Plaintiff Juan Dominguez sued defendant Weiser Security Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of retaliation under Title VII. Before the court is Defendant Weiser Security Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Weiser Security Services provides commercial security services. In fall 2018, Weiser began providing security services to Halliburton at its Duncan, Oklahoma location and hired Dominguez as a day shift supervisor. Dominguez reported to site manager Joseph Yates, who in turn reported to Texas-based branch manager Mike Strickland. In June 2020, Weiser was preparing to implement temperature checks at the Halliburton facility due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 10, 2020, Dominguez met with Weiser’s VP of Human Resources, Charlene Lee-Sutherlin, as part of an investigation into a racial discrimination complaint by another employee. During this meeting, Dominguez reported that Yates showed favoritism to female employees. On June 13, 2020, Yates and Strickland conducted temperature check training, which Dominguez did not attend. Strickland made the decision to terminate Dominguez on June 16, 2020, citing various performance issues including failure to properly train security guards on temperature checks.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed several evidentiary challenges raised by the plaintiff. The court sustained objections to certain notes purportedly authored by Yates, finding they were not properly authenticated. The court declined to strike Lee-Sutherlin’s notes of a conversation with another Halliburton employee, finding the testimony could be presented in admissible form at trial. The court also addressed challenges to portions of Strickland’s declaration, finding some statements admissible and others inadmissible hearsay.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Retaliation Prima Facie Case
The court analyzed whether Dominguez could establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court focused on the causation element, which requires proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.
Knowledge of Protected Activity: The court found that Dominguez failed to present sufficient evidence that Strickland, the decisionmaker, knew about Dominguez’s report of gender discrimination. The court rejected Dominguez’s argument that temporal proximity alone was sufficient to establish causation without evidence of knowledge.
Cat’s Paw Theory: The court considered whether Dominguez could establish causation under a cat’s paw theory of liability, which would require showing that Yates took action motivated by retaliatory animus and that his actions proximately caused the termination. The court found that Dominguez failed to proffer evidence that Yates knew about the protected report or acted with retaliatory animus.
The court granted Weiser’s motion for summary judgment on Dominguez’s retaliation claim, finding that Dominguez failed to establish the causation element of his prima facie case.
Schrag on Law 