Annie Ashton

BA 644-G1
Dr. Speronis
4/6/15
Case 22-5 Retaliation by Employers
Dawson v. Entek International
630 F. 3d 928 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2011
Facts:
Shane Dawson, a homosexual, was employed by Enek International as
a temporary production line worker (Dawson v. Entek International, 2011).
Some of Dawsons co-workers and supervisors began making derogatory
comments towards him, such as worthless queer, and referring to him as a
"Tinker Bell," "a homo, a fag, and a queer" "on a daily basis for about a week.
Dawson asked his co-worker to stop making those types of comments, which
he did, but only refrained for a couple of days before continuing. Dawson
went to his trainer, Troy Guzon, who was present when some of the
comments were made, to help rectify the situation. Dawson was under the
impression that any issues or concerns he had needed to be brought to
Guzon. Due to the continuing derogatory comments being made towards
him, Dawson began to experience stress and work deterioration, and after a
month of employment, took a day off. Dawson called the general work
number, asking the person he spoke with to direct his call out to his direct
supervisor. Entek recorded this as a no call, no show absence. The next
work day, Dawson went to the Human Resource department and explained
the situation he was experiencing and the comments being directed at him,
and was aware that he needed to file a complaint. Two days later, Dawson

was terminated from his employment with Entek, based on his earlier
absence recorded as a no call, no-show.

Issue:
The issue at hand is whether Entek terminated Dawsons employment
in retaliation of his complaint filed against his co-workers and supervisors,
and if Dawson could establish a claim for retaliation. Dawson claims that the
district court erred in its decision when it ruled in favor of Entek. Dawson also
claims that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in
Entek's favor on Dawson's claims of retaliatory discharge and sex hostile
work environment under both Title VII and Oregon Revised Statutes (Or. Rev.
Stat.) 659A.030, as well as sexual orientation hostile work environment
under Or. Rev. Stat. 659A.030. Finally, Dawson alleges that the district court
erred when it granted summary judgment against Dawson on his claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rule of Law:
The rule of law pertaining to this case is determining the district courts
grant of summary judgment de novo, which means anew or starting over
(www.lawyers.com, 2015). The appellate court applies the same summary
judgment standard. It decides if the evidence presents a factual dispute that
should be submitted to the jury or whether the facts are one-sided in favor of
one party. The Court of Appeals must determine if there were any issues of

material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relative
substantive law.
Application of Law:
The application of law in this case pertains to whether the district court
was incorrect in its application of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 1973). Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an
employee for opposing an unlawful employment practice, such as filing a
complaint alleging sexual orientation harassment and hostile work
environment. Retaliatory discharge claims follow the same burden-shifting
framework described in McDonnell Douglas (Dawson v. Entek International,
2011). In Dawsons case, the timing between his complaint to Human
Resources regarding the hostile work environment and his discharge two
days later shows a causal link to the unlawful retaliation claim.
In regards to Dawsons claim of sexual orientation discrimination,
Oregon did not amend its statute to include sexual orientation discrimination
until 2007, and did not go into effect until January 1, 2008, therefore the
district court was not incorrect in denying this charge. Dawsons claim of
sexual harassment hostile work environment, he had to show evidence that
established a pattern of ongoing and persistent harassment severe enough
to alter the conditions of employment. When the harassment is by a
supervisor, the employer is liable, but if the harassment is by a coworker, the
plaintiff must prove that the employer was aware of the harassment but did

not take adequate steps to reconcile the issue. Entek argues that
management was not aware of the issue, and only became aware of the
alleged harassment when Dawson when to HR. Dawson claims that he was
led to believe that Guzon, who was his trainer, was his direct supervisor, and
this was the initial notice of harassment between Dawson and Entek. In this
claim, the court did err in when in judged in favor of Entek due to the work
relationship between Guzon, Dawsons direct trainer, and Dawson.
Conclusion:
Dawson provided enough evidence to support his claim against Entek.
The appellate court reversed the decision in favor of Entek, and remanded
the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Opinion:
In my opinion, the appellate court was absolutely correct in their
conclusion to reverse the initial decision by the district court. Entek probably
believed that they could argue that Guzon was not in a supervisory role,
therefore he was merely a coworker, not a supervisor, and the company
could not be held accountable for the actions of their workers. Due to the
fact that Dawson and his coworkers worked graveyard shifts, his direct
supervisor was his trainer, even though Guzon did not have an official title.
Entek had opportunity to resolve the issue at hand, and did not take action.

Works Cited
(2015). Retrieved from www.lawyers.com:
http://research.lawyers.com/summary-judgment-motion.html
Dawson v. Entek International, 630 F. 3d 928 (Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
January 10, 2011).
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792 (Supreme Court May 14,
1973).