Yes. The company's story doesn't add up, which looks suspicious. They told the government one reason for firing her, but then her boss said something completely different in court. Because they fired her so soon after she complained and then couldn't give a straight answer, a jury should get to decide if the company was really just getting revenge.

No. The company had plenty of good reasons to fire her, and she wasn't a great employee. The different explanations weren't really contradictions; they were just different parts of the same basic problem: she wasn't the right fit anymore. There isn't enough real proof to say the firing was definitely revenge, so the case should have been thrown out.

Yes. We think Kwan showed enough evidence that she might have been fired because of her complaint, so a jury should decide her case. Kwan showed that the company knew about her complaint and that she was fired soon after. The company gave different reasons for firing Kwan at different times, which could make a jury think they might not be telling the truth. These things together are enough evidence to let a jury decide if Kwan was fired because of her complaint. However, we agree with the lower court that Kwan can't sue about not getting information about continuing her health insurance because she wasn't really hurt by not getting this information.

I agree with the other judges about most of Kwan's claims, but I think the lower court was right to dismiss her claim about being fired for complaining. Kwan didn't show enough evidence that the company's reasons for firing her weren't true. The company gave lots of examples of Kwan not doing a good job, and Kwan didn't really prove these weren't true. Just because she was fired soon after she says she complained isn't enough to prove she was fired because of the complaint. I think no reasonable jury would believe that the complaint was the main reason Kwan was fired, so I would let the lower court's decision stand.

Yes. An employer's inconsistent and contradictory explanations for an employee's termination, combined with close temporal proximity, are sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the proffered reasons were a pretext for retaliation. The court found Kwan established a prima facie case of retaliation: she engaged in protected activity (complaining of gender discrimination), Andalex had 'general corporate knowledge' of her complaint because she told an officer, she suffered an adverse employment action (termination), and the three-week period between her complaint and termination established a causal connection through temporal proximity. Although Andalex offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (change in business focus, poor performance), its explanations were inconsistent. Andalex's initial statement to the EEOC claimed Kwan was fired primarily due to a shift in business focus, a reason her direct supervisor later contradicted in a deposition. These discrepancies would allow a reasonable juror to infer that the employer's explanations were pretextual and that retaliation was a but-for cause of her termination.

No. An employee fails to create a genuine dispute of material fact when their prima facie case is weak and the employer's proffered reasons, though varied, are complementary and supported by substantial evidence. The dissent argued Kwan's prima facie case was particularly weak, resting only on 'general corporate knowledge' and temporal proximity, with no evidence that the actual decision-makers knew of her complaint. Furthermore, Andalex's reasons for termination—a shift in business focus and poor performance—were not inconsistent but were 'variations on the same theme,' as the business shift exposed her performance issues. Given the abundance of documented evidence of Kwan's poor performance, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that retaliation was the 'but for' cause of her termination, making summary judgment appropriate.

Yes. We vacate the District Court's dismissal of Kwan's retaliation claims because there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Kwan has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The knowledge prong is satisfied by general corporate knowledge of her protected activity, and the causation prong is satisfied by the close temporal proximity between her complaint and termination. Andalex's shifting and inconsistent explanations for Kwan's termination, combined with the temporal proximity, are sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Kwan's complaint was a but-for cause of her termination. While Andalex initially claimed Kwan was terminated due to a shift in business focus, it later emphasized performance issues. These discrepancies could allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the explanations were pretextual. Therefore, summary judgment on the retaliation claims was inappropriate. However, we affirm the dismissal of Kwan's COBRA claim because she failed to demonstrate bad faith by Andalex or prejudice resulting from the lack of notice.

I concur with the majority's affirmance of the dismissal of Kwan's gender and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and COBRA claims. However, I would affirm the dismissal of her federal retaliation claim as well. Kwan failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that Andalex's performance-based reasons for her termination were pretextual and that retaliation was the 'but-for' cause of her termination. Kwan's prima facie case was weak, relying solely on general corporate knowledge and temporal proximity. Andalex presented ample evidence of legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for Kwan's termination, including documented performance issues and behavioral problems. Andalex's explanations were not inconsistent, but rather complementary justifications that were part of the same theme. Temporal proximity alone is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Given the abundance of largely unrefuted evidence of poor performance, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that retaliation was the 'but-for' reason for Kwan's termination.

Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot