Ohio Court Narrows Non-Compete to One Year for Holding Management Position and Eliminates Restriction on Practicing Medical Specialty

Earlier this month, a unanimous Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s limited enforcement of a non-compete clause imposed on a burn surgeon.  MetroHealth Sys. v. Khandelwal, 2022-Ohio-77. The trial court had refused to enforce any restriction on the surgeon practicing medicine, but shortened the two-year restrictions to one year on the physician acting in a leadership capacity for a competitor within the restricted territory and from soliciting patients, employees or referral sources. “The prevention of ordinary competition is not a legitimate business interest that can be protected by a restrictive covenant.” The evidence established that most patients chose the closest burn center, making competition for patients relatively rare.  The trial court had indefinitely enjoined the physician from using proprietary information and left pending tortious interference claims. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the physician was an experienced burn surgeon who was hired in 2015 with a one-year and 10 miles non-competition agreement.  The non-competition restriction was expanded the following year to a two-year and 35 miles and a few years later he was promoted.  In March 2020, he gave three months’ advance notice that he was going to the only other competing facility within 35 miles of the employer.  The employer brought suit to enjoin him from working in any capacity for the competitor for two years.  After a three-day hearing, the trial court agreed only to prevent the physician from holding a management position and from soliciting the employer’s patients, employees or referral sources for one year, but refused to enjoin him from practicing medicine for the competitor.  The court also enjoined the physician from using or disclosing any of the employer’s proprietary or privileged information indefinitely. The trial court did not resolve claims for misappropriation of trade secrets or tortious interference with contract, which remain pending.  The employer appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order and limited restrictions.

The Court noted that under Ohio law,

A covenant restraining a physician-employee from competing with his employer upon termination of employment is unreasonable where it imposes undue hardship on the physician and is injurious to the public, the physician’s services are vital to the health, care and treatment of the public, and the demand for his medical expertise is critical to the people in the community.

The employer had argued that the physician had specialized knowledge from his management position of the strengths and weaknesses of the employer, as well as knowledge of confidential information and relationships with its referral sources in a five-county area.  The physician testified that the relationships were between entities and not with individual physicians, like himself.   There was also testimony that burn patients generally seek the closest burn hospital, rather than a particular physician.  Accordingly, in light of the limited competition, the Court found that the trial court had not been arbitrary or capricious in refusing to enjoin the physician from practice medicine in his specialty despite the non-compete clause.

Further, the Court found that the physician would be harmed by a restriction.  He could lose his certification and his skills would atrophy if he were prevented from practicing his specialty for two years.   He might even have trouble getting credentialed if he had to wait two years.   The Court rejected the argument that he could work as a locum tenens positions because no such specific positions had been identified and it would be hardship to travel so much during the pandemic.   Further, his family had established roots in community since moving there from Arkansas in 2015 and did not want to relocate far from the area or his daughters’ schools.  His wife has medical specialty that requires her to work within 15 miles of her assigned hospital.

The Court also found that the public would be harmed due to a shortage of qualified burned physicians because it was a relatedly rare specialty.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s shortening of the two-year restriction on the physician holding a leadership position with the competitor.   Because, as mentioned, the evidence established that patients typically chose the closest burn center (meaning little competition between the two entities), there was little likelihood of harm from the physician having a leadership position after the passage of a year and little reason to extend the restriction to two years.  The Court also noted that two years was “not standard practice.”

 NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Employer's Inadvertent Actions Effectively Ended Workplace Harassment, and Thus, Were Reasonable.

In June, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on workplace harassment and retaliation claims where the plaintiff had alleged that the employer’s investigation and response to the harassment claims were inadequate and denied her a promotion in retaliation for her complaints.  Doe v. City of Detroit, 3 F.4^th 294 (6^th Cir. 2021).   The plaintiff had been subjected to anonymous threats by a co-worker.  Although the employer interviewed a suspect following the second incident, it did not interview him following any of the death threats.  The Court affirmed dismissal of the hostile work environment claims because the employer’s response to each incident was reasonable and the final action – in inadvertently suspending and relocating the suspect – was apparently effective, and thus reasonable, in ending the anonymous harassment.  The Court also found no evidence that the plaintiff had been denied a promotion on account of her prior harassment complaints.

