F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
OCT 7 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
SHELLY SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-6346
CASHLAND, INC., an Oklahoma
Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1350-L)
Submitted on the briefs:
G. Patrick Garrett, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Michael Johnston, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and McKAY , Circuit Judges.
BARRETT , Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendant-appellant Cashland, Inc. appeals from a judgment entered in
favor of plaintiff-appellee Shelly Smith, who sued Cashland for quid pro quo
sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. 1
We exercise jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and REVERSE.
I.
Plaintiff alleged that her employment with Cashland was terminated
because she ended a consensual sexual relationship with Cashland’s president,
Nels Bentson. Cashland contended that plaintiff voluntarily tendered her
resignation, but, in the alternative, it desired to present evidence and argument
that if the jury found that Cashland had in fact terminated her, her termination
was motivated and justified by plaintiff’s poor work performance. Two issues are
presented for appeal: whether Cashland waived its alternative defense, and if not,
whether the district court committed reversible error by essentially striking the
defense and barring presentation of evidence to support it.
II.
The parties argue that different standards of review apply. Plaintiff
contends that the sole question is whether the court erred in excluding testimony
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case
is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
concerning her alleged poor performance with the company, and urges application
of Hill v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc. , 790 F.2d 817, 825 (10th Cir. 1986)
(stating that ruling on relevancy of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Citing Tyler v. City of Manhattan , 118 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997), she
further argues that because the court’s decision to exclude was based upon its
interpretation of the pretrial order, that interpretation is also subject to abuse of
discretion review. Cashland argues that the issue is a broader one involving the
legal determination of when a defense must be allowed, and that we should
review that legal question de novo.
Our review of the record shows that the issue is not one of exclusion of
evidence but rather whether a defense was improperly barred. Further, the record
shows that the trial court did not rely on its interpretation of the pretrial order in
making the decision to bar Cashland’s defense. We conclude that, because the
issue centers on the district court’s legal conclusion regarding the right to present
a defense, the ruling should be reviewed de novo. See Key v. Liquid Energy
Corp. , 906 F.2d 500, 505 (10th Cir. 1990) (stating that we independently review
conclusions on legal issues).
-3-
III.
“When a plaintiff proves that a tangible employment action resulted from a
refusal to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands, he or she establishes that the
employment decision itself constitutes a change in the terms and conditions of
employment that is actionable under Title VII.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth ,
118 S. Ct. 2257, 2265 (1998); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (forbidding an
employer from “discharg[ing] any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . .
sex”). A defendant-employer may refute such a claim of quid pro quo harassment
in either of two ways: with proof that no negative employment action was taken
by the employer, i.e., that the employee resigned, for example; or by establishing
that the decision to terminate was made for legitimate business reasons and not
because the employee refused to submit to sexual demands. The first defense
challenges the employee’s claim of discharge; the second challenges the
employee’s claim that discharge occurred “because of” refusal to submit to sexual
demands.
In this case, Cashland desired to present evidence of both defenses.
Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion that Cashland waived its legitimate business
justification defense, a review of the pretrial order as a whole shows that both
parties understood that the motivating factor behind the termination was a
contended matter (although Cashland’s statement of defenses is not a model of
-4-
clarity). See Appellee’s Supp. App. at 4 (denying plaintiff’s factual allegations
and raising the issue of poor performance), 8-10 (listing many disinterested
witnesses who would testify about plaintiff’s poor performance). Cashland did
not waive its alternative defense.
The district court concluded that both defenses were not available. It
believed that when an employer testifies that the employee resigned, i.e., the
employer did not terminate the employee, the employer cannot later argue that the
decision to terminate (which was never made, under the employer’s theory of
resignation) was based on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive. See Appellee’s
Supp. App. at 23-30; Appellant’s Corrected App. tab G, at 43-45. Plaintiff’s
counsel pointed out to the district court the two-step nature of a jury’s
determination when an employer alleges resignation in a quid pro quo case. See
Appellant’s Corrected App. tab G, at 19 (“There is a sharp dispute in this case
whether she was terminated . . . or whether she quit. . . . And if the jury
determines that she was terminated . . . [it] needs to determine . . . whether the
job stopped because the sex stopped.”). The issue of whether a defendant may
present alternative defenses was squarely before the district court, and it ruled
that Cashland had to “pick one defense or the other. You have either got to say
that she resigned . . . [o]r you have got to say we fired her because we had all of
these legitimate reasons to fire her.” Id. at 43. Cashland refused to withdraw its
-5-
contention that plaintiff resigned, and the court barred further testimony tending
to prove plaintiff’s poor job performance.
The court’s conclusion that Cashland had to elect a defense is erroneous.
As plaintiff concedes, a defendant is entitled to plead inconsistently in alternative
defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(2) (“A party may also state as many separate
. . . defenses as the party has regardless of consistency”); Champlin v. Oklahoma
Furniture Mfg. Co. , 324 F.2d 74, 76 (10th Cir. 1963) (noting inconsistency that
manufacturer denied manufacture of chair while at same time contending that if
the chair did come from its factory, the design had been altered after leaving its
possession, and stating that the inconsistent defenses were permissible). Bentson
contradicted plaintiff’s testimony that he terminated plaintiff because of her
refusal to continue the affair and there was evidence that Bentson had told
plaintiff’s husband that “her termination had nothing to do with their
relationship.” Appellant’s Corrected App. tab G, at 15-16. Cashland wished to
show that plaintiff should have been terminated before the affair ended because of
her poor job performance but was not because she was “running the company for
a while” due to her consensual sexual relationship with Bentson, and that, if
Bentson terminated her, it was because of poor job performance. Id. at 29-30.
Just as the circumstantial evidence that termination occurred soon after an
employee’s refusal to continue an affair is sufficient to support an inference and
-6-
finding that termination was “because of” the refusal, circumstantial evidence of
poor performance coupled with testimony that the employer did not terminate the
employee because of her refusal is sufficient to support an opposite inference and
finding that termination was not “because of” the refusal. Cf. Salcer v. Envicon
Equities Corp. , 744 F.2d 935, 939 (2d Cir. 1984) (“A motion to strike [defenses]
will not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiffs would succeed
despite any state of the facts which could be proved in support of the defense.”),
vacated on other grounds , 478 U.S. 1015 (1986) (quotations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that because the district court allowed Bentson to testify to
a limited degree that he accepted plaintiff’s resignation because of her poor work
performance, the court did nothing to limit Cashland’s defenses to the Title VII
claim by not allowing full presentation of evidence from Bentson and other
Cashland employees regarding her poor performance. We disagree and conclude
that because the district court did not allow Cashland to fully present its defense
and argue its theory of the case to the jury, the judgment must be reversed.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for new trial.
-7-