Kenneth Harper v. C.R. England, Inc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11598, 2012 WL 2053574, 687 F.3d 297 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To survive a motion for summary judgment on a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action; mere temporal proximity is rarely sufficient on its own. If the employer articulates a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action, the plaintiff must then present evidence that this reason is a pretext, meaning it is a dishonest explanation, not merely an unfair or inaccurate one.
Facts:
- Kenneth Harper, an African-American, was employed as a driving instructor for C.R. England, a trucking corporation.
- On March 9, 2007, a co-worker, Darnell Humphrey, allegedly directed a racial slur at Harper twice.
- On April 18, 2007, Harper sent a formal email to C.R. England's Human Resources department complaining about the incident and stating he felt he was working in a hostile environment.
- Following an investigation, Harper's supervisor, Eric Metzler, told Harper that his 'skin should not be so thin.'
- On June 29, 2007, Metzler issued Harper three written warnings, including one for poor attendance, and placed him on probation, warning him not to take any more days off.
- After being placed on probation, Harper took several more days off work to attend his sister's wedding and for a court appearance.
- On July 10 and July 31, 2007, Harper again contacted Human Resources to complain that the written warnings were unwarranted retaliation.
- On August 3, 2007, the school director, Chris Kelsey, terminated Harper's employment, stating the reason was poor attendance and his inability to perform his job full-time.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Harper filed a charge of racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After receiving a 'right to sue' letter from the EEOC, Harper sued C.R. England in the Porter County Superior Court, an Indiana state trial court.
- C.R. England removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
- C.R. England filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of C.R. England on all counts.
- Kenneth Harper, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment on his retaliation claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with C.R. England as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee establish a genuine issue of material fact for a Title VII retaliation claim when the primary evidence of causation is temporal proximity between his complaints and termination, and the employer provides a documented, non-retaliatory reason for the termination based on poor attendance?
Opinions:
Majority - Ripple, J.
No. An employee fails to establish a triable issue of fact for a retaliation claim when he cannot show a causal link between his protected complaints and his termination, nor prove that the employer's legitimate, documented reason for the termination was pretextual. Under the direct method of proof, Harper's reliance on temporal proximity fails because the several-month gap between his initial complaint and termination is too long, and even the shorter gap after his July complaints is insufficient without other corroborating evidence. While Harper's supervisor made a dismissive comment, the ultimate termination decision was made by a different manager, and there is no evidence of influence that would support a 'cat's paw' theory of liability. Under the indirect method, Harper fails to establish a prima facie case because he was not meeting his employer's legitimate expectations at the time of termination—he was on probation for attendance issues and continued to be absent. Furthermore, he failed to identify a similarly situated employee with a comparable attendance record who was treated more favorably. Finally, Harper did not show that C.R. England's proffered reason for his termination—excessive absenteeism—was pretextual. The core inquiry for pretext is whether the employer honestly believed its reason, not whether the reason was fair or accurate, and Harper provided no evidence that the company's explanation was a lie.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs in retaliation cases to survive summary judgment, particularly when there are documented performance or attendance issues. It underscores that temporal proximity between a complaint and an adverse action is weak evidence of causation on its own and can be easily overcome by a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason from the employer. The case serves as a clear example of the 'honest belief' doctrine in the pretext analysis, clarifying that an employee's disagreement with the fairness of a decision is insufficient to prove the employer's reason was a lie. This strengthens an employer's position when it maintains consistent, documented reasons for its employment actions.
