David A. Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.
129 A.3d 108
Vt.2015Background
- Gauthier worked as an at-will maintenance technician for Green Mountain (now Keurig Green Mountain) from 2007; he used shared, internet‑enabled workplace computers requiring personal login credentials.
- In July 2011 Green Mountain requested a Websense report for eleven maintenance technicians; the report (generated Aug. 5) showed unusually high internet hits for Gauthier during July 2011.
- Gauthier was injured at work on August 2, 2011, filed a workers’‑compensation claim (which Green Mountain accepted), had surgery in September, and returned from leave in October/November 2011.
- After returning, HR investigated the Websense results, placed Gauthier on administrative leave, and terminated him on November 8, 2011 for alleged violation of the employer’s internet‑use policy; Gauthier denied sharing his password.
- Gauthier sued for workers’‑compensation retaliation, breach of implied covenant, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; after discovery Green Mountain moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted and denied Gauthier’s motion to amend to add breach of contract and whistleblower claims. Gauthier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination after filing a workers’‑compensation claim was retaliatory | Gauthier: temporal proximity plus alleged weaknesses in the Websense evidence (possible account misuse, no proof of poor productivity, Facebook hits inconsistent with his use) show pretext | Green Mountain: produced legitimate, non‑retaliatory reason (Websense showed excessive internet use plus prior discipline); honestly believed that reason | Court: prima facie case satisfied by timing, but employer articulated legitimate reason and plaintiff failed to show pretext; summary judgment for employer affirmed |
| Proper standard for employer’s “honest belief” at pretext stage | Gauthier: employer must reasonably rely on particularized facts (Sixth Circuit approach) | Green Mountain: need only honestly believe its proffered reason even if mistaken (Seventh Circuit approach) | Court: adopts the pure “honest belief” rule (no separate reasonableness requirement); employer need only honestly believe its nondiscriminatory reason |
| Sufficiency of expert/record evidence to create a triable issue of pretext | Gauthier: expert’s letter and factual assertions undermine Websense reliability and show implausibility of employer’s reason | Green Mountain: expert letter does not show employer lacked honest belief; employer investigated and inquired of IT; termination based on Websense plus prior discipline | Court: expert material did not show Websense results were so unreliable that no reasonable employer could have believed them; evidence insufficient to show pretext |
| Denial of motion to amend complaint (add breach of contract and whistleblower claims) | Gauthier: amendment was filed before his summary‑judgment response deadline; claims not frivolous and no bad faith | Green Mountain: amendment sought late (after discovery and after summary‑judgment motion), would prejudice defendant and require new litigation scope | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying amendment due to delay, lack of good cause, and prejudice to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarifies burdens under McDonnell Douglas)
- Murray v. St. Michael’s Coll., 164 Vt. 205 (Vt. law on workers’‑compensation retaliation and prima facie elements)
- Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 176 Vt. 356 (summary‑judgment review and causation/timing analysis)
- Kariotis v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672 (Seventh Circuit articulation of the “honest belief” rule)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (Sixth Circuit requiring reasonable reliance on particularized facts)