Cottrell v. Leprino Foods Company, 1:11-cv-01816

Plaintiff Billy D. Cottrell, born May 30, 1951, began working for Leprino Foods in 1993 as a warehouse operator.
Defendant shipped a spoiled trailer in September 2009 due to a high temperature, prompting a corrective reminder to check outside temperature gauges.
On September 22, 2009, Cottrell loaded a shipment, did not check the outside gauge, and recorded a temperature he did not verify; he was warned and then terminated.
At termination, Cottrell was 58 years old; the resignation/termination followed after the prior incident and amid policy enforcement.
Plaintiff filed suit July 12, 2011, asserting ADEA age discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and a hostile work environment claim.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ADEA and Title VII claims; the court denied summary judgment only on the hostile environment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there ADEA discrimination but-for causation?	Cottrell argues age caused termination.	Leprino asserts legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (policy violation).	Summary judgment granted for Leprino; no triable pretext evidence.
Was there protected activity and causal link for Title VII retaliation?	Cottrell opposed age discrimination by seeking training and reporting concerns.	Requests for training did not constitute protected opposition to discrimination.	Summary judgment granted for Leprino; no protected activity shown.

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (requires but-for causation in ADEA claims)
Jones v. Okla. City Pub. Schs., 617 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas to ADEA claims)
Hysten v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 296 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2002) (McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination cases)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
Petersen v. Utah Dep’t of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2002) (protected activity requires awareness of unlawful conduct)