F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUN 18 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
JUANITA M. FOSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 00-3243
v.
ALLIEDSIGNAL INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(No. 97-CV-4232-CM)
David O. Alegria, McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, P.A., Topeka, Kansas,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Daniel B. Boatright (J. Nick Badgerow, with him on the brief), Spencer Fane Britt
& Browne LLP, Overland Park, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HENRY , HOLLOWAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Juanita M. Foster, an employee at AlliedSignal, Inc.
since 1979, injured her arm and lower back in November 1995 while on the job.
In December 1995, after being absent from work for several days, Foster was
informed by AlliedSignal that she had been fired. Foster sued AlliedSignal in
federal district court, claiming that her employment had been terminated in
retaliation for her exercise of protected rights under the Kansas Workers
Compensation Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-501 to -5125. AlliedSignal moved for
summary judgment, which the district court granted upon concluding that Foster
“failed to present clear and convincing evidence that she was not in violation of
defendant’s attendance policies” (3 Appellant’s App. at 808) and that she “failed
to set forth sufficient evidence to establish pretext” on the part of AlliedSignal
(id. at 809). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse.
I
On November 13, 1995, Foster injured her arm and back when she reached
for some parts in a tub that shifted and hit her arm, causing her chair to roll out
from under her. She reported her on-the-job injury to an employee in the human
resources department, who in turn called Robin Thompson, the company nurse.
Nurse Thompson advised Foster to take some ibuprofen, place heat or ice on the
strain, and lie down for a few minutes. After this treatment, Foster returned to
work and finished her shift.
On November 16, Foster sought further treatment from Dr. Scott Steelman,
the company physician. Although Dr. Steelman cleared her to continue working
-2-
in her current position, five days later Foster informed Nurse Thompson that her
back was hurting and that she wanted to go home. The next day Foster visited her
personal physician, Dr. April Bremby, who prescribed medication and physical
therapy. Foster continued to work for the month of November.
On December 4, Foster’s attorney sent via certified mail a claim for
workers compensation benefits; an unidentified employee at AlliedSignal signed
for the certified mail on December 7. On December 5, Foster again visited Dr.
Bremby, who executed a form requesting that she be placed on medical leave
from December 1, 1995, through January 1, 1996, because of work-related
injuries; that day, Foster delivered this request to an unidentified AlliedSignal
employee at the front desk. On December 7, she was again examined by Dr.
Steelman, this time in the presence of Nurse Thompson. After concluding that
Foster was able to continue performing her job, Dr. Steelman denied her request
for a medical leave of absence and, according to Dr. Steelman and Nurse
Thompson, informed Foster of the denial at that time.
Foster did not report to work on December 8, December 11, or December
12, and testified in deposition that she did not call anyone at AlliedSignal on any
of those days seeking to be excused from work. 1
AlliedSignal’s attendance policy
1
Foster’s attorney submitted an affidavit claiming that Foster called
AlliedSignal on December 12. Attached to this affidavit was a telephone log
(continued...)
-3-
provides for the discharge of an employee when the employee is absent for three
consecutive days and has not called, or when the employee is absent for eight or
more days within the last 180 days of employment. Foster was absent from work
on September 11 and 29, October 5, and December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12. Bob
Trageser, Foster’s supervisor, and James P. Williams, an AlliedSignal human
resources team leader, jointly decided to terminate Foster—allegedly pursuant to
AlliedSignal’s attendance policy—with Trageser calling Foster on December 13,
1995, to tell her she had been fired. Although both men knew that Foster was
trying to obtain a medical leave of absence, they claim not to have been aware
either that she was requesting medical leave due to a work-related injury or that
she had filed a workers compensation claim. Foster contends that the explanation
given for her termination was pretextual and that she was fired in retaliation for
1
(...continued)
from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for December 1995 showing that
Foster called AlliedSignal twice on December 12.
The district court determined that the affidavit submitted by Foster’s
attorney set forth facts about which he had no personal knowledge, that such facts
were inadmissible as evidence, and that they should therefore not be considered in
support of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) motion for summary judgment. (3 Appellant’s
App. at 800–01.) Moreover, the court determined that the attorney was
incompetent to testify about the telephone log because he lacked personal
knowledge of the information contained therein, the document’s source, and its
authenticity. Having concluded that the unauthenticated phone log was
inadmissible, the district court did not consider it in its summary judgment
decision. We thus do not consider the affidavit or phone log in our review of the
court’s summary judgment order.
-4-
exercising her rights under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act.
