Employer Not Entitled To Summary Judgment On Terminated Employee's Title VII Retaliation Claim
A Kansas water district was not entitled to summary judgment on a terminated employee's claim of retaliation under Title VII, a United States District Court has ruled.
The employee established the "protected activity" element of a prima facie case of retaliation through evidence his supervisor/team leader admitted to incidents the employee alleged as harassment, and the conclusion of the attorney who conducted an investigation of the employee's claims of harassment that the supervisor/team leader's comments were inappropriate.
The district's articulated reasons
for terminating the employee, an incident involving chemical analyzers, a
separate incident involving a turbidity meter, and the employee's demonstrated
pattern of unwillingness to follow well established procedures which resulted in
management's loss of confidence in his commitment to perform his job, were
legitimate and nonretaliatory. The employee raised a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether those reasons were pretextual.
Stevens v. Water
District One of Johnson County