RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017

Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 189 Filed 04/02/15 Page 10 of 12 PageID 2961
(Dkt. 77-21) Thus, B&L has articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Ramirez’s
termination.
Ramirez argues that his termination due to insubordination was neither legitimate
nor non-retaliatory because his refusal to start up the line on November 4, 2008 was
actually protected activity under the FWA because he was refusing to participate in a
violation of SOP 80-010. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 12) However, as determined by this Court in
the original Order on B&L’s Motion for Summary Judgment, requiring Ramirez to start up
line 8 was not an actual violation of any SOP or GMP. 3 (Dkt 155 at P. 10-12) It is
undisputed that Ramirez had read all of the applicable SOP’s in accordance with SOP
80-010 required for him to start up line 8. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 66-67; Dkt. 77-4) The fact
that Ramirez mistakenly believed that starting up the line would be a violation of the law
does not make his refusal protected activity, nor does it make B&L’s termination of him
for insubordination based on this incident retaliatory. See White, 369 F. Supp. 2d at
1337. Furthermore, it is also undisputed that Ramirez refused to start up the line and
that he refused to give his supervisor a reason for his refusal. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 26-27;
Dkt. 77-18; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 88-2 at P. 8) Either the refusal to start up the
line after having read the requisite number of SOP’s or the refusal to explain the refusal
to start up the line is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination.
Because B&L has advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Ramirez’s
termination, the burden shifts back to Ramirez to establish by a preponderance of the
3
Ramirez contends that the Circuit Court overturned this determination, but the Court disagrees. The
Circuit Court did not determine that Ramirez’s refusal to start up the line was protected activity, nor
did it direct the Court to reconsider its determination. If the Circuit Court had determined that
Ramirez’s refusal to start up the line was in fact protected activity under the FWA, that finding alone
would have been enough to meet the causal connection prong and there would be no need for this
Court to perform a new causation analysis.
A. 14
10