Plaintiff Bradley Carl Dean sued defendant Stryker Employment Company, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and wrongful termination under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Before the court is Defendant Stryker’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Bradley Carl Dean worked as a sales representative for Stryker, a medical technology company, for approximately 15 years from June 2006 until his termination in December 2021. During his employment, Dean also served as a member of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, currently holding the rank of Colonel. Dean’s duties at Stryker consisted primarily of selling power tools, equipment, and devices for orthopedic-related surgeries. He was regarded as a successful sales rep and received several awards and accolades for his efforts.
Dean’s assigned territory initially covered all of Oklahoma except Tulsa. Due to business growth, Stryker instituted territory cuts in 2011, 2016, 2017, and 2019, dividing Dean’s territory and assigning additional sales representatives to ensure adequate customer service. From 2019 until his termination in December 2021, Dean reported directly to Regional Manager Laura Schroeter, who in turn reported to Kevin Steed, the Vice President of Sales for Orthopedic Instruments.
During his tenure with Stryker, Dean took multiple leaves of absence for both military and medical reasons. His military service required him to take leaves for training and active National Guard service on three occasions: from May 8, 2017 through September 30, 2017 for counter-drug operations and Hurricane Harvey relief; from July 5, 2019 through September 30, 2020 for the U.S. Air War College and COVID Response Task Force duties; and in August and September 2021 for hurricane relief in Texas. Dean also took two medical leaves of absence: from May 19, 2018 through August 1, 2018 following injuries sustained in a non-military-related helicopter crash, and from March 9, 2021 through July 11, 2021 to attend in-patient rehabilitation for alcoholism.
Dean testified that Stryker’s process for obtaining approval for both military and medical leave was straightforward, and he had no issues requesting and obtaining necessary approvals. His supervisors, including Schroeter and Steed, were supportive of his leave, and he had no problems returning to work upon completing each period of leave. During his leaves of absence, Dean’s territory was covered by other Stryker sales representatives, and he always returned to the same position he held before taking leave.
In February 2015, Dean lied during a corporate investigation about having an extramarital affair with a Stryker coworker. After eventually providing the truth, Stryker issued Dean a final written warning acknowledging that “failure to meet [Stryker’s] expectations may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination, at any time.”
On November 1, 2021, a female Stryker sales representative informed HR that Dean had made an inappropriate comment about her to a Stryker customer. Stryker’s Employee Relations department launched an investigation led by Senior Manager Sarah Marie Puterbaugh. During the investigation, three misconduct allegations against Dean were substantiated: making an inappropriate comment, intoxication at a Stryker dinner, and sending a graphic photo to a Stryker customer that included a portion of Dean’s genitals. Puterbaugh concluded that only the inappropriate comment and graphic photo were actionable.
The investigation revealed that Dean stated he was not interested in dating his Stryker coworker because her “tits would be up here, in my face, in my mouth area.” Regarding the graphic photo, Puterbaugh concluded that Dean sent the photo and that it depicted a portion of his genitals. The investigation lasted approximately one month and included interviews with eight witnesses, including Dean. During his deposition, Dean admitted that he lied to Puterbaugh during the investigation and acknowledged that he had, in fact, made the inappropriate comment.
After completing the investigation, Puterbaugh shared her findings with Sarah Moussa, Stryker’s Senior HR Business Partner for Orthopedic Instruments, recommending that Dean either be terminated or given a final written warning. Moussa shared the investigation results with Schroeter and Steed, along with her recommendation that Dean’s employment be terminated. On December 13, 2021, Schroeter and Steed informed Dean of their decision to terminate his employment. Dean confirmed that nobody said or did anything that would suggest his termination was motivated by his military or medical leaves of absence.
Legal Analysis
ADA Retaliation Claim
Prima Facie Case: The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze Dean’s ADA retaliation claim. To establish a prima facie case, Dean needed to show he engaged in protected activity, was subjected to adverse employment action subsequent to or contemporaneous with the protected activity, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. The court assumed without deciding that Dean established the first two elements but found he failed to establish the required causal connection.