II
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standard used by the district court. Cooperman v. David ,
214 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying this standard we view the evidence and
draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587 (1986). To avoid summary judgment, the party opposing the motion
must establish, at a minimum, an inference of the existence of each essential
element to the case. Hulsey v. Kmart, Inc., 43 F.3d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 1994).
Kansas generally follows the employment-at-will doctrine, meaning that
employment is terminable at will by either the employer or the employee for any
reason or for no reason at all. Moriss v. Coleman Co., 738 P.2d 841, 846 (Kan.
1987). There are exceptions, however, and under Kansas law an employer cannot
fire an employee in retaliation for the employee’s filing of a workers
compensation claim. Murphy v. City of Topeka, 630 P.2d 186, 192 (Kan. 1981).
-5-
Moreover, an employee cannot be discharged “for being absent or failing to call
in an anticipated absence as the result of a work-related injury,” because this
would allow an employer an indirect method of firing an employee for filing a
workers compensation claim. Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 752 P.2d 645,
652 (Kan. 1988). Thus, “any absences caused by [an employee’s] work-related
injury should not be counted against” the employee by her employer. Id. This
rule applies even to employees who have not yet filed a workers compensation
claim. Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 874 P.2d 1188, 1191 (Kan. 1994).
Foster can recover by “proving that [her] discharge was ‘based on,’
‘because of,’ ‘motivated by,’ or ‘due to’ the employer’s intent to retaliate.”
Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 160 F.3d 1291, 1298 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Brown v.
United Methodist Homes for the Aged, 815 P.2d 72, 88 (Kan. 1991)). However,
she does “not need to show that retaliation was the employer’s sole motive or
reason for the termination.” Id. Nor must she provide direct proof of retaliatory
intent. “Retaliatory discharge cases must generally be proven by circumstantial
rather than direct evidence because rarely will an employer admit to having
discharged an employee in retaliation for exercising a right.” Chaparro v. IBP,
Inc., 873 F. Supp. 1465, 1472 (D. Kan. 1995), aff’d, 104 F.3d 367 (10th Cir.
1996) (unpublished table decision); Marinhagen v. Boster, Inc., 840 P.2d 534, 540
(Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
-6-
Because such cases are rarely proven by direct evidence, the Kansas courts
have adopted the McDonnell Douglas 2 burden-shifting framework for analyzing
retaliatory discharge cases. See Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 275 F.3d 1290, 1294 (10th
Cir. 2002). At the first stage, a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case raising a
rebuttable presumption of retaliatory intent by showing that
(1) he or she filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, or
sustained an injury for which he might assert a future claim for such
benefits; (2) that the employer had knowledge of plaintiff’s
compensation claim, or the fact that he had sustained a work-related
injury for which the plaintiff might file a future claim for benefits;
(3) that the employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment; and
(4) that a causal connection existed between the protected activity or
injury, and the termination.
Sanjuan, 160 F.3d at 1298. Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory
justification for the discharge. Bausman v. Interstate Brands Corp., 252 F.3d
1111, 1116 (10th Cir. 2001). “If the employer meets this burden, the burden
shifts back to the plaintiff but the plaintiff must show clear and convincing
evidence that he or she was terminated in retaliation for exercising rights under
the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Id. (quotation omitted).
AlliedSignal does not dispute that Foster suffered a work-related injury for
which she might file a claim, that it had knowledge of the injury, or that it
2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
-7-
terminated Foster’s employment. The company contends, however, that it is
entitled to summary judgment because “there is simply no evidence to support the
fourth element of plaintiff’s prima facie case.” 3 (Appellee’s Br. at 17.)
AlliedSignal is mistaken.
To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must establish that the
individual or individuals who actually undertook the alleged retaliatory acts were
aware or should have been aware of plaintiff’s participation in the protected
activity. See Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253, 1265 (10th Cir.
1998) (holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional
and knowing retaliation); see also Fenton v. HiSAN, Inc., 174 F.3d 827, 832 (6th
Cir. 1999); Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1982). Foster
must therefore show that at the time of her discharge the AlliedSignal
decisionmakers responsible for her firing knew or should have known that the
absences for which she was discharged were the result of her work-related injury.
The two company personnel directly responsible for Foster’s
3
Citing no authority, AlliedSignal contends that the fourth, causal-
connection element of a prima facie case must be established by “clear and
convincing” evidence. (Appellee’s Br. at 16.) Holding a plaintiff to such a
standard at the prima facie stage would pervert the logic of the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting scheme adopted by the Kansas courts. See Rebarchek v.
