Zimpfer v. Aramark Management Services, Lp, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1249

Zimpfer was hired by ARAMARK on September 9, 2008 as a grounds worker.
On December 26, 2008, Zimpfer and a co-worker found a housekeeping supervisor and worker engaging in sexual activity in a locked janitorial closet; the door was then opened for access to supplies.
Plaintiff reported the incident to the Facility Manager, who did not pursue further investigation or take action.
Zimpfer then reported Jorgensen's handling of the incident to ARAMARK Human Resources.
Months later, ARAMARK allegedly retaliated by demanding a valid driver’s license, and ultimately terminating Zimpfer for falsifying his employment application and not providing a license.
Plaintiff filed suit on December 14, 2010 asserting a single Title VII retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zimpfer had a reasonable, good-faith belief that the observed conduct violated Title VII	Zimpfer believed the act was sexual harassment.	The act did not amount to a Title VII violation; belief was not reasonable.	No reasonable, good-faith belief established
Whether the alleged retaliation was linked to protected opposition	Zimpfer opposed the discriminatory conduct by reporting it.	The retaliation did not arise from protected activity under Title VII.	Not established as a prima facie case

Dockery v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 321, 382 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (D. Kan. 2005) (isolated incident not a Title VII harassment unless severe)
Oliver v. Peter Kiewit & Sons/Guernsey Stone, 106 Fed.Appx. 672 (10th Cir. 2004) (isolated incidents may show harassment if severe in context)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must show plausible entitlement to relief)
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381 (10th Cir. 1997) (well-pleaded facts accepted as true in Rule 12(b)(6) review)