Supervisor's Alleged Jibes Launch Nuclear Plant Operator's Retaliation Claim

Knoxville, TN (WorkersCompensation.com)–An employer’s words matter; offensive words can fuel a worker’s retaliation claim, especially if they reference the worker’s disability or accommodations. 

One supervisor, according to a demoted nuclear-plant operator with cirrhosis, went ballistic in Bledsoe v. Tennessee Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs., No. 21-5808 (6th Cir. 07/217/22), after the operator returned from liver transplant surgery. 

After the operator’s medical leave, the operator sometimes had to remain at his desk because of his condition and medications. His supervisor allegedly responded by saying things, such as: 

On Nov. 27, 2017, the operator reported the incidents to human resources.  

Around the same time, the Tennessee Valley Authority initiated an ethics inquiry. The basis of the inquiry was the fact that the operator’s son was scheduled to attend a training program within TVA in which the operator was an instructor. The supervisor was a member of the committee that oversaw the training center. 

In February 2018, the committee voted to demote the operator from his instructor position, thus slashing his salary by $28,000. 

To establish retaliation, the court stated, the employee had to show that: 1) he engaged in a protected activity; 2) the employer was aware of that activity; 3) the employer took an adverse employment action against the employee; and 4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action.  

The TVA argued that the operator failed to make out a case that his protected activity – complaining about disability discrimination – was the reason it demoted him. 

Causation 

The court pointed out that the operator produced both evidence of temporal proximity and other evidence of causation. As to the timing of the demotion, the court noted that only three months passed between the operator’s November complaint and his February demotion. 

Further, the operator’s supervisor’s statements shortly after the complaint helped solidify the worker’s case, the court stated. This included the supervisor’s warnings that the supervisor was "vindictive" and that the employee should never "piss [him] off.”  

Based on that evidence, the court stated, a reasonable jury could conclude that retaliation motivated the supervisor to improperly influence the committee to demote the worker. 

Pretext 

The court conceded that the TVA articulated a lawful reason for the demotion—the ethics concerns. However, the court pointed to evidence that that reason was merely a convenient excuse for the supervisor.  

The court also noted evidence that there were multiple reasonable alternatives which the committee could have selected instead of demotion. “The employer, for example, could have transferred him or his son, thus extinguishing any ethical concerns,” the court wrote.  

Finally, the court observed, the operator pointed out that other instructors at the training center had sons entering various training programs and were not subjected to an ethics inquiry, much less demoted.  

Based on the evidence, a jury could conclude that the supervisor, fueled by anger over the operator’s HR complaint, drove the committee to demote the employee and slash his salary. 

The court reversed the District Court’s determination and remanded for further proceedings. 

Forms, email updates, legal, regulatory, and compliance information from Tennessee and 52 other jurisdictions across the U.S. can be found on WorkCompResearch.com.