King v. State of Minnesota, Guardian Ad Litem Board

Background

Gregory King worked for the Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem Board as a program coordinator and later as a Guardian Ad Litem Manager. His duties included overseeing district operations, supervising guardians ad litem, and helping recruit and hire staff.

On October 5, 2017, King sent his supervisor, GALB Program Administrator Kristen Trebil, a letter expressing concern that several districts’ caseload numbers were inflated because cases had not been properly closed. King said that using the inflated numbers to allocate funds would create incentives to leave cases open, cause inefficiencies, and potentially damage the Board’s credibility. Trebil thanked him and later changed the funding-allocation method.

About one month later, workplace allegations concerning King reached Trebil and the Board’s Human Resources Director. The allegations included an inappropriate sexual relationship with A.A., a prospective guardian ad litem whom King had offered to train and hire; an allegedly improper relationship with B.B.; and conduct that led staff to perceive that King had a special relationship with C.C., a guardian ad litem who reported to him. The investigation also addressed remarks that staff perceived as sexually suggestive and management issues involving fee collection, case-management procedures, assignments to criminal cases, supervision, and information King provided to Trebil.

King was placed on paid administrative leave on November 20, 2017. An outside investigator, Michelle Soldo, interviewed witnesses, including King, reviewed documents, and issued a report finding multiple instances of misconduct. Trebil reviewed the report with Potter and the Board’s legal counsel and terminated King on March 6, 2018. The termination notice cited, among other things, abuse of his position of power, violations of Board policies, inadequate supervision of fee collection, and false or misleading information.

King appealed his termination. After a two-day hearing, an appeals panel found that Trebil’s decision was reasonable, although it disagreed that King was responsible for the district’s fee-collection problems. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later closed King’s file after it could not determine that the Board had violated any statutes. King then brought this lawsuit.

Claims and summary-judgment standard

King asserted six discrimination claims based on race, sex, and age under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, along with a claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. The Board moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for employment discrimination and Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish an initial showing of discrimination or retaliation. The employer must then identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for its action. The plaintiff must finally provide evidence that the stated reason was a pretext—that is, a cover for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

Discrimination claims

The court held that King failed to establish an initial showing of discrimination because he did not show circumstances supporting an inference that his termination was discriminatory. One way to make that showing is to identify similarly situated employees outside the protected class who were treated differently.

King argued that Trebil was similarly situated to him, but the court rejected that comparison. The record did not show that Trebil was accused of the same conduct, including using her position to begin personal or romantic relationships with subordinates or prospective guardians ad litem, disobeying supervisory instructions, or making comments perceived as sexually charged. The court also noted that King and Trebil reported to different supervisors.

King also pointed to managers in the Fourth and Seventh Judicial Districts who allegedly failed to close cases properly but were not fired. The court found that comparison insufficient. The Board did not identify King’s failure to close cases as a reason for his termination, and there was no evidence that the other managers were accused of the additional misconduct attributed to King, including inappropriate relationships, failure to follow instructions, and inadequate supervision of fee collection. The court therefore held that King had not raised a genuine factual dispute supporting his discrimination claims.

Whistleblower retaliation claim

The Board conceded that King’s October 5 letter was likely protected conduct under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. The parties disputed when the relevant adverse employment action occurred. King appeared to rely on his placement on administrative leave, which occurred about six and a half weeks after the letter, rather than his termination, which occurred about five months later.

The court did not decide whether King’s administrative leave qualified as an adverse employment action. It held that, even if it did, the six-and-a-half-week gap was not close enough by itself to establish a causal connection. King offered no other evidence connecting the letter to the leave or termination. The court also found that Trebil’s discovery of allegations that King had abused his position and engaged in inappropriate workplace conduct was a significant intervening event that undermined a causal connection.

Legitimate reason and pretext

The court held that, even assuming King had established an initial showing of discrimination or retaliation, the Board had identified a legitimate reason for the termination. The Board relied on an extensive outside investigation, Trebil’s own interviews, and the investigation’s findings. The relevant question was whether the Board honestly and in good faith believed that King had engaged in conduct warranting termination, not whether every underlying finding was ultimately correct.

The court concluded that King had not shown pretext. His arguments that the investigation was biased or inadequate relied on allegations and speculation rather than evidence. The court also found no evidence that the Board had shifted its explanation for the termination. King did not show that race, sex, age, or his October 5 letter was the real reason for the termination.

Disposition

Judge Nancy E. Brasel granted the State of Minnesota Guardian Ad Litem Board’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.