According to the Court’s decision, the plaintiff began transitioning about six months after being hired.  Following the plaintiff’s first series of medical procedures, a co-worker submitted complaints that the plaintiff had violated the employer’s dress code.  Although the plaintiff was informed about only the existence of the complaints, she was reassured that her attire was appropriate.  Following the plaintiff’s second series of medical procedures, her office name plate was defaced, which the City immediately rectified.  A few days later, the plaintiff received an anonymous gift bag with sex toys and a handwritten Bible verse about men wearing women’s clothing.  The employer conducted an immediate investigation, interviewed all nearby employees and required handwriting samples from each of them.  The perpetrator was never identified.  The investigation report recommended a few months later that a lock be installed on the plaintiff’s office door, but did not approve the plaintiff’s request for a security camera. 

Five months later, the plaintiff received a typed anonymous death threat.  The employer reported the incident to the police (which refused to investigate) and finally requested a lock for her office door, but refused the security camera, permission to keep her door shut during office hours or to permit her to work from home. A few employees were questioned, but not the individual who had previously filed the dress code complaints.  A few weeks later, another anonymous death threat was made. The City temporarily relocated the plaintiff’s office, installed locks and a security camera and again questioned a few employees, but not the employee who had previously made the dress code complaints.  At that point, the plaintiff suggested that the perpetrator might be that employee.  A few weeks after that, the employer learned that employee had inappropriately accessed the plaintiff’s Facebook page and discussed it with subordinates.  He was given a three-day suspension and his office was relocated onto a different floor from the plaintiff.  There were no further harassing incidents or threats made against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff then complained that her work was being subjected to more criticism, etc.  Her supervisor resigned and suggested someone else to be promoted instead of plaintiff.   The supervisor’s suggestion was not taken, but the decisionmaker promoted a different employee other than the plaintiff. 

The trial court and Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the employer on the harassment and retaliation claims.   It addressed the City’s response to each incident, rather than evaluating whether the initial response was adequate for the escalation.   While the plaintiff and the alleged perpetrator were both supervisors, neither had authority over the other; they were essentially co-workers.  Thus, the Court evaluated the matter as co-worker harassment.  When workplace harassment is

committed by a coworker, the employer is liable only “if it knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action . . . To find liability, the employer’s response to a coworker’s harassment must “manifest[] indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.” . . .  An employer’s response is generally adequate “if it is ‘reasonably calculated to end the harassment.’” . . . . “The appropriate corrective response will vary according to the severity and persistence of the alleged harassment.” . . . “Steps that would ‘establish a base level of reasonably appropriate corrective action’ may include promptly initiating an investigation[,] . . . ‘speaking with the specific individuals identified’” in the complaint, “following up with the complainant,” and “reporting the harassment to others in management.”

The employer immediately rectified the graffiti and conducted an immediate and thorough investigation following the gift bag incident.   The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s response was unreasonable (in that no perpetrator was ever identified) because in another case the employer had unreasonably delayed 10 days in conducting an investigation, already knew the identity of the alleged perpetrator and had failed to separate the perpetrator from the victim with an administrative suspension.

“The most significant immediate measure an employer can take in response to a sexual harassment complaint is to launch a prompt investigation to determine whether the complaint is justified.” . . . “By doing so, ‘the employer puts all employees on notice that it takes such allegations seriously and will not tolerate harassment in the workplace.’”

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s actions were unreasonable in delaying the installation of door locks or security cameras following the first two incidents:

“a harassment victim may not dictate an employer’s action against a co-worker.” . . . . While taking these measures would have been reasonable, failing to do so does not render the city “so indifferent to [Doe’s] concerns that it essentially permitted the harassment to continue.”

