Anthony Aspaas sued Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, raising claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and Aspaas appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Anthony Aspaas was employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a Supervisory Clinical Nurse at the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility in Arizona from June 2014 to January 2016. His direct supervisor was Charlene West. In April 2015, West counseled Aspaas regarding two incidents involving his treatment of subordinates. In June 2015, Aspaas spoke with an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor about West’s treatment of him. On July 9, 2015, Aspaas emailed West’s supervisor complaining about overtime denial and alleging gender discrimination.
In August 2015, West removed Aspaas from his supervisory role due to his handling of a subordinate’s expired certification. Aspaas then filed a formal EEO complaint. He subsequently took extended leave, providing various medical notes that West deemed insufficient under HHS leave policy. In December 2015, West proposed terminating Aspaas’s employment based on being absent without leave (AWOL) and other conduct issues. Aspaas was terminated effective January 22, 2016.
Legal Analysis
Protected Activity
The court first addressed whether Aspaas engaged in protected activity before his removal from his supervisory role. It concluded that neither Aspaas’s June 2015 meeting with the EEO counselor nor his July 9 email to West’s supervisor qualified as protected activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.
EEO Counselor Meeting: The court found no evidence that Aspaas conveyed a concern about discrimination to the EEO counselor, ruling out protection under both the participation and opposition clauses of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.
July 9 Email: The court determined that Aspaas’s email did not express a reasonable good-faith belief that the opposed behavior was discriminatory, failing to meet the standard for protected opposition to discrimination.
Causation and Pretext: Termination
The court then analyzed Aspaas’s claim that his termination was retaliatory. It found that Aspaas had waived his challenge to the district court’s temporal-proximity ruling by failing to raise the argument in the district court and not arguing for plain error on appeal.
The court considered Aspaas’s pretext arguments regarding the reasons given for his termination:
Handling of Subordinate’s Certification: The court found no pretext in West’s actions regarding the expired certification issue or Aspaas’s sharing of the subordinate’s performance rating.
Meeting with Job Applicant: The court determined that any misunderstanding about Aspaas’s role in the hiring process was not indicative of pretext.
AWOL and Leave Requests: The court concluded that West’s handling of Aspaas’s leave requests and AWOL charge was consistent with HHS policy and not pretextual, even considering Aspaas’s PTSD diagnosis.
The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Aspaas failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or demonstrate that the reasons for his termination were pretextual.
Schrag on Law 