 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling6/25/2004
h belief that Jeffrey Kinzel had misrepresented the nature of the doctor's releases he'd obtained and a good-faith belief that Jeffrey Kinzel failed to return to work at the end of the period for which his doctor had released him, you may find that Discovery Drilling acted in good faith even if it later discovered that the reasons for terminating Jeffrey Kinzel were mistaken.
The special verdict form was worded:
(16) Did Jeffrey Kinzel's filing of a workers' compensation claim have a determinative effect in Discovery Drilling's decision-making process in terminating his employment?
(17) Did Jeffrey Kinzel's filing of a complaint with AKOSH have a determinative effect in Discovery Drilling's decision-making process in terminating his employment?
The jury answered no to both of these questions.
In Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock we laid out the framework for retaliatory discharge claims. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show:
(1) that [the employee] was engaged in a protected activity; (2) that an adverse employment decision was made; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the two. Quoting from Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., we stated that " ausation sufficient to establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation may be inferred from the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory discharge . . . ." Once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate nonretaliatory explanation for the discharge. "To satisfy this burden, the employer 'need only produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to conclude that the employment decision had not been motivated by discriminatory animus.' " If the employer meets its burden of production by articulating a legitimate reason for terminating the employee, "then the burden shifts once again to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered explanation is merely a pretext for discrimination."
In this case Kinzel made a prima facie case of retaliation. He engaged in protected activities when he filed his OSH complaint and workers' compensation claim, and he was fired. The close proximity in time between these events gave rise to an inference of causation. Discovery articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing Kinzel. Thus the burden shifted back to Kinzel to prove that these reasons were pretextual. The focus at trial was the motive for firing Kinzel. Were the reasons offered by Discovery genuine or pretextual?
Kinzel was not satisfied with the instructions that the court eventually gave and requested a mixed-motive instruction similar to the mixed-motive instruction in Veco.
In Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindfors we explained the nature and function of a mixed-motive instruction:
In cases where there is direct evidence of discrimi-nation, we instead apply a mixed-motive analysis, which recognizes that discriminatory employment decisions may not be motivated solely by a prohibited characteristic such as race or sex, but may be "based on a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate considerations." Under the mixed-motive framework, once the plaintiff has cleared the initial hurdle of presenting direct evidence of discriminatory intent, the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof is somewhat relaxed: the jury is instructed that the plaintiff can prevail in a claim of discrimination by showing that gender was simply "a motivating factor," as opposed to the determinative factor, in the adverse employment decision. Still, gender must be a determinative cause, but the burden shif
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|