The employer’s response to the first death threat was also found to be reasonable as the police were contacted within three days and a request was made to install locks on the plaintiff’s office door.  While the plaintiff argued that it was unreasonable to not have then interviewed the employee who had previously complained about her attire, she admits that she never suspected him at this time either and there was no evidence tying him to any of the incidents.

Further, on this record, it was not unreasonable for the city to require Doe to return to the office. Nothing in the record indicates that Doe’s job was capable of remote performance. And the city took steps to address the harassment. Although these steps were ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the final act of harassment—the note on May 22—the city did not “exhibit[] indifference rising to an attitude of permissiveness that amounted to discrimination.”

Finally, the Court found that the City’s response to the final threat was reasonable even though by then the plaintiff had identified a possible suspect and neither the employer nor the police ever interviewed him about any of the death threats.  Rather, it was after this final threat that the City learned about the Facebook incident, suspended the suspect and relocated his office.  After that, the plaintiff suffered no more harassment.  The Court agreed that even inadvertent action by an employer can be effective in ending workplace harassment.

An inadequate investigation may render an employer’s response unreasonable. . . . But the city also temporarily relocated Doe at her request to a different floor until locks and security cameras could be installed. And the city moved Allen to another floor shortly thereafter, which both Doe and Allen assumed had something to do with the Facebook incident. See Harris v. Sodders, No. 07-4398, 2009 WL 331633, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009) (employer’s actions appropriate in part because “[e]ven though [employer] was unaware of the alleged harassment, his decision to transfer [the harasser] had the inadvertent effect of stopping the harassment”). Doe agrees that there have been no further incidents since May 22, 2017. If Allen was indeed responsible for these incidents, it appears that moving him, disciplining him, and installing locks and cameras effectively ended the harassment. . . . These efforts did not “manifest[] indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known,” so “we cannot say that the employer has itself committed an act of discrimination.”

Finally, the Court affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker based his decision in any way on the plaintiff’s protected conduct.  More than five months had passed since her last complaint and the promotion decision.   Her suspicions do no constitute evidence that the promotion decision was tainted or that her supervisor's criticisms were retaliatory.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

FCA Retaliation Claim Filed Five Days Too Late When Decision Was Made Prior to Written Notice

On Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on a False Claim Act retaliation claim on the grounds that the lawsuit had been filed five days too late.  El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-2669 (6^th Cir. 1/10/22).   The physician alleged that his employment agreement with the defendant hospital was not renewed because he had reported to the federal government false Medicare claims being filed by the hospital’s staff.  He had appealed the denial of his staff privileges under the medical bylaws.  The final step was made to a joint conference committee, which heard oral argument and, after he had left for the evening, voted to affirm the denial on September 22 and notified him in writing on September 27.  He filed suit against the hospital three years later on September 27.  The Hospital moved to dismiss on the grounds that his lawsuit was untimely.  The courts agreed, finding that the decision had been made and verbally announced on September 22 – more than three years before he filed suit.  According to the statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(3): “Such an action ‘may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred.”  Unlike other employment statutes, Congress did not create a discovery rule under the FCA retaliation provision based on when notice is provided.  “The statute simply adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

In Case You Missed It

 In the interest of catching up on interesting 2021 cases that I did not have time to previously summarize, here are a few interesting decisions:

·       A divided Supreme Court found that a California regulation giving union organizers the right to enter agricultural employers’ property for a few hours 120 days each year constituted a “per se” taking in violations of the Takings Clause which entitled the employer to compensation because the regulation appropriated the property owner’s right to exclude third parties. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S.Ct. 2063 (2021).   Property can be “taken” without it being permanent and the temporary nature goes only to the amount of compensation due for the taking.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the motion to dismiss granted to a state university on a claim by a professor who had received progressive discipline over a refusal to use the preferred pronouns of a student based on the professor's religious convictions.  Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6^th Cir), reh’ing denied en banc, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 20436 (6^th Cir. 2021).  While the Court recognized that public employees do not have unlimited free speech under the First Amendment, “[s]imply put, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship.”  The Court also found reasonable the professor’s suggested accommodation of not using pronouns or prefixes at all in reference to the student.  In addition, the Court indicated a “requirement that an employer not fire an employee for expressing a transgender identity is a far cry from what we have here—a requirement that a professor affirmatively change his speech to recognize a person’s transgender identity.”  

One final point worth considering: If professors lacked free-speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity. A university president could require a pacifist to declare that war is just, a civil rights icon to condemn the Freedom Riders, a believer to deny the existence of God, or a Soviet émigré to address his students as “comrades.” That cannot be. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe” such orthodoxy. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642. 

             . . . 

Remember, too, that the university’s position on titles and pronouns goes both ways. By defendants’ logic, a university could likewise prohibit professors from addressing university students by their preferred gender pronouns—no matter the professors’ own views. And it could even impose such a restriction while denying professors the ability to explain to students why they were doing so. But that’s simply not the case. Without sufficient justification, the state cannot wield its authority to categorically silence dissenting viewpoints.  

             .  . . 

   . . . .   titles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students. That’s not a matter of classroom management; that’s a matter of academic speech. 

          . . . . 

         . . . the use of gender-specific titles and pronouns has produced a passionate political and social debate. All this points to one conclusion: Pronouns can and do convey a powerful message implicating a sensitive topic of public concern. 

The Court also agreed that the professor had stated a violation of the Free Exercise clause when he was disciplined for not following the university's pronoun policy. 

Meriwether has plausibly alleged that Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy was not neutral for at least two reasons. First, officials at Shawnee State exhibited hostility to his religious beliefs. And second, irregularities in the university’s adjudication and investigation processes permit a plausible inference of non-neutrality.

         . . . 

    Finally, the university argues that Meriwether simply could have complied with the alternative it offered him: Don’t use any pronouns or sex-based terms at all. This offer, the university says, would not violate Meriwether’s religious beliefs. But such an offer has two problems. First, it would prohibit Meriwether from speaking in accordance with his belief that sex and gender are conclusively linked. See Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988) (explaining that the “difference between compelled speech and compelled silence . . . is without constitutional significance”). And second, such a system would be impossible to comply with, especially in a class heavy on discussion and debate. No “Mr.” or “Ms.” No “yes sir” or “no ma’am.” No “he said” or “she said.” And when Meriwether slipped up, which he inevitably would (especially after using these titles for twenty-five years), he could face discipline. Our rights do not hinge on such a precarious balance. 

The Sixth Circuit reversed the motion to dismiss granted to a union which was accused of retaliating against a member who had criticized union members to an employer for overbilling in an attempt to get himself hired.  Barger v. United Bhd of Carp. & Joiners, 3 F.4^th 254 (6^th Cir. 2021).  “Motive is not dispositive of the form-content-context inquiry, and if a union’s retaliation is imposed swiftly so as to prevent a union member’s ability to publicize his speech, then the lack of publicization cannot be used against the union member.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Employer’s Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claim Based on Workplace Investigation

 

