Espinoza v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 509 F. App'x 724

Espinoza, Hispanic, hired as a Colorado Department of Corrections officer in 2004 and promoted to sergeant (CO II) in 2007 with a six-month trial at CTCF.
In June 2007 Espinoza called in sick for a graveyard shift; his absence was noted as causing staffing shortfalls and drew a negative performance document against him by Capt. Moroney (white).
Espinoza and Moroney had meetings on June 27 (Espinoza allegedly became angry) and July 2 (Espinoza accused Moroney of lying; was escorted out).
On July 3 Espinoza alleged racial discrimination by Moroney at a meeting with Associate Warden Arellano (Hispanic); on July 16 he received a written Corrective Action from Warden Abbott (black) outlining disciplinary tasks.
Espinoza filed grievances; OIG investigated; relief included removal of the document and Corrective Action, and restoration of leave; he later sought additional relief from the Colorado State Personnel Board and then sued in district court for Title VII retaliation after receiving a right-to-sue letter.
The district court granted summary judgment for the DOC, ruling Espinoza failed to establish the protected-opposition element of a prima facie retaliation case; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviews de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Espinoza's complaint constitutes protected opposition to discrimination.	Espinoza reasonably believed Moroney discriminated against him due to race.	Espinoza's belief was not objectively reasonable based on record facts about comparators and incidents.	No; belief not objectively reasonable; fails first element.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the three-part burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation)
Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 2004) (protecting opposition to discrimination requires reasonable good-faith belief)
Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2004) (prima facie elements and framework in McDonnell Douglas approach)
Crumpacker v. Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 338 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2003) (objectively reasonable belief standard for protected opposition)
Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment standard and reversal considerations in retaliation cases)
Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383 (10th Cir. 1984) (protected opposition may arise from informal complaints)