Barlow, Jr. v. C.R. England Inc., 703 F.3d 497

Barlow, African American, sued his former employer C.R. England, Inc. for race discrimination, wrongful discharge under Colorado public policy, and FLSA overtime.
Barlow worked as a security guard and ran a janitorial company (E&W Janitorial) that England contracted with for cleaning services.
Barlow sustained a work injury in June 2007; he began receiving workers’ compensation and England terminated its janitorial contract with E&W in Nov. 2007.
England later terminated Barlow from the security guard position in April 2008 after a theft occurred during his shift; Barlow allegedly failed to notice or report it.
England treated Barlow’s janitorial work as independent contracting; Barlow claimed wrongful discharge for both positions and sought overtime under the FLSA.
The district court granted summary judgment for England on all federal claims, with remand on a state-law claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case for race discrimination	Barlow asserts evidence supports inference of discrimination.	England argues no prima facie case; no nexus shown between race and termination.	Barlow failed to establish a prima facie case; district court affirmed on race claims.
Pretext and causation in race claims	Even if no prima facie, pretext or mixed-motive evidence exists.	Employer offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination.	No pretext established; no issue for jury on discrimination after prima facie failure.
FLSA status of janitorial work	Barlow’s janitorial work as employee entitled to overtime.	Economic realities show independent contractor status; no overtime due.	Barlow was an independent contractor; district court’s FLSA ruling affirmed.
Wrongful discharge from security position	Termination tied to workers’ compensation claim and protected activities.	Termination for performance-related reasons; no causal link proven.	Barlow established fact issues on retaliation; mixed-motive issue requires remand.
Wrongful discharge from janitorial contract	Remand needed to assess whether janitorial termination violated public policy.	Status as independent contractor negates wrongful discharge claim.	Remanded for further proceedings to resolve causation under state-law claim.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973) (establishes three-part burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Khalik v. United Airlines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (prima facie framework and evidence considerations in discrimination)
Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2005) (prima facie analysis and inference of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas)
Salguero v. City of Clovis, 366 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2004) (requirements for prima facie case in discrimination claims)
Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1999) (evidence of replacement and termination in discrimination analysis)
Baker v. Flint Engineering & Const. Co., 137 F.3d 1436 (10th Cir. 1998) (economic reality test factors for employee status)
Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court, 1947) (early guidance on independent contracting analysis)
Lorenz v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 109 (Colo. 1992) (Colorado public policy retaliation framework)
Ramirez v. Okla. Dept. of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584 (10th Cir. 1994) (temporal proximity in retaliation claims under Colorado policy)
Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d 205 (10th Cir. 1997) (retaliation causation considerations in proximity analysis)
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, 524 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2008) (Tenth Circuit treatment of causation and evidence in retaliation)
Webster v. Konczak Corp., 976 P.2d 317 (Colo. App. 1998) (retaliation and evidence standards in Colorado cases)