Peters
Peters v. Aramark Uniform & Apparel, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Craig Peters appeals from a grant of summary judgment to Aramark Uniform and Apparel, Inc. (“Aramark”) on his claims of tortious discharge under Nevada law. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.
The district court correctly granted Aramark summary judgment on Peters’ claim that he was terminated because he filed a worker’s compensation claim. The undisputed evidence is that he would have been re-hired after his worker’s compensation leave ended.
Also unavailing are Peters’ arguments that temporal proximity, shifting explanations for his termination, and the involvement of Aramark’s Risk Management division in the termination support an inference of retaliation sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Even assuming Peters’ allegations provide some inference of retaliation, “retaliatory discharge under [Nevada] law may not be had upon a *570 ‘mixed-motives’ theory.” Allum v. Valley Bank, 114 Nev. 1313 , 970 P.2d 1062, 1066 (1998). Rather, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that his protected conduct was the proximate cause of his discharge.” Id. Peters did not tender sufficient…