Rosenwinkel v. Entrust Datacard Corporation

Background

Erich J. Rosenwinkel brought an employment-retaliation action against Entrust Datacard Corporation after the company terminated his employment. Rosenwinkel alleged that Datacard fired him because he served on a federal grand jury, violating the federal Jury Systems Improvement Act and Minn. Stat. § 593.50. The court treated the two laws as having the same meaning for this case.

Rosenwinkel notified Datacard in May 2017 that he had been summoned for grand jury service and later informed the company that he had been selected to serve for at least eleven and up to eighteen months, requiring two to three days at the courthouse each month. He was terminated on September 29, 2017, while his jury service was ongoing.

Datacard said Rosenwinkel was terminated because of performance problems, including concerns about his relationships with customers and channel partners, communication, and following company policies and directions. Rosenwinkel disputed those concerns. Among other evidence, he relied on a favorable 2017 performance review, the absence of written records documenting the alleged performance problems, and testimony that Datacard’s explanations for the termination changed over time. He also testified that certain Datacard employees reacted negatively to his jury service.

Legal standard

The court considered Datacard’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial that is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The court applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green because there was no direct evidence of retaliatory motive. Under that framework, Rosenwinkel first had to show that he engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and had a causal connection between the two. Datacard then had to provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination. Rosenwinkel finally had to present evidence that Datacard’s stated reason was a pretext, meaning an explanation masking the real reason.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Rosenwinkel established the initial elements of his claim. Serving on a federal grand jury was protected activity, and termination was an adverse employment action. The court also held that the timing of the termination—during Rosenwinkel’s jury service—was enough to establish the required causal connection at this stage.

The court found that Datacard met its relatively low burden of offering a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason by submitting testimony questioning Rosenwinkel’s performance. The burden therefore shifted back to Rosenwinkel to show that the performance explanation was pretextual and that his jury service was the true cause of his termination.

The court identified several factual disputes supporting a possible finding of pretext. Those disputes included the accuracy and extent of the alleged performance problems, Rosenwinkel’s positive performance review shortly before termination, the lack of documentation for the alleged problems, and Datacard’s expanded or potentially changed explanations for the termination. The court also concluded that a jury could view comments by Datacard employees about Rosenwinkel’s jury service as evidence of retaliatory motive.

Because a jury—not the court—had to decide whether Datacard’s stated reasons were pretextual and whether jury service was the but-for cause of the termination, the court could not resolve the issue as a matter of law.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty denied Entrust Datacard Corporation’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 19].