Culver v. Qwest Communications Corp.
Docket: No. 07-35334
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 4, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Rick Culver appeals the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Qwest Communications Corporation and Qwest Corporation regarding his claims of age discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation under Oregon state law. The court affirms the ruling, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for evaluating age discrimination claims. Initially, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. It is assumed, without deciding, that Culver met this initial burden. Qwest provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Culver's termination, citing misuse of company assets and inaccurate time reporting on June 27, 2003. Culver claimed he acted properly, but the court emphasized that an employer's belief in its reason for termination does not need to be correct, only that it be honest. The court found that Culver had not worked productively for two hours on the specified day and had a prior written warning for violations of company policy. The district court rejected Culver's argument that Qwest provided inconsistent reasons for his termination, noting that as long as the reasons are not fundamentally incompatible, they are not considered 'shifting.' Qwest consistently maintained that Culver misreported his work hours, justifying the termination. Culver's claims of age discrimination are dismissed due to the ambiguous nature of the statements he cited, which were made over a year prior to his termination and lacked a connection to the termination decision. Regarding his workers' compensation retaliation claim, Oregon law requires Culver to demonstrate that he invoked the workers' compensation system, faced discrimination in employment conditions, and that this discrimination was linked to his invocation of the system. Culver fails to establish the necessary causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, particularly given the ten-month gap between the claim and the adverse employment action, which does not sufficiently imply causation. The decision is affirmed and not suitable for publication or precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.