Earlier this week, a unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on a discrimination claim, but reversed summary judgment on a retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a trial on whether the plaintiff was subjected to a workplace investigation and potential termination in retaliation for a Charge of Discrimination he had filed two months earlier.   Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 2021-Ohio-4578. The plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to discrimination when he was given a paid three-day suspension for being hours late to work due to a misunderstanding about the work schedule.   During a later, unrelated investigation, the plaintiff alleged that co-workers had mistreated patients, but he had never filed formal incident reports about any of those incidents.  He was then investigated for failing to file incident reports and threatened with a five-day suspension or termination.  He resigned and filed suit.  The Court found that a paid three-day disciplinary suspension which did not affect the plaintiff’s compensation, status, or other terms and conditions of employment could not constitute a material adverse employment action for purposes of employment discrimination.   However, subjecting the plaintiff to a workplace investigation two months later could constitute an actionable retaliatory action and was sufficiently close in time to his protected conduct of filing a Charge of Discrimination.  The Court also found sufficient evidence of pretext when the employer’s explanation was challenged by an independent witness who agreed with the plaintiff that there was no mandatory duty to file a formal incident report for relatively minor infractions which could be adequately resolved by reporting them to the Charge Nurse.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff received disciplinary action after engaging in horseplay at work.  He was directed to read some materials and prepare a performance improvement plan within a week, which he failed to do.  He was then given a written reprimand for failing to complete the assignment.    A few months later, he was given a one-day paid suspension for creating a workplace disturbance.  He then transferred to a new supervisor and had no further issues for almost three years.  However, he was then more than two hours late to work after relying on an earlier draft of the work schedule.  The next step in the progressive disciplinary policy was a paid three-day suspension.  Incorrectly believing that the bargaining agreement provided that his prior disciplinary actions dropped off after two years (instead of three years), he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, which was dismissed for lack of probable cause.  Two months later, he was interviewed as part of unrelated investigations of two co-workers.  He alleged during those investigations that the co-workers had been abusive towards patients.  Because he had never filed incident reports concerning any of those situations, he was then investigated and subjected to disciplinary action, including termination.  He resigned and filed suit.  The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the employer.

A unanimous Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.   The plaintiff failed to produce evidence of different treatment concerning most of the challenged employment actions.  His bare assertions that other employees, for instance, engaged in horseplay without disciplinary action was insufficient to create a material dispute of fact necessary to avoid summary judgment.   However, he did produce documentary evidence and a witness affidavit that a few other co-workers were late to work under similar circumstances and only received informal counseling, instead of formal disciplinary action.  Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the plaintiff could not prevail on a discriminatory treatment claim because his paid suspension had not altered his compensation, employment status or other terms or conditions of his employment.

"[A]n adverse employment action 'is a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's employment.' . . . . Whether a particular action constitutes an adverse employment action is determined on a case-by-case basis.  . . . "Factors to consider in determining whether an employment action was materially adverse include termination, demotion evidenced by a decrease in salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities or other indices unique to a particular situation."  . . . By contrast, " 'actions that result in mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities are not disruptive enough to constitute adverse employment actions.' “  . . . .  [citations omitted]

While terminations, failure to renew a contract, and unpaid suspensions can constate material adverse employment actions, “the Sixth Circuit has held that a paid suspension generally does not constitute an adverse employment action.”

We have held that where an employer is not required to use progressive discipline prior to terminating an employee, the failure to use progressive discipline does not necessarily establish a pretext for discrimination. . . . .Conversely, in this case, [the employer’s] application of its progressive discipline system when disciplining [the plaintiff] for being late to work does not, in itself, constitute an adverse employment action. . .

In this case, [he] did not lose pay during the three-day working suspension. Moreover, his hourly wage and seniority were not affected by the three-day working suspension. Unlike the plaintiff in Arnold, [he] has not demonstrated any "diminished material responsibilities" resulting from the suspension. Arnold. at 532. Thus, like the plaintiff in Presley, [he] has failed to demonstrate the three-day working suspension had any long-term impact on the terms or conditions of his employment. See Presley at 514. Even construing the evidence most favorably to [plaintiff], we conclude he fails to demonstrate the three-day working suspension imposed in August 2018 was an adverse employment action purposes of his race and national origin discrimination claims. Therefore, [he] has failed to establish a prima facie case of race and national origin discrimination.

However, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.

