Fired worker again beats attempt to toss retaliation claim

A federal appeals court has reinstated — for the second time — a retaliation charge filed by a bank employee who was terminated by his employer shortly after complaining about national origin discrimination, in a divided ruling.

Serge Adamov went to work for a Louisville, Kentucky, branch of the Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank National Association several years after emigrating from Azerbaijan, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Serge Adamov v. U.S Bank National Association et al.

Mr. Adamov came to believe the bank’s vice chairman of consumer baking did not promote him because of his national origin, according to the ruling. He complained about this to a regional manager between February and April 2009.

In June 2009, the bank undertook a review of Mr. Adamov’s “business or personal financial transactions” and found he had loaned a college friend in the United Arab Emirates $10,000 in 2007. 

Mr. Adamov told investigators he believed the investigation was a “witch hunt” prompted by the vice chairman. He was terminated in August 2009, less than a month later, for ethics violations.

Mr. Adamov filed suit in U.S. District Court in Louisville, charging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law, claiming he had been terminated on the basis of national origin and in retaliation for reporting discrimination.

The U.S. District Court granted the bank summary judgment dismissing the case. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the national origin claim but reinstated the retaliation claim, whereupon the District Court again dismissed the retaliation claim.

“Adamov has put forth sufficient evidence of temporal proximity and other evidence of retaliatory conduct to meet his prima facie burden,” said the divided 6th Circuit panel’s majority opinion in the case.

“Yet the short period of time between Adamov’s complaint and the termination e-mail is not the sole evidence of causation; increased scrutiny of Adamov’s behavior by those who were aware of Adamov’s complaints also supports an inference of retaliatory conduct,” said the ruling.

“A reasonable jury could conclude that the $10,000 loan was not the real reason for terminating Adamov,” said the appeals court, in once again reinstating the retaliation charge.

The dissenting opinion said, “It is hard to see what U.S. Bank may have done wrong here.” The bank “has put forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Adamov’s termination,” his personal loan to a bank customer, said the opinion.