Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc.
816 F. Supp. 2d 1093
D. Colo.2011Background
- Barlow, a security guard, was hired February 2005 by John Smith at CR England, supervised by Smith, working weekend nights.
- Barlow also operated E&W Janitorial & Maintenance Services as a side business; he formed it with Ernestine Hudson and conducted invoicing, licensing, and tax filing.
- In June 2007, Barlow was injured by a malfunctioning gate; doctors imposed a 25-pound lifting restriction; he continued working with accommodation and help from mechanics.
- CR England terminated E&W janitorial services contract in December 2007 due to concerns about lifting restrictions and dual roles, and later terminated Barlow as a security guard on April 30, 2008 after a missing trailer doors incident.
- March 2008: a co-worker told a joke using the N-word; Barlow did not complain but claimed racial discrimination; no sustained evidence of discriminatory motive tied to Smith.
- Barlow pursued five claims: §1981 discrimination, ADA, public-policy wrongful discharge, Title VII discrimination, and FLSA claims; the court granted summary judgment for CR England on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination under §1981 and Title VII | Barlow alleges pretext and discriminatory motive in termination | Smith's reasons were legitimate and non-discriminatory | Summary judgment for defendant; no prima facie showing of discrimination |
| ADA discrimination | Barlow claims disability or regarded as disabled affected employment | No actual disability and no evidence of being regarded as disabled | Summary judgment for defendant; no ADA discrimination |
| Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy | Termination linked to workers’ compensation claim | No causal link between WC claim and termination; contract termination unrelated to WC | Summary judgment for defendant; no public-policy violation |
| FLSA overtime claim | Barlow treated as employee for janitorial services; seeks overtime pay | Barlow was an independent contractor for janitorial work | Summary judgment for defendant; FLSA does not apply to independent contractors |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- E.E.O.C. v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2007) (prima facie case and inference of discrimination in employment)
- Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2005) (permissible ways to infer discriminatory motive)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (pretext framework for discrimination cases)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext can be shown if reasons are not credible; but not required to disbelieve all employer reasons)
- Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526 (10th Cir. 1994) (isolated, unrelated remarks insufficient to show discriminatory animus)
- DobeLe v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2003) (an employer's honest belief in reasons for action not pretext absent evidence)
- Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007) (regarded-as disability analysis under ADA amendments)
- Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dept., 427 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2005) (evidence required to show discrimination under prima facie case)