Spilman recently prevailed on a summary judgment motion, and all of plaintiff's claims in a matter against our clients, two global chemical companies and two individual defendants, were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff alleged he was retaliated against, and ultimately discharged, for providing information to a coworker in her prior race and gender discrimination lawsuit against our client, their shared employer. During plaintiff's deposition, Spilman obtained key admissions from him that: (a) our clients took no adverse action against him after he provided information to a coworker as part of her lawsuit; (b) he received positive evaluations for his next three annual reviews after his coworker filed her lawsuit; and (c) no adverse employment action was taken against him for almost two years after his coworker's lawsuit concluded. Based upon those admissions, we moved for summary judgment on behalf of all defendants, arguing that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no temporal connection between his protected activity and any alleged adverse employment action, and no other evidence supported an inference of retaliation. After hearing oral arguments on the motion, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims of retaliation and retaliatory discharge with prejudice.

Disclaimer