Poff v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 5:15-cv-00936

Plaintiff Kimberly Poff, a former employee of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS), was later hired by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Inspector General and was terminated on August 22, 2014.
Poff had filed an EEOC charge in January 2014 and a civil suit in August 2014 against ODMHSAS alleging gender and age discrimination; DHS contends it did not know about those filings when it terminated her.
An August 20, 2014 newspaper article criticizing Poff’s prior work at ODMHSAS (but not mentioning her discrimination claims) prompted DHS officials to review her hiring.
DHS Director Tony Bryan ordered an inquiry after being alerted by DHS staff; Bryan was the final decisionmaker who terminated Poff.
Poff sued DHS for retaliatory discharge under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), alleging her protected participation (EEOC charge and lawsuit) caused her termination.
The court considered DHS’s summary judgment motion and granted it, concluding Poff failed to show the decisionmaker knew of her protected activity and thus failed to establish causation for a retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Poff engaged in protected activity	Poff filed an EEOC charge and later sued ODMHSAS (participation)	DHS conceded she engaged in protected activity	Held: Poff engaged in protected activity (conceded)
Whether Poff suffered an adverse employment action	Poff argued termination was adverse	DHS conceded termination occurred	Held: Termination is an adverse action (conceded)
Whether there is causation (decisionmaker's knowledge of protected activity)	Close temporal proximity and agency-wide knowledge justify inference of causation; rely on agency principles to impute knowledge	Bryan, the final decisionmaker, lacked knowledge of Poff’s EEOC charge or discrimination suit; article did not mention those claims; temporal proximity alone insufficient without decisionmaker knowledge	Held: No causal connection—Poff failed to show Bryan knew of her protected activity, so causation not established
Whether state agency/agency principal-agent doctrines impute knowledge to DHS for retaliation purposes	Poff urged imputation of knowledge from other DHS employees to decisionmaker to establish causation	DHS argued federal retaliation law requires decisionmaker knowledge; state agency doctrines are inapplicable to establish federal causation	Held: Agency/State-law imputation inapposite; federal law requires evidence decisionmaker knew of protected activity

Tabor v. Hill, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard and materiality definition)
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard context)
Vaughn v. Villa, 537 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2008) (elements of retaliation prima facie case)
Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2007) (retaliation elements and standards)
MacKenzie v. City & Cty. of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2005) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
Piercy v. Maketa, 480 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (very close temporal proximity can be compelling)
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (employer knowledge often required for causation inference)
Petersen v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2002) (retaliation requires that decisionmaker knew of protected activity)
Montes v. Vail Clinic Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (causal-connection element requires decisionmaker knowledge)
Williams v. Rice, 983 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1993) (no causation where no evidence defendant knew of complaints)