Judge finds no causal link between complaint, firing

• Date: 01 October 2020
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30863

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR OCTOBER 2020

10 © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Age discrimination

Judge denies claim alleging age-

related dismissal

The plaintiff began working as a registered nurse at

Bay Area Hospital Emergency Department in 2005.

In May 2016, the employee in charge of nurse sched-

ules complained to the ER manager that the plaintiff

had cursed at her during a telephone conversation.

In October, the same employee complained to

both human resources and the same manager that

the plaintiff had again addressed her aggressively,

unprofessionally and confrontationally.

When the ER manager tried to meet with the plain-

tiff the next day, he purportedly called her a bully and

said management was “screwing” with his schedule.

The plaintiff was promptly red. However, no

stated reason was given.

The ER manager completed a form in November

in which she stated that the plaintiff had cursed at

a co-worker on at least two occasions. However, the

hospital told the state employment department that

the plaintiff had been laid off due to a lack of work.

The plaintiff led a suit against the hospital and

others.

One of his claims was that he was a victim of age

discrimination because he was over 55 and the oldest

nurse in the ER.

The defendants led a motion for summary judg-

ment, arguing that the plaintiff was red because of

“repeated abusive and hostile behavior.”

In response, the plaintiff presented proof that the

ER manager had sent: (1)one email to the adminis-

tration in May 2016 that stated it would be “best that

he ride off into the sunset,” and (2)another email

to the administration in August that contained the

erroneous statement that he planned to retire.

The district court judge said: (1) an employer’s

honest belief that an employee’s performance was

inadequate and inappropriate was a legitimate, non-

discriminatory reason for termination; (2)summary

judgment was appropriate when evidence to refute

a legitimate explanation was totally lacking; and

(3)the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that

the defendants’ stated reason was false.

He also said the plaintiff had admitted: (1)he de-

served discipline for his abusive conduct, and (2)his

manner of interacting with management “probably

had something to do with” his discharge.

The judge assumed for the purpose of argument

that the defendants gave the plaintiff’s workload

to younger nurses. However, he ruled there wasn’t

any other evidence to indicate that the termination

was motivated by age discrimination. He also said

the plaintiff’s rm belief that the district had acted

with an unlawful motive—without providing facts in

support of that belief—wasn’t enough to present an

issue of material fact for a jury to decide.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ Even though the district’s

reason for termination was late in coming, the judge

ruled the plaintiff hadn’t pointed to any evidence that

it was merely a pretext for discrimination. The judge

granted the motion in favor of the defendants and

dismissed the case.

[Coleman v. Bay Area Health District, et al., U.S.

District Court for the District of Oregon, No. 6:18-

cv-01787, 04/03/20].

Title VII Retaliation

Judge nds no causal link between

complaint, ring

The plaintiff was an accountant working for the

Ocean County Health Department.

She emailed the county’s director of administra-

tion in November 2012 to ask whether asbestos was

getting into her ofce from a construction project at

the building next door.

He responded that (1)a March asbestos sampling

survey had concluded that there was no asbestos-con-

taining material at that site, and (2)her ofce’s venti-

lation system wasn’t connected to anything occurring

at the other building.

In addition, a supervisor gave her a copy of an

independent consultant’s report in December, indi-

cating that the construction site at the building next

door was free of external debris or other hazards.

In early January 2013, the plaintiff asked to be moved

to a different building because she had experienced

an allergic reaction in her ofce. She also submitted a

doctor’s note requesting that she be excused from work

due to allergy symptoms of an “undetermined etiology.”

A few days later, she filed an occupational

safety complaint with the state Public Employees