Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Nev.: AT&T field technician failed on claim that he was terminated in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints, (Jun 5, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A former field technician failed to demonstrate that disciplinary actions arising from alleged policy violations and eventual termination were pretextual retaliation for sexual harassment complaints.

A federal district court in Nevada has granted summary judgment to AT&T in an employment lawsuit brought by a former premises technician who alleged retaliation and fraud following his termination in March 2018. The employee, who had numerous customer complaints against him prior to termination according to the company, had sued AT&T asserting sexual harassment and other claims arising from his former employment and termination. After the court resolved earlier motions to dismiss, two claims remained: retaliation under Title VII and Nevada Revised Statutes Section 613.340, and fraud. The court determined that AT&T had demonstrated legitimate business reasons for the employment decisions challenged in the case, and the plaintiff failed to offer admissible evidence that those decisions were pretextual (Ridenour v. Nevada Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T Nevada, No. 3:22-cv-00004-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Jun. 3, 2025)).

Employment and disciplinary issues. The employee worked as a premises technician for AT&T from November 2013 to March 2018. His job responsibilities primarily involved installing and troubleshooting AT&T-provided equipment, such as cable television and high-speed internet, inside customers’ homes.

Beginning in January 2015, the employee faced disciplinary action for violating AT&T’s company policies. The violations fell into two main categories: inappropriate customer interactions and being “out of route” during work hours.

Regarding customer complaints, AT&T received four separate complaints between January 2015 and January 2018. In January and June 2015, the employee’s supervisor counseled him about incidents involving unprofessional conversations with customers about politics and religion. The second complaint resulted in a warning of suspension up to and including dismissal.

In October 2016, another customer complaint alleged the employee made comments about biblical scriptures and reportedly said that President Obama, all Mexicans, and gays should be shot, which the customer found frightening. A fourth customer complaint emerged in January 2018, claiming the employee talked to a customer about God and his relationships with women.

Route violations. The second category of policy violations involved the employee being “out of route” during work time. AT&T’s Premises Technician Guidelines prohibit technicians from driving company vehicles out of route without prior supervisor approval, though they may use company vehicles to go home for rest and meal periods within time limits.

While still under warning for the second customer complaint, the employee was counseled for being out of route during lunch breaks, and a manager placed him under another warning for exceeding time allotted for lunches at home. During the same period, the employee’s supervisor addressed seven incidents of him being out of route. The supervisor discussed AT&T’s policy prohibiting employees from driving home for lunch and exceeding the 30-minute limit for meal breaks, along with two other disciplinary matters. She then placed him on a five-day suspension without pay.

Sexual harassment allegations. The plaintiff alleged that his direct manager violated AT&T’s sexual harassment policies by sending him inappropriate text messages in November and December 2017. He later claimed that he engaged in protected activity by submitting two separate grievances to his union steward in January 2018, and by discussing alleged sexual harassment with another union employee.

Termination. Shortly after the plaintiff submitted his grievances to the union steward, management met with the employee and a union representative to discuss his return to work following suspension and the fourth customer complaint. He was placed on suspension pending investigation into that complaint.

In February 2018, the employee returned for a meeting where management addressed the investigation results and outlined expectations, including completion of five online training modules. After the meeting, the employee left work and went home to complete the online trainings.

The employee testified that while no one explicitly told him he had permission to complete the training from home, he inferred from the discussion that he had “implied consent” to do so. He explained that he used his 15-minute break to drive home and then worked from home because he wasn’t actively dispatching.

Management investigated his departure from work without prior supervisor approval. In March 2018, they informed him that his conduct violated AT&T's policies and terminated his employment.

Retaliation claims. The court had previously dismissed the employee’s sexual harassment claims, leaving only the retaliation and fraud claims to proceed. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show engagement in protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal link between the two events. The burden then shifts to the employer to present legitimate reasons for the adverse action, after which the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s reason was pretextual.

The employee alleged that a manager changed the passwords on his devices without informing him as one of the retaliatory actions. The court found that changing passwords on the employee’s devices did not constitute an adverse employment action because it did not materially affect the terms and conditions of employment. The employee was eventually able to reset his passwords with technical assistance and complete his training requirements.

For the remaining alleged retaliatory actions—extending suspension, investigating route violations, and termination—the court determined AT&T offered undisputed evidence of legitimate business reasons. The court noted the employee failed to meet his burden of showing these reasons served as pretext for retaliation. The court found that AT&T’s decision to extend the suspension was based on the need to investigate a fourth customer complaint, while the investigation and termination for route violations were supported by evidence that the employee left work without authorization in February 2018, which was part of a documented pattern of similar violations in March, September, and December 2017.

Fraud claim. Under Nevada law, a fraud claim requires establishing a false representation, the defendant’s knowledge that the representation was false, intention to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages. The court found the undisputed evidence did not show that management falsely represented that the employee could go home to complete required training, and that his reliance on implied consent was not justifiable. The employee’s own testimony undermined his fraud claim, as he admitted that no one explicitly told him he could leave work to complete the online training from home, but rather that he inferred he had “implied consent” to do so based on the discussion.

The case is No. 3:22-cv-00004-MMD-CSD.

Judge: Du, M.

Attorneys: Steven Ridenour, pro se. Elizabeth A. Fletcher (Fletcher & Lee) for Nevada Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T Nevada.

Companies: Nevada Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T Nevada

Cases: Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims NevadaNews