Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc.
737 F.3d 144
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Travers, a skycap employed by Flight Services since 2004, was a lead plaintiff in an FLSA suit he filed against JetBlue and later amended to add Flight Services, challenging wage practices.
- Flight Services CEO Robert Weitzel repeatedly told Travers’s supervisor Nichols to “get rid of [Travers]” and to try to get him to drop the lawsuit; Nichols warned Travers the company would be "coming after" him.
- In September 2010 a JetBlue passenger complained that Travers had solicited a tip; Flight Services’ handbook bars tip solicitation and prescribes termination when solicitation is "found." Travers disputed the characterization in his written statement.
- Flight Services suspended Travers pending investigation and, on Sept. 27, 2010, Lisa Varotsis (general manager) fired him, citing tip solicitation; HR approved the termination.
- Travers sued for retaliation under the FLSA; the district court granted summary judgment to Flight Services. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact about causation and pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travers can show causation for FLSA retaliation claim | Travers: CEO’s repeated directives and hostile remarks created a causal chain; decisionmakers likely knew and were influenced by that animus | Flight Services: No direct evidence linking CEO to firing decision; decisionmakers (Varotsis, HR) unaware of CEO’s views | Court: Jury could reasonably infer knowledge and influence from CEO’s repeated directives from the top; genuine dispute remains |
| Whether Flight Services would have fired Travers absent retaliatory animus (but-for causation) | Travers: company policy and practice left discretion; comparable conduct by others was treated differently, suggesting pretext | Flight Services: Travers’s conduct warranted termination and company consistently fires on first-hand complaints; other employees were fired for stronger misconduct | Court: Reasonable jurors could conclude pre-existing animus tipped discretionary decision; genuine dispute whether Travers would have been fired anyway |
| Whether comparator evidence (other employees treated differently) supports retaliation inference | Travers: at least one similarly accused coworker (Wei) remained employed; other firings involved more egregious conduct, suggesting disparate treatment | Flight Services: Differences explained by quality of complaints (first-hand vs second-hand) and more serious conduct in other cases | Court: Comparisons are ambiguous and contestable; jury could infer post-hoc justification and disparate treatment |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Travers: issues of knowledge, causation, discretion, and comparators create triable factual disputes | Flight Services: evidence supports an undisputed non-retaliatory reason and lack of causal link | Court: Summary judgment improper; factual disputes for jury remain |
Key Cases Cited
- McArdle v. Town of Dracut, 732 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts favorably to nonmovant)
- Triangle Trading Co., Inc. v. Robroy Indus., Inc., 200 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (conclusory allegations and speculation insufficient to create genuine dispute)
- Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2013) (limitations on inference from stray remarks absent linkage to decisionmaker)
- Freeman v. Package Mach. Co., 865 F.2d 1331 (1st Cir. 1988) (superior’s ‘‘battle plan’’ probative of subordinates’ likely actions)
- Kearney v. Town of Wareham, 316 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (but-for causation requirement for retaliation claims)
- Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2003) (disparate treatment evidence can support retaliation inference)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)