Cole v. Foxmar, Inc, 2:18-cv-00220

ETR took over management of Northlands Job Corps Center on June 1, 2018; Thomas Cole was a residential counselor (RC) working second shift and was in a probationary status.
On July 23–24, 2018 Cole reported dormitory sanitation shortages (no sanitizer), observed sick staff, complained to Center Director Alicia Grangent, and left his shift early on July 24 after notifying management.
On July 27 Cole emailed HR requesting reassignment and reiterating safety/health concerns; that same day HR (Bernadette Brookes), supervisor (Angela Mobley), and Grangent exchanged emails recommending termination based on alleged job abandonment/absences.
ETR terminated Cole on July 27, 2018 during his probationary period, citing the employee handbook rule that job abandonment (three days of unnotified absence) is a dischargeable offense.
Procedural posture: ETR moved for summary judgment. The court considered Plaintiff's exhibits as potentially admissible at trial, denied summary judgment on VOSHA and VESTA retaliation claims (Counts I & II), and granted summary judgment for ETR on promissory estoppel (Count III) as preempted by statutory remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of plaintiff's exhibits at summary-judgment	Exhibits can be admitted at trial as party admissions or business records; therefore they may be considered now.	Exhibits are unauthenticated and unsworn and should be excluded.	Court may consider the exhibits because they can be put into admissible form (party admissions/business records).
Retaliation under VOSHA/VESTA (protected activity, employer knowledge, causation)	Cole had a good-faith, reasonable belief that lack of sanitizer and staff working while ill posed safety/public-health violations; he complained and suffered adverse action; temporal proximity and knowledge create causal inference.	Cole lacked a subjective belief in a statutory violation; alleged job abandonment and absence history—an intervening, nondiscriminatory reason—and decisionmakers lacked knowledge of complaints.	Summary judgment denied: triable issues exist on protected activity, employer knowledge, causation, and pretext (disputed facts about scheduling, notice, and whether job abandonment occurred).
Promissory estoppel claim	ETR's handbook/promise to encourage safety complaints and not retaliate created an enforceable promise that induced reliance.	Promissory-estoppel claim is duplicative of statutory remedies under VOSHA/VESTA and therefore preempted.	Summary judgment granted for defendant: promissory estoppel is preempted because VOSHA/VESTA provide the statutory remedy.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment burdens and admissibility principles)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute and weighing evidence on summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation prima facie case)
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001) (Vermont elements for retaliation prima facie case)
Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (employee's reasonable, good-faith belief suffices even if underlying conduct not unlawful)
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (but-for causation and mixed-motive discussion in retaliation claims)
Donovan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 713 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1983) (OSHA federal/private-action context cited on employee safety complaints)
Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (employer's burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason at summary judgment)
Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 129 A.3d 108 (Vt. 2015) (Vermont discussion of causation and evidence of pretext in employment retaliation claims)