Garrett v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Background

Ernest Garrett worked as a Facilities Technician at Boston Scientific Corporation’s Maple Grove campus from 2003 until the company terminated his employment on October 27, 2021. He was the only African American member of an eight-person Facilities Technician team. His duties included facilities maintenance and pest-control services at New Horizon Academy, an independent daycare center located on the campus.

The opinion describes several earlier workplace-conduct issues, including verbal altercations with vendors and concerns about Garrett’s communication style. In 2019, Boston Scientific issued Garrett a Final Written Corrective Action after he recorded security footage of an employee’s fall, shared the footage, accused the employee of faking the fall, and did not initially disclose how he obtained the footage.

Beginning in May 2020, Garrett reported what he described as racial discrimination to several Boston Scientific executives and human-resources personnel. Selsa Castillo investigated those reports through interviews with Garrett and others. Her investigation was still open when Boston Scientific fired Garrett; she later closed it after finding no discrimination by the individuals Garrett identified.

On October 18, 2021, Garrett had a confrontation with Becky Zirbel, the director of New Horizon, while responding to a hot-water service call. Zirbel and other daycare staff reported that Garrett was disrespectful and intimidating. Boston Scientific investigated the incident. The company concluded that the allegations did not largely support termination and that termination was not warranted based on that interaction alone.

During the investigation, Castillo told Garrett not to return to the daycare center until the investigation was complete. On October 21, Garrett nevertheless led a pest-control vendor through the daycare during a routine walkthrough. Garrett acknowledged that he had heard the instruction but did not think returning for pest-control work would be an issue. Boston Scientific placed him on paid leave and investigated. On October 27, Emily Colletti terminated Garrett’s employment, stating that he was insubordinate because he returned to the daycare after being specifically told not to do so while subject to a final written warning.

Claims and Motion

Garrett alleged race discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also alleged reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and retaliation under Section 1981 based on his reports of discrimination. The Second Amended Complaint also included a hostile-work-environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but Garrett’s counsel stated at oral argument that Garrett was no longer pursuing that claim.

Boston Scientific moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court views the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify specific evidence that could support a trial.

Race-Discrimination Claims

Because Garrett did not present direct evidence of racial discrimination, the court applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under that framework, a plaintiff first must present a basic case of intentional discrimination. The employer then must identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. The plaintiff must finally show that the stated reason was pretext—a false reason hiding unlawful discrimination.

The court held that Garrett could not establish the required basic case because he presented no evidence supporting an inference that the people involved in the termination decision acted with racial bias. Colletti made the termination decision based on Castillo’s investigative report and guidance from McKee. Garrett did not identify statements or conduct by Colletti showing racial bias, and he had not alleged that Castillo or McKee discriminated against him.

The court rejected Garrett’s argument that Colletti’s descriptions of him as the “most toxic” person on the maintenance team and as a “common denominator” in workplace disputes showed racial bias. The court found those comments facially race-neutral and concluded that treating them as evidence of race-based motivation would be speculation.

The court also rejected Garrett’s “cat’s paw” theory. That theory concerns a biased subordinate using an official decisionmaker as a conduit to carry out an unlawful employment action. The court found that Colletti was an informed and involved decisionmaker, not merely a conduit or rubber stamp, because she placed Garrett on leave, considered the investigation, consulted with Castillo and McKee, and then made the termination decision.

The court further held that, even if Garrett could establish the basic case, he had not shown pretext. Boston Scientific offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: Garrett returned to the daycare after being instructed not to do so. Garrett admitted hearing the instruction and described his decision as a lapse in judgment.

The court rejected Garrett’s comparator argument because he was fired for insubordination, not for his communication style or the October 18 confrontation. Garrett offered no evidence that another employee outside his protected group engaged in insubordination after receiving a final written warning and received more favorable treatment. The court also found that Castillo’s investigation of Garrett’s discrimination reports was separate from the investigation leading to his termination and that the record showed Castillo did investigate those reports.

Reprisal and Retaliation Claims

The court analyzed Garrett’s Minnesota Human Rights Act reprisal and Section 1981 retaliation claims under the same burden-shifting approach. To establish the basic case for these claims, Garrett had to show that he engaged in protected activity, Boston Scientific took materially adverse action against him, and a causal connection existed between the two.

The court held that Garrett lacked evidence of the required causal connection. Garrett relied on the timing between his discrimination reports and his termination, but he acknowledged that at least three months passed between the protected activity and the discharge. The court held that this interval was too long by itself to support causation. It also held that Garrett’s intervening act of returning to the daycare despite the instruction not to do so severed any causal connection based on timing.

The court further noted that Colletti knew about Garrett’s protected activity when she decided not to terminate him based on the October 18 interaction. Colletti decided to fire Garrett only after he disregarded the instruction not to return to the daycare. The court also held that, even if Garrett could establish the basic case, he had not shown that Boston Scientific’s stated reason was pretext for retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It dismissed the Second Amended Complaint and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.