Asaro v. Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Company, Inc, 3:09-cv-00295

Asaro, an Oregon resident, sued Sealy in federal court under diversity, alleging retaliation claims under ORS 654.062 and ORS 659A.230 and an IIED claim.
Asaro began at Sealy Portland in 2005, working in SBU; he handled distressed bedding and learned policy on disposing LFD pieces.
Jan 2008: Asaro complained about Hicks’s hair/safety-glasses issue; Hicks reported to HR; Asaro admitted the conversation but disputed specifics.
Mar 2008: Coley issued CANs and DANs to Asaro (and others) for various infractions; some warnings were later withdrawn.
May 2008: Asaro and others received CANs for failing to remove corner guards from LFD pieces; warnings were later withdrawn as to discipline implications.
Apr–May 2008: Asaro filed multiple BOLI complaints alleging harassment and retaliation; in May he alleged safety and dumpster-related tasks were retaliatory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether March 2008 warnings were retaliation for a safety complaint	Asaro contends Hicks’s bias tainted discipline via Coley’s actions.	Coley independently issued warnings based on objective performance data; no retaliatory motive shown.	No causal link; summary judgment for Sealy on Count 1.
Whether May 2008 warning was retaliation for safety complaint	The timing shows retaliatory motive after Asaro’s safety concerns.	Warnings were for collective SBU noncompliance; justified and not retaliatory.	No pretext; summary judgment for Sealy on Count 2.
Whether the dumpster task removing corner guards was retaliation for April 2008 BOLI complaints	Order to work alone in dumpster constitutes adverse action tied to protected activity.	Task was a legitimate safety measure; Asaro was the only trained employee available.	Counts 3 summary judgment for Sealy; insufficient pretext evidence.
Whether Asaro’s IIED claim survives	IIED arises from extreme retaliatory conduct beyond ordinary workplace discipline.	Disciplinary actions and dumpster task do not amount to extreme or outrageous conduct; no intent to cause severe distress.	Summary judgment for Sealy; Count 4 dismissed.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment requires absence of genuine disputes on material facts)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to disparities in discrimination cases)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (discrimination context includes surrounding circumstances and relationships)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1985) (direct evidence standard for discrimination cases)
Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (direct evidence framework and causation in retaliation cases)
Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (pretext analysis requires more than minimal prima facie case)
Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) (causal link can be inferred from timing in retaliation cases)
Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (causal inference standards in retaliation context)
McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (reemphasizes scrutiny in employment discrimination summary judgments)