## Facts

- David A. Gauthier worked as an at-will maintenance technician and accessed workplace computers using a personal username and password.
- He previously completed a corrective-action plan for interpersonal issues (2009) and received a written warning for violating the employer’s internet-use policy (2010).
- In summer 2011, at a supervisor’s request, HR sought “Websense” internet-usage reports for multiple maintenance technicians; the request for Gauthier’s report was made before his injury.
- The Websense report attributed 41,750 internet “hits” in a month to Gauthier’s login, which the company viewed as exceptionally high.
- The day after HR requested the report (but before it was compiled), Gauthier suffered a work injury and filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the employer accepted; he later took medical leave for surgery.
- HR prepared a disciplinary action plan recommending termination based on the Websense results and Gauthier’s prior discipline, but deferred termination while he was on leave due to the proximity to his workers’ compensation claim.
- Upon return, Gauthier was placed on administrative leave and then terminated for internet misuse and disciplinary history.
- Gauthier challenged the report’s accuracy (including entries suggesting Facebook use) and denied sharing his credentials; the employer consulted IT, was told Websense was accurate absent password sharing, and proceeded with termination.

## Issues

1. Whether the employee produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that the employer discharged him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 710(b), such that summary judgment was improper.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint to add a disability-discrimination claim after discovery closed and after the employer moved for summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the workers’ compensation retaliation claim.
- The Court held the employee failed to present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the employer’s stated reasons were pretext for retaliation.
- The Court affirmed denial of the motion to amend, finding no abuse of discretion given the late timing and resulting prejudice/disruption.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation retaliation claims under 21 V.S.A. § 710(b) are evaluated under a burden-shifting framework: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate nonretaliatory reason, then employee’s showing of pretext and retaliatory motive.
- To defeat summary judgment, the nonmovant must produce specific facts showing a genuine dispute; speculation and disagreement with the employer’s decisionmaking are insufficient.
- Pretext focuses on whether the employer honestly believed and acted on its stated reason, not whether the decision was correct, optimal, or based on information later disputed.
- Temporal proximity alone does not establish retaliation where the employer’s discipline process began before the protected activity and the record lacks evidence tying the termination decision to the claim.
- Leave to amend may be denied for undue delay and prejudice, including when sought after discovery and summary judgment briefing and when the movant previously knew the underlying facts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment because the employer presented legitimate reasons for discharge—documented internet misuse and prior discipline—and the employee failed to show those reasons were a cover for workers’ compensation retaliation; it also upheld denial of a late-proposed disability-discrimination amendment due to delay and prejudice.


Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mt., Inc., 200 Vt. 125, 129 A.3d 108 (2015)