The place a plaintiff has alleged that he was retaliated towards for reporting sexual harassment, a movement by the defendant employer for abstract judgment must be denied as a result of the plaintiff has offered ample proof of pretext to create a real dispute of truth about whether or not the employer terminated him in retaliation for his protected conduct.
“Plaintiff Jeremiah L. Glowacki is a former worker of Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC. He alleges that O’Reilly terminated him in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Legal guidelines §37.2701. Earlier than the Courtroom is O’Reilly’s movement for abstract judgment (ECF No. 22). For the explanations herein, the Courtroom will deny the movement.
“Glowacki claims that O’Reilly terminated him in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment of [Danielle] Bowdich.
“O’Reilly’s arguments that Glowacki didn’t interact in protected conduct are usually not persuasive.
“Subsequent, O’Reilly argues that Glowacki can not set up a causal connection between his report of harassment and his termination, and that the temporal proximity between his report and the termination are usually not ample to determine such a connection. Nevertheless, O’Reilly terminated Glowacki solely six days after he reported the harassment. ‘The place an antagonistic employment motion happens very shut in time after an employer learns of a protected exercise, such temporal proximity between the occasions is important sufficient to represent proof of a causal connection for the needs of satisfying a prima facie case of retaliation.’ … Thus, the brief time interval between Glowacki’s report and O’Reilly’s determination to terminate him is ample to indicate a causal connection.
“O’Reilly asserts a reliable, non-retaliatory cause for its termination determination. It contends that Glowacki didn’t adjust to its firm coverage for reporting allegations of sexual harassment. In response to O’Reilly, Glowacki was conscious of Gooch’s ongoing harassment of Bowdich as early as 2018 however didn’t report it till virtually two years later.
“However, on the entire, the Courtroom concludes that Glowacki has offered ample proof of pretext to create a real dispute of truth about whether or not O’Reilly terminated him in retaliation for his protected conduct. As mentioned above, O’Reilly’s evolving causes for its determination are considerably suspicious and undermine the credibility of its proffered cause. As well as, regardless of the variations between Glowacki and the opposite managers, O’Reilly’s obvious determination to not take any disciplinary motion towards some other worker for not reporting Gooch’s conduct lends some credence to Glowacki’s declare that O’Reilly improperly focused him for his protected conduct. In abstract, viewing the proof in a lightweight most favorable to Glowacki, a jury might infer that O’Reilly’s proffered cause was a pretext and that Glowacki’s report improperly motivated its determination.”
Glowacki v. O’Reilly Auto Enter. LLC; MiLW 03-106285, 22 pages; U.S. District Courtroom for the Western District of Michigan; Jarbou, J.