Potter v. Ernst & Young, LLP

• Decision Date: 06 February 2001
• Docket Number: No. CX-00-1435.,CX-00-1435.
• Citation: 622 N.W.2d 141
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Parties: Thomas J. POTTER, Appellant, v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Respondent.

622 N.W.2d 141

Thomas J. POTTER, Appellant, v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Respondent.

No. CX-00-1435.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

February 6, 2001.

Michael B. Chase, Saint Paul, MN, (for appellant Thomas J. Potter).

Shirley Lerner, Minneapolis, MN; J. Andrew Heaton, Ernst & Young LLP, Washington, DC, (for respondent Ernst & Young, LLP).

Considered and decided by HANSON, Presiding Judge, SHUMAKER, Judge, and, FOLEY, Judge.¹

OPINION

HANSON, Judge

Appellant Thomas Potter challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Ernst & Young on his reprisal claim. Although the district court also granted summary judgment against appellant on his claims of race and disability discrimination, appellant does not challenge the summary judgment on those claims. Appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that he did not show a causal connection between his discrimination complaint and his termination. We reverse.

FACTS

The following description of the facts views the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant.

In 1989, appellant, who is Native American and dyslexic, began working for respondent's management consulting group. Appellant had Bachelor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science degrees from the University of Minnesota and ten years of work experience. While employed by respondent, appellant developed significant expertise in computers, telecommunications and networking. In October 1994, he was promoted to senior manager. Until late 1996, he continued to have a high "utilization" rate (the percentage of time a professional works for paying clients). His aspiration was to become a partner.

Appellant contends that in late 1996, when Bruce Shoger was assigned to be his counselor, his opportunities at respondent decreased. The role of a counselor at respondent is to advocate for and advance their counselees' careers. Rather than giving appellant career advice and guidance, Shoger had little contact with appellant, seldom advocated for appellant's placement on engagements and, in fact, recommended against his placement on one major engagement. In February 1997, appellant requested a new counselor but that request was denied.

On July 31, 1997, appellant received his annual performance evaluation, indicating that his overall performance "fully meets" respondent's expectations, as did his Service Rating for utilization.

On October 27, 1997, appellant complained to Toni Cornelius, the head of respondent's Chicago-area human resources department, that his career was not advancing. He expressed his belief that this was due to discrimination based on his dyslexia and the fact that he was Native American. Appellant first suggested his complaints be addressed informally, but, when told that the issue was too important not to make it official, he agreed to make it a formal complaint.

Respondent's policies require that discrimination complaints receive appropriate investigation and remedial action. Yet the human resources department did not investigate appellant's discrimination complaint, and neither human resources nor his counselor communicated further with appellant about it. In mid-January 1998, appellant had to contact Cornelius again to inquire about the status of his complaint.

Meanwhile, respondent had decided to cut 200 employees nationally, and approximately 20 from the Chicago region, which included Minneapolis. On January 15, 1998, Scott Henkel, the head partner of the Minneapolis office, added appellant to the list of those to be terminated, on the grounds that his utilization was low and his skills did not match the needs of the firm. However, the human resources department advised Henkel that appellant's personnel files did not support the decision to terminate him. Particularly, Cornelius was concerned that the "paper trail" did not support respondent's claim that appellant's skills were not consistent with the needs of the firm. A meeting was held among Henkel, Shoger, the head of the Chicago area consulting group, and Cornelius to consider taking appellant's name off of the termination list. Shoger objected and made negative comments about appellant's "attitude and presentation."

One day later, Henkel became aware that a new evaluation for a recent engagement described appellant's performance as "excellent." Henkel e-mailed Shoger that appellant's recent "review does not in the least" support appellant's termination. Henkel instructed Shoger that, in light of the plan to terminate appellant, Henkel would like to see all of appellant's reviews before they were given to appellant. The decision to terminate appellant was finalized on January 29.

On February 20, 1998, appellant received a letter of termination, informing him that he was terminated because his utilization was low and his skills no longer matched those needed by respondent. Of the three people terminated from the management consulting group in the Minneapolis office, two were racial minorities.

Appellant filed this action against respondent, alleging discrimination based on disability and race, and reprisal. Respondent moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted in respondent's favor on all three claims. Appellant challenges only the summary judgment on his reprisal claim.

ISSUE

Was appellant's evidence of reprisal sufficient to avoid summary judgment?

ANALYSIS

On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990)

.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. * * * On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.

Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993) (citations omitted).

Appellant claims the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of respondent on appellant's reprisal claim. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits intentional reprisal against an employee who has engaged in statutorily protected activity. Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 7 (2000). To determine whether a violation of the MHRA has occurred, we use the three-part test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 444 (Minn.1983).

The employee-plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. Once the employee has established a prima facie case of reprisal, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. The burden then shifts back to the employee to show that the proffered reasons were not the true reason for the action, but were instead a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825.

A. Did appellant's evidence show that there are genuine issues of material facts concerning a prima facie case of reprisal?

On a claim of reprisal, a prima facie case may be established by showing: "(1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two." Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 444 (citation omitted).

1. Statutorily protected conduct

The MHRA prohibits intentional reprisal against an employee who has engaged in statutorily protected activity, including filing a discrimination complaint. Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 7 (2000). Respondent challenges the district court's conclusion that appellant participated in statutorily protected conduct, arguing that appellant did not make a formal complaint of race or disability discrimination. However, appellant's testimony is that when Cornelius suggested that his concerns were too serious to treat informally, he agreed that his concerns should be treated as a formal complaint. This evidence raises genuine issues of material facts as to statutorily protected conduct. Moreover, respondent failed to file a separate notice of review challenging this conclusion.

2. Adverse action

To establish a prima facie case of reprisal, appellant must also establish that there was an adverse action by respondent. Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 444. Respondent does not dispute the district court's determination that appellant suffered an adverse employment action.

3. Causal connection

Finally, appellant must establish that there is a causal connection between his discrimination complaint and the termination of his employment. Id. The district court concluded as a matter of law that appellant was unable to show this causal connection. We disagree.

We are mindful that discriminatory intent or retaliatory motive are difficult to prove by direct evidence. Thus, an employee may demonstrate a causal connection "by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive." Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 536 N.W.2d 319, 327 (Minn.1995) (quotation omitted). In this case, appellant set forth sufficient facts from which such an inference may be drawn.

First, the close proximity between appellant's discrimination complaint and the termination decision supports the inference of reprisal. See Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F.Supp. 665, 675 (D.Minn.1994)

(explaining that the plaintiff's termination four months after filing her complaint, together with other circumstantial evidence in the record, raised an issue of material fact concerning the causal connection between her protected conduct and her termination); Dietrich, 536 N.W.2d...