“very close” temporal proximity “between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action” is sufficient circumstantial evidence of causation
How later courts described this case
- “very close” temporal proximity “between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action” is sufficient circumstantial evidence of causation
- supervisor’s single comment combined with subjective criteria for evaluating candidates for a promotion was specific and substantial circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a question of fact concerning pretext
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
LESLIE MAGEE, No. 3:18-cv-01956-AC
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, a
California business corporation,
Defendant.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 1,
2020, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment. F&R, ECF 43. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiff and Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 50; Def. Obj., ECF 52. When any party objects to any portion of
the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo
determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v.
Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Magistrate Judge concluded in section I(B) of his Findings & Recommendation that
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on several of Plaintiff’s claims because she failed
to demonstrate a question of fact concerning whether she suffered adverse employment actions.
Specifically, Judge Acosta concluded that Plaintiff had raised a question of fact concerning only
one of the five adverse employment actions she alleged—being placed involuntarily on unpaid
leave in July and August 2017. F&R 23. The Court agrees that Plaintiff raised triable questions
of fact concerning this claim. As a result, the Court adopts that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings & Recommendation.
Placing Plaintiff on involuntary, unpaid leave was not the only adverse employment
action suffered by Plaintiff. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established triable questions of fact
based on Defendant’s negative employment performance evaluation of Plaintiff and its denial of
a pay step increase to Plaintiff in August 2017. The August 2017 performance evaluation was
completed sometime during or immediately after Defendant placed Plaintiff on a three-week
period of involuntary, unpaid leave, and Defendant did not give a copy of the evaluation to
Plaintiff at that time. Although some of the areas in which Defendant determined that Plaintiff
did not meet expectations in August 2017 were criticisms of her work that appeared in Plaintiff’s
prior performance evaluations, she received a lower overall performance rating and denial of a
pay increase in August 2017, and the similar earlier evaluations did not result in those
consequences. There is also evidence in the record that a human resources employee called
Plaintiff “insubordinate” while she was on unpaid leave because Plaintiff could not work the
cash register. A reasonable juror could infer from those facts and the approximately one-month
time frame in which they occurred that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated Defendant
to take the adverse employment action. See Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“very close” temporal proximity “between an employer’s knowledge of protected
activity and an adverse employment action” is sufficient circumstantial evidence of causation);
Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th
Cir. 2001) (supervisor’s single comment combined with subjective criteria for evaluating
candidates for a promotion was specific and substantial circumstantial evidence sufficient to
create a question of fact concerning pretext). As a result, the Court declines to adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims
stemming from the August 2017 negative performance evaluation and denial of a pay step
increase.
The Court has carefully considered both parties’ remaining objections and concludes that
there is no basis to modify the remainder of the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has
also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no other error in the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
///
///
///
///
///
///
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS IN PART Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation
[43]. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [29] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ___A_p_r_il_ 2__0_, _2_0_2_1_________.
_____________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge