Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.
3:19-cv-00067
| D. Nev. | Sep 7, 2021Background
- Tomas Perez, an underground miner, struck a mine wall on Nov. 1, 2017; he felt pain later and was treated by Barrick EMTs and a clinic doctor who diagnosed a left chest wall contusion and took him off work.
- Perez did not report the incident immediately; he finished his shift and later sought medical care; Barrick began an internal investigation the same day.
- Barrick received coworker allegations that Perez might be faking the injury, hired a private investigator, and obtained surveillance and statements suggesting Perez performed physical activities while off work.
- Barrick denied Perez’s workers’ compensation claim, recommended termination for failing to report the incident and for perceived misrepresentation, and terminated Perez on Nov. 20, 2017.
- Perez sued for FMLA interference/retaliation and tortious (public-policy) retaliatory discharge; Barrick moved for summary judgment, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barrick unlawfully interfered with Perez’s FMLA right to reinstatement | Perez: termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA-protected leave after injury | Barrick: termination was for legitimate, non-FMLA reasons — misrepresentation and failure to report | Court: Summary judgment denied; genuine factual disputes remain whether termination was for protected FMLA leave |
| Whether Barrick can rely on an "honest belief" it lied as a lawful reason to fire Perez | Perez: he was genuinely injured and protected by FMLA | Barrick: honest belief that Perez lied about the injury suffices to legitimize firing | Court: Even an honest but incorrect belief cannot justify firing where employer concedes plaintiff was injured for purposes of the motion; dispute over lying remains material |
| Whether failure-to-report was an independent, non-FMLA justification for termination | Perez: termination was pretext for retaliation | Barrick: immediate failure to report violated policy and justified firing | Court: Denied summary judgment because evidence shows the misrepresentation theory and failure-to-report theory are intertwined, creating material disputes |
| Whether Perez’s state-law tortious retaliatory-discharge claim fails | Perez: terminated for taking protected medical leave (strong public policy) | Barrick: same nonretaliatory reasons (misrepresentation/failure to report) | Court: Denied summary judgment; factual dispute whether discharge violated public policy (FMLA-protected conduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (employer honest-belief rule)
- Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (FMLA interference concept; protection for exercise of leave)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (FMLA interference theories — denying/discouraging and using leave as negative factor)
- Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (FMLA limits on reinstatement)
- Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
- Egan v. Del. River Port Auth., 851 F.3d 263 (interpretation of interference/retaliation under FMLA)