Olen Gibson v. Timothy Geithner, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 348

Background

Gibson, an African-American male, was hired as a seasonal IRS tax examiner on Jan 1, 2008, subject to a one-year probationary period; his unit tracked work and performed random and sometimes 100% quality reviews.
Supervisors (all female; mix of African-American and Caucasian) observed problems with Gibson’s work: allegedly mis‑labeled bundles, hours recorded when absent, altered documents, and a high error rate on review.
Butler (first‑level supervisor) counseled Gibson in March 2008 and prohibited overtime after observing potentially incomplete editing and claimed credit for others’ work; Gibson denied intent and requested union representation.
Gibson filed internal complaints alleging racial and sexual harassment and retaliation by Butler in late March and April 2008; management investigated and found the harassment allegations unfounded.
After 100% review showed an unacceptably high error rate, Operations Manager Vermillion terminated Gibson on April 25, 2008, for failing to attain a fully successful performance level.
Gibson sued under Title VII for racial/sexual hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation; he abandoned hostile environment claims and appealed only the retaliatory termination claim after summary judgment for the IRS was granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gibson established a prima facie retaliation claim (protected activity, materially adverse action, causation)	Gibson argued he engaged in protected activity (complaints), termination was materially adverse, and timing and other facts support causation	IRS accepted for purposes of appeal that a prima facie case could be assumed but disputed causation and argued termination was for poor performance	Court assumed prima facie case could be met but did not decide it; proceeded to pretext and affirmed summary judgment
Whether the IRS’s explanation (poor performance) was pretext for retaliation	Gibson argued shifting explanations, lack of discipline of others, and temporal proximity show pretext and retaliatory motive	IRS pointed to documented poor performance (100% review showing >50% errors) and valid investigations; presented legitimate, non‑retaliatory reason for termination	No genuine issue of material fact as to pretext; contemporaneous documentation of poor performance supported termination; summary judgment affirmed
Whether a cat’s‑paw theory (butler’s influence) can show liability	Gibson contended Butler influenced decisionmakers and her alleged animus produced the termination	IRS noted no evidence Butler influenced Vermillion or that any influence was retaliatory; investigation and supervisory chain contradicted the claim	Court declined to apply cat’s paw because Gibson produced no evidence Butler improperly influenced the decisionmaker
Whether temporal proximity alone establishes pretext/causation	Gibson relied on short time between complaints and termination to show retaliatory motive	IRS argued timing alone is insufficient without other supporting evidence and pointed to pre‑existing performance concerns	Court held proximity could support prima facie causation but is insufficient by itself to show pretext; lack of other evidence doomed Gibson’s claim

Key Cases Cited

Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 416 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (pretext requires more substantial evidence than prima facie case)
Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2012) (methods to show pretext)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s‑paw theory where a biased subordinate causes adverse action)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (temporal proximity can establish causation for prima facie case)