Dawson v. Entek International
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 468
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dawson, a male homosexual, was hired by Entek International in 2007 as a temporary production line worker on a shift with male co-workers.
- Dawson faced derogatory comments about sexual orientation from co-workers, including terms like homo, fag, and queer, observed by Guzon and others.
- Dawson complained to human resources about the harassment; two days later he was terminated for a no-call/no-show attendance issue.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Entek on multiple claims, applying a McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to both federal and state discrimination claims.
- Dawson appeals, challenging the use of burden-shifting for Oregon’s § 659A.030 claims and arguing genuine issues of material fact remain on retaliation and sexual orientation hostile work environment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonnell Douglas applies to Oregon § 659A.030 claims. | Dawson argues Snead governs federal-subject-matter rules only in diversity, not supplemental jurisdiction. | Entek contends Snead applies to all federal cases with state-law claims; burden-shifting is appropriate. | Yes; the court applying Snead directs McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting for both federal and state claims. |
| Whether there is pretext to support retaliation claims. | Dawson argues timing and protected activity show pretext. | Entek argues termination was for a legitimate no-show/no-call policy violation. | Yes; circumstantial evidence supports a genuine issue of material fact on pretext and retaliation. |
| Whether sex hostile environment claims succeed under Title VII/659A.303. | Dawson asserts co-worker harassment based on sex/masculinity and supervisor knowledge. | Entek contends lack of evidence that harassment was based on sex or that management failed to act. | District court properly found no sex-based hostile environment under Title VII/659A.303. |
| Whether sexual orientation hostile environment under ORS § 659A.030 is viable and Entek liable. | Dawson contends orientation-based harassment was actionable and Entek failed to act. | Entek argues statute was not yet amended to cover such claims and that no supervisor liability existed. | Statutory prohibition existed at the time; Entek liable for harassment by coworkers and potential supervisor liability issues to be retried. |
| Whether Dawson’s IIED claim survives. | Dawson argues name-calling could be extreme and outrageous. | Entek argues corporate indifference cannot sustain IIED. | District court did not err in granting summary judgment on IIED. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (2001) (applies federal procedural rules to state-law discrimination claims in federal court)
- Messick v. Horizon Indus., Inc., 62 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1995) (pretext shown by circumstantial evidence may suffice)
- Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (pretext evidence available to rebut legitimate reasons)
- Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting framework in retaliation claims)