanley's responses to the Commissioners' statement of material facts established that the Commissioners had legitimate reasons for terminating his employment. Accordingly, the Commissioners established a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. This shifts the burden of persuasion to Stanley to show that the nondiscriminatory reasons offered by the Commissioners are pretextual. Stanley cannot meet this burden because his responses to the Commissioners' statement of material facts also failed to controvert that what he believed to be the real reason for his termination  his complaints regarding electrical-related job assignments  was irrelevant to the Commissioners' decision. [5] Nowhere in his opposing statement of material facts did Stanley assert that his poor work performance reports, relied on by the Commissioners, were untrue, or that even if true, were not the cause for his termination. [¶ 24] Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, a plaintiff can meet her or his final burden and survive a defense motion for a summary judgment by establishing a factual dispute as to whether a causal connection exists between the report protected by the WPA and the adverse employment action. Stanley failed to do this because pursuant to Rule 56(h)(4) he admitted that he was terminated for his poor work performance and that his complaints regarding the electrical work were not the cause of the Commissioners' decision. The fact that there is a factual dispute about the extent to which he complained about having to perform electrical work even before Urquhart's 2001 memo, or whether Urquhart told him that the Commissioners had asked Urquhart to find a reason for firing him, does not satisfy his burden of demonstrating the required causal connection between his whistleblowing and his termination. [6] See Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87, ¶ 9, 711 A.2d 842, 845 (stating that a motion for a summary judgment is properly granted [w]here a plaintiff will have the burden of proof on an essential issue at trial, and it is clear that the defendant would be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law at trial if the plaintiff presented nothing more than was before the court at the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment.).
[¶ 25] Stanley contends that employment discrimination cases are unsuitable for summary judgments because any statements by a defendant related to motive or intent should be subjected to a credibility determination at trial. Although at least one court has suggested caution in the use of summary judgment practice to decide issues of motive or intent in employment discrimination cases, see Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir.2003), the presence of the issue of motivation or intent does not relieve the plaintiff of her or his burden of producing evidence sufficient to create a question of fact on that issue. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 524, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1024-26 (11th Cir.2000). [¶ 26] Regardless of whether extra caution is warranted on the issue of motivation when applying the summary judgment framework in employment discrimination cases, the summary judgment record in this case establishes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact central to one of the three required elements of a WPA claim: that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. DiCentes, 1998 ME 227, ¶ 14, 719 A.2d at 514. Stanley conceded that the adverse employment action was motivated by legitimate reasons that are unrelated to his complaints regarding electrical work. He therefore failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the reasons cited by the Commissioners to justify his termination were pretextual. See id. ¶ 17, 719 A.2d at 515.