In the context of a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show an alleged adverse employment action "might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."  . . . see also Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324, 2007- Ohio-6442, ¶ 13, fn. 2 (noting that under R.C. 4112.02(I) "the adverse action need not be employment-related, so the filing of a lawsuit or a counterclaim can constitute an adverse employment action in circumstances such as those in this case"); Arnold at 536-37, quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 64 (2006) ("Demonstrating the third prima facie element in a Title VII retaliation case, an adverse employment action, is less onerous than in the discrimination context in that it 'is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.' ").

We have held that denial of consideration for promotion, exclusion from meetings, and being singled out for discipline were sufficient to demonstrate adverse employment action for a retaliation claim. Peterson v. Buckeye Steel Casings, 133 Ohio App.3d 715, 728 (10th Dist.1999). The Sixth Circuit has held that an investigation of alleged research misconduct by a university professor could constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim.  . . . Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has noted that internal investigations, loss of remote parking privileges, a requirement to complete time sheets, and a suspension and transfer could constitute adverse employment actions to demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation. . . .

[The plaintiff] claims the December 2018 investigations were an adverse employment action for purposes of his retaliation claim. During the investigations, [he] was subjected to multiple police interviews. Based on the December 2018 investigations, [he] was charged with failing to report violations and, after a pre-disciplinary meeting, a human relations officer found there was just cause to discipline [him]. Under ODMHAS's progressive discipline system, [he] potentially faced a five-day working suspension or termination. Construing this evidence most favorably to [him], an investigation and potential discipline could have a chilling effect on an employee's willingness to oppose workplace discipline and "might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."  . . . Therefore, [he] has demonstrated that he was subjected to an adverse employment action for purposes of his retaliation claim.

The Court found that the plaintiff also presented sufficient evidence to show that his protected conduct (in filing the Charge) was the cause of the workplace investigation because the investigation was conducted less than three months after his protected activity. 

We have held that "close temporal proximity between the employer's knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action may constitute evidence of a causal connection for purposes of satisfying a prima facie case of retaliation."  . . .  Although we have noted that proximity alone does not necessarily imply causation, we have held that an adverse employment action occurring two months after a protected activity was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.  . . . Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has held that a gap of three months between an employer learning of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may permit inference of a causal connection.  . . . As noted above, in this case the record does not establish exactly when [the employer] learned of the OCRC/EEOC complaint, but it should have been advised of the EEOC complaint by October 2018. The December 2018 investigations began in early December 2018, little more than two months later. Thus, consistent with our decision in Hartman and construing the evidence most favorably to [the plaintiff], the approximately two-month gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action in this case would permit a finding of causation.

While the employer articulated a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for investigating the plaintiff, the Court also found that he had presented sufficient evidence to question whether that explanation was pretextual for retaliation.   The plaintiff contended that filing incident reports was not mandatory for minor infractions and was able to cite to a statement made by a Registered Nurse during the investigation confirming his understanding.

[The plaintiff] effectively argues [the employer’s] proffered reason was insufficient to explain the December 2018 investigations. He asserts [his co-workers] had some discretion regarding when to file incident reports because not every infraction merited a formal incident report. [He] claims incident reports were an elevated form of reporting that automatically triggered a police investigation, whereas reporting matters to the charge nurse allowed them to be resolved informally. [He] asserted he "generally reported workplace problems to the Charge Nurse, rather than automatically escalate all issues into Incident Reports and police investigations" and that he "only filed Incident Reports for the most egregious conduct." . . . [He] further claimed this "was the way most such incidents were handled by my fellow TPWs."  . . . In addition to his personal understanding of appropriate reporting practices, [he] cites a statement made by a registered nurse during the December 2018 investigations. The nurse told the investigator that if a TPW witnessed a patient violation she would advise the TPW to tell the registered nurse on duty about it. Construing this evidence most favorably to [the plaintiff], it creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding the incident reporting practices  . . . and, by extension, whether [the employer’s] justification for the December 2018 investigation (i.e., that it was necessary because [he] violated policy by failing to report workplace incidents) was merely a pretext for retaliation.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.