Causal Connection Analysis: Dean’s last medical leave ended on July 11, 2021, but Stryker did not terminate him until December 13, 2021—approximately five months later. The court determined that this five-month timespan was too large to establish a causal connection based on temporal proximity alone, citing precedent that “four months is too large a time gap to establish a causal connection.” Since Dean could not rely on temporal proximity, he needed to present additional evidence to establish the necessary causal connection, which the court found he failed to do.
The court rejected Dean’s attempt to use pretext evidence to establish his prima facie case, explaining that such evidence merely suggests an employer’s stated reason may be untrue but does not establish that the real reason was unlawful discrimination. The court noted that the record contained evidence showing Stryker supported and proactively encouraged Dean’s medical leave, which bolstered the conclusion that Stryker did not act with discriminatory intent.
Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason: The court found that Stryker met its burden of proffering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Dean. Stryker’s investigation substantiated three instances of misconduct, two of which (the inappropriate comment and the graphic photo) were found to be actionable violations of company policy.
Pretext Analysis: Dean argued that Stryker’s proffered reasons were pretextual based on four categories of evidence: decisionmaker comments, conflicting accounts, investigation integrity, and Stryker culture. The court systematically rejected each argument.
Decisionmaker Comments: Dean pointed to notes by Sarah Moussa from June and July 2021 conversations with Laura Schroeter about Dean’s leave usage and performance metrics, as well as comments Schroeter made during the November 2021 investigation expressing frustration with Dean’s frequent absences. The court found these comments were made months before Dean’s termination and, when viewed in context, showed concern about potential abuse of leave policies rather than discriminatory animus. The court emphasized that the broader record demonstrated Stryker’s consistent support for Dean’s medical leaves.
Conflicting Accounts: Dean argued that inconsistencies existed between how Moussa and Schroeter learned about Dean’s alleged misconduct, suggesting they were more involved in initiating the investigation than they admitted. The court found these were minor inconsistencies that did not relate to Stryker’s proffered reason for termination and were insufficient to support a finding of pretext.
Investigation Integrity: Dean claimed Stryker’s investigation had serious deficiencies, including failure to gather relevant evidence and interview key witnesses. The court rejected this argument, noting that Stryker interviewed Dean and allowed him to provide his version of events, which under Tenth Circuit precedent ordinarily defeats an inference of pretext based on an allegedly unfair investigation. The court found the investigation was fair, even if not optimal.
Stryker Culture: Dean argued he was subjected to selective enforcement because Stryker maintained a “locker room” culture where similar transgressions often resulted in lesser discipline. The court found Dean’s evidence insufficient, noting that declarations from former employees Yance Vaughn and Bruce Bartlett provided only vague assertions about a “locker room” culture without identifying specific employees, comments, or disciplinary actions for comparison.
USERRA Claim
Substantial or Motivating Factor: Under USERRA, Dean bore the initial burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that his military service was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action. The court analyzed four factors: proximity in time, inconsistencies between the proffered reason and other employer actions, expressed hostility toward protected members, and disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees.
Temporal Proximity: The court found the three-month gap between the end of Dean’s last military leave and his termination weighed against him, similar to the analysis under the ADA claim.
Inconsistencies: The court found no material inconsistencies between Stryker’s reason for terminating Dean and its other relevant actions, for the same reasons discussed in the ADA pretext analysis.
Expressed Hostility: Dean argued that Moussa’s notes and Schroeter’s comments constituted direct evidence of expressed hostility toward his military service. The court found these comments were ambiguous, isolated, and did not unambiguously express anti-military sentiment, especially when considered in the context of Stryker’s continuous support for Dean’s military service.
Disparate Treatment: Dean failed to present evidence showing he was treated differently than other similarly situated Stryker employees, relying on the same vague assertions about “locker room” culture that the court had already rejected.
Employer’s Affirmative Defense: Even assuming Dean could carry his initial burden, the court found Stryker carried its burden of showing that legitimate reasons, standing alone, would have induced it to terminate Dean. The court noted that Dean had violated company expectations, policies, and values through two actionable instances of misconduct involving customers, and had already received a final written warning. The court concluded that Stryker’s reasons for terminating Dean, standing alone, would have led to his termination regardless of his military service.
The court granted Stryker’s motion for summary judgment on both the ADA retaliation claim and the USERRA claim, finding that Dean failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA and failed to show his military service was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination under USERRA.
Schrag on Law 