513 F. App'x 763
10th Cir.2013Background
- Luke, a security guard at Hospital Shared Services (DIA contract), was observed in public drinking coffee, talking to guards, and distributing tamale fundraiser flyers.
- A Denver manager warned Luke about congregating and drinking in public and reported observations to HSS's Director of Security.
- HSS HR investigated; Luke denied solicitations and demanded proof and the reporting witness.
- Costigan terminated Luke on May 3; she was formally terminated May 4 for misconduct and unacceptable behavior, including insubordination and providing false information during the investigation.
- Luke claimed unlawful discharge based on Hispanic/Native American heritage and gender and retaliation for a discrimination letter; the district court granted summary judgment for HSS.
- The appeal affirms the grant of summary judgment on both discrimination and retaliation claims and on CADA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination established? | Luke asserts she met the prima facie elements. | HSS argues no inference of discrimination from similarly situated comparators. | No, no inferable discrimination evidence. |
| Pretext evidence survives? | Luke cites vague policy and favorable evaluation as pretext. | HSS's reasons are coherent and credible; pretext not shown. | Pretext not shown; reasons believed in good faith. |
| Retaliation causation shown? | Temporal proximity and knowledge of letter implied retaliation. | No evidence managers knew of the protected activity at termination. | No causal connection established. |
| CADA claims upheld? | CADA mirrors Title VII; retaliation/discrimination under CADA apply. | Same standards apply; no triable issues exist. | Summary judgment affirmed on CADA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (three-step burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Luster v. Vilsack, 667 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2011) (evidence of similarly situated comparators can raise inference of discrimination)
- Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997) (similarly situated employees must deal with same supervisor)
- McGowan v. City of Eufala, 472 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 2006) (supervisory relation matters in similarly situated analysis)
- Young v. Dillon Cos., 468 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006) (reasons for termination must be coherent and credible)
- Rivera v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 365 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer must act in good faith on proffered reasons)
- Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (knowledge of protected activity required for retaliation)
- Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2008) (causal connection requires awareness of protected activity)
- Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (mere conjecture insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Hysten v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 296 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2002) (proximity alone does not prove retaliation without knowledge of activity)