Dama v. Target Corp.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0345n.06
Filed: May 3, 2005
No. 04-1569
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD DAMA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
TARGET CORPORATION, ) WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
) OPINION
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and ACKERMAN, District Judge.*
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Richard Dama, who was 45 years of age in
August of 2002, was terminated that month from his job as a mid-level supervisor at Target
Corporation’s distribution center in Galesburg, Michigan. He subsequently brought this suit against
Target, claiming that it had discriminated against him on the basis of his age when he was
discharged. Dama also alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for filing complaints with the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and other state and federal agencies. The district court
granted Target’s motion for summary judgment on both of Dama’s claims.
Dama’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court failed to fully analyze his claim
of retaliation and erred by granting Target’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.
*
The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by
designation.
No. 04-1569
Dama v. Target Corp.
“[R]etaliation claims are governed by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.” Weigel
v. Baptist Hosp., 302 F.3d 367, 381 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 802 (1973)). A plaintiff establishing a prima facie case of retaliation must show that “(1) that
the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; (2) that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff’s
protected conduct; (3) that the defendant took an adverse employment action towards the plaintiff;
and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action.” Id.After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we are doubtful that Dama demonstrated all of the
elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. And even if we assume for the sake
of argument that Dama did establish a prima facie case, his retaliation claim still fails under the
McDonnell Douglas framework. Target provided several legitimate business reasons for his
termination, and Dama failed to proffer any evidence that these reasons were simply a pretext
designed to mask either retaliation or age discrimination.
Because the reasoning that supports the judgment for Target has been clearly articulated by
the district court in a thorough and comprehensive opinion, and because Dama’s argument that the
district court did not consider his retaliation claim is unpersuasive, the issuance of a detailed written
opinion by us would be unduly duplicative. The judgment rendered by the Honorable Robert
Holmes Bell, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
is accordingly affirmed on the basis of the reasoning detailed in his Opinion dated April 7, 2004.
-2-