191 F. Supp. 3d 1271
D. Utah2016Background
- Jay Gordon, hired 2008 by Home Depot as a Pro Account Sales Associate, had a documented history of customer-service problems and multiple negative performance reviews.
- Gordon suffered workplace injuries in Nov. 2009 and Apr. 2011, filed a workers’ compensation claim after the first injury, and requested a stool accommodation (received Feb. 2011).
- Home Depot disciplined Gordon for several incidents (including a racial remark to a customer) and placed him on a performance improvement plan; he was terminated in Oct. 2011 after a customer complaint for violating the store’s customer-service rules.
- Gordon sued for wrongful termination in violation of Utah public policy (retaliation for filing workers’ compensation), age discrimination under the ADEA, retaliatory firing under the ADA, and failure to accommodate under the ADA.
- Home Depot moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons (repeated customer complaints and progressive discipline) and that the requested accommodation was provided.
- The court granted Home Depot summary judgment on all claims: no causal link or substantial factor tying termination to workers’ compensation; no evidence of pretext for ADEA/ADA retaliation claims; failure-to-accommodate claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful termination (Utah public policy — retaliation for filing workers’ compensation) | Gordon: termination was retaliation for filing workers’ compensation and he faced a pattern of hostility after claims | Home Depot: termination resulted from documented, repeated customer-service problems and policy violations; no causal link to workers’ compensation; progressive discipline was followed | Court: Granted summary judgment for Home Depot — plaintiff failed to show causal connection or that the claim was a substantial factor in termination |
| Age discrimination (ADEA) and ADA retaliatory firing | Gordon: termination motivated by age and by requesting accommodation/filing WC claim | Home Depot: legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason — history of complaints and failure to improve after PIP; AACG/store-manager process supported decision | Court: Granted summary judgment for Home Depot — employer articulated legitimate reason and Gordon failed to show pretext |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA) | Gordon: Home Depot delayed providing requested stool; delay constituted failure to accommodate | Home Depot: provided the stool in Feb. 2011 | Court: Granted summary judgment for Home Depot — claim time-barred because administrative charge filed more than 300 days after accommodation was provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Touchard v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 148 P.3d 945 (Utah 2006) (terminating employee for exercising workers’ compensation rights violates Utah public policy)
- Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395 (Utah 1998) (employee must show protected conduct was a substantial factor in termination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Proctor v. United Parcel Service, 502 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (ADA retaliatory-discharge analysis using McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Sanders v. Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P., 544 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2008) (pretext requires showing employer’s reasons are unworthy of credence)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary judgment when record, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, cannot support a rational jury finding)