Ward v. Jewell
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22148
| 10th Cir. | 2014

Background

  • Mike C. Ward, a Bureau of Reclamation employee, was a supervisor until a 2005 reorganization removed his supervisory duties and reassigned them to James Durrant.
  • Ward participated in earlier EEOC proceedings (2004) stemming from a subordinate’s discrimination complaint and later complained to the EEOC about losing supervisory responsibilities.
  • In 2010 Ward applied for a Provo Area Manager job; a panel did not recommend him but the final decisionmaker, Regional Director Larry Walkoviak, interviewed all five candidates and selected another applicant.
  • Ward sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation: (1) failure to reinstate him to his prior supervisory duties (i.e., failing to demote/fire Durrant), and (2) failure to promote him to the Provo manager role.
  • The district court granted summary judgment for the Department of the Interior; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, focusing on whether Ward presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of a causal (but-for) connection between his EEOC activity and the adverse actions.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether failure to remove Durrant and restore Ward’s supervisory duties was retaliatory Ward: EEOC participation caused the agency to keep Durrant and not restore Ward DOI: No evidence linking EEOC participation to decision years later; other non-retaliatory reasons existed No causal link; summary judgment for DOI affirmed
Whether denial of Provo promotion was retaliatory Ward: panel members (Rhees, Gold) were biased from EEOC matters and influenced Hire DOI: Walkoviak made independent decision after interviewing all candidates; no evidence he relied on biased subordinates No evidence of retaliation by Walkoviak; summary judgment for DOI affirmed
Whether circumstantial evidence suffices to establish causation under McDonnell Douglas Ward: various comments, personnel changes, evaluations, and classification differences support inference DOI: Temporal gap and lack of direct evidence mean mere speculation; Cat’s Paw inapplicable because decisionmaker conducted his own interviews Court: Temporal gap requires additional evidence of but‑for causation; Ward failed to provide it
Whether Cat’s Paw liability applies to impute bias of panel to final decisionmaker Ward: biased panel members influenced hiring decision DOI: Walkoviak interviewed all candidates and did not rely on the panel’s recommendation Court: Cat’s Paw not available because Walkoviak conducted independent investigation/interviews; no imputation of bias

Key Cases Cited

  • Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 667 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in employment cases)
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
  • Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff’s burden to prove prima facie retaliation)
  • Wells v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 325 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2003) (elements of prima facie retaliation)
  • Williams v. W.D. Sports, N.M., Inc., 497 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
  • Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 1999) (delay may preclude inference of causation absent additional evidence)
  • Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden-shifting and necessity of additional evidence to prove causation)
  • Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
  • Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2004) (speculation insufficient to establish causation)
  • EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (Cat’s Paw doctrine and requirements)
  • Lobato v. N.M. Env’t Dep’t, 733 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2013) (Cat’s Paw inapplicable where decisionmaker conducts independent investigation)
  • English v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 248 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2001) (requirements to survive summary judgment under Cat’s Paw theory)
  • Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2011) (Cat’s Paw not applicable when decisionmaker personally investigates before action)
Read the full case