Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1508
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gacek, a white male, was a forklift operator for Owens & Minor in Minnesota.
- Tewolde, a recently terminated employee, sued Owens & Minor for racial discrimination in 2008, with Gacek testifying in his deposition.
- Shortly after the depositions, Johnson investigated checkout-sheet violations and disciplined Tyo and Foner, while Gacek was not disciplined.
- In November 2008, Gacek complained about Showers's early shift; Showers was questioned and later died by suicide.
- Mattson, Showers’s friend, publicly claimed that Gacek’s complaint contributed to Showers’s death; Gacek complained to management.
- Gifford, from corporate, investigated and terminated Gacek in April 2009 for multiple policy violations; Gacek sued for §1981 retaliation and defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1981 retaliation prima facie | Gacek alleges protected activity (deposition testimony) leading to retaliation. | Pretext and legitimate nonretaliatory reasons support termination. | No § 1981 retaliation; no pretext evidence; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Defamation viability under Minnesota law | Mattson falsely stated Gacek caused Showers’s death. | Statements were expressions of opinion/surmise not asserting objective facts. | Summary judgment for Mattson affirmed; statements not actionable defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 (1969) (§ 1981 framework mirrors Title VII retaliation analysis)
- Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2010) (prima facie retaliation; burden-shifting framework)
- Green v. Franklin Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis, 459 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (pretext framework; burden-shifting after legitimate reason)
- Gilooly v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 421 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2005) (comparator evidence; similarly situated requirement for pretext)
- Rodgers v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 417 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2005) (rigorous pretext inquiry; comparators must be comparable)
- Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Friday, 617 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (publication requirement for defamation; plaintiff’s role in publication)
- Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (defamation requires statements presenting verifiable facts)
- Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993) (distinction between fact and opinion; motives as speculation not actionable)