Farmers Coop. Elevator & Mercantile Assoc., 35 P.3d 892, 901 (Kan. 2001) (“A
claimant’s ‘prima facie case is not an onerous burden under the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting scheme’” (quoting Robinson v. Wilson Concrete Co.,
913 F. Supp. 1476, 1483 (D. Kan. 1996)).
-8-
firing—supervisor Trageser and human resources manager Williams—both claim
not to have been aware either that Foster was requesting medical leave due to a
work-related injury or that she had filed a workers compensation claim . Foster
has provided no direct evidence that they were, in fact, cognizant of these
circumstances. Nonetheless, AlliedSignal admits that Trageser knew Foster had
been injured on the job (Appellee’s Br. at 3), that both Trageser and Williams
knew she had sought a medical leave of absence (id. at 6, 8), and that both men
knew the leave had been denied by the company’s medical department (id.).
Together with the timing of Foster’s firing—during an absence occasioned by a
work-related injury, days after she indicated she was filing for workers
compensation benefits—this evidence establishes a causal connection sufficient to
round out Foster’s prima facie case. See Rebarchek v. Farmers Coop. Elevator &
Mercantile Assoc., 35 P.3d 892, 899 (Kan. 2001) (“Proximity in time between the
claim and discharge is a typical point for proof of a causal connection.”). We
thus conclude that Foster has sufficiently made out a prima facie case of
retaliation.
The burden thus shifts to AlliedSignal to articulate a legitimate,
nonretaliatory justification for its termination of Foster’s employment. The
company has sufficiently done so by contending that Foster was fired because she
violated the company’s attendance rules. The burden now shifts back to Foster to
-9-
demonstrate that the justification articulated by AlliedSignal is pretextual.
To avoid summary judgment after an employer has articulated a legitimate,
non-retaliatory reason for the termination, “the employee must assert specific
facts establishing a triable issue as to whether the employer’s reason for discharge
is a mere cover-up or pretext for retaliatory discharge.” Bracken v. Dixon Indus.,
Inc., 38 P.3d 679, 682 (Kan. 2002) (citing Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d
1450, 1455 (10th Cir. 1994)). “Although the presumption of discrimination
‘drops out of the picture’ once the defendant meets its burden of production, the
trier of fact may still consider the evidence establishing the plaintiff’s prima facie
case ‘and inferences properly drawn therefrom . . . on the issue of whether the
defendant’s explanation is pretextual.’” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000) (internal citation omitted and ellipses in original)
(quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 n.10 (1981)).
The employee’s ultimate burden is to establish retaliation “by a preponderance of
the evidence, but the evidence must be clear and convincing in nature.” Ortega,
874 P.2d at 1198. Evidence is clear “if it is certain, unambiguous, and plain to
the understanding,” and it is convincing “if it is reasonable and persuasive enough
to cause the trier of facts to believe it.” Id. Clear and convincing evidence is
“not a quantum of proof, but rather a quality of proof.” Id.; see Barbara Oil Co.
v. Kan. Gas Supply Corp., 827 P.2d 24, 32 (Kan. 1992).
-10-
Foster correctly notes that under Kansas law a plaintiff in a retaliation case
“need not meet the clear and convincing standard at the summary judgment stage
of the proceedings,” Rebarchek, 35 P.3d at 898, and that a plaintiff “can
successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by a preponderance of the
evidence,” Bracken, 38 P.3d at 683. Thus, she argues, in the present action she is
likewise relieved of having to meet this evidentiary standard. On this latter point
she is mistaken. Although it is true that a Kansas court will not apply the clear-
and-convincing standard at the summary judgment stage in an action for
retaliation in the state’s own courts, a federal court sitting in diversity will be
guided by federal-law standards governing summary judgment procedure. As the
Supreme Court explained in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view
the evidence through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.
This conclusion is mandated by the nature of the determination. The
question here is whether a jury could reasonably find either that the
plaintiff proved his case by the quality and quantity of evidence
required by the governing law or that he did not. Whether a jury
could reasonably find for either party, however, cannot be defined
except by the criteria governing what evidence would enable the jury
to find for either the plaintiff or the defendant . . . .
477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986). The Court thus concluded that “the determination of
whether a given factual dispute requires submission to a jury must be guided by
the substantive evidentiary standards that apply to the case. This is true at both
the directed verdict and summary judgment stages.” Id. at 255. Given the
-11-
Court’s clear directions, we hold that a plaintiff in federal court who opposes a
summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge case based on Kansas law must set
forth evidence of a clear and convincing nature that, if believed by the ultimate
factfinder, would establish that plaintiff was more likely than not the victim of
illegal retaliation by her employer.
AlliedSignal contends that under this standard the district court was correct
in finding that Foster cannot survive summary judgment with the evidence that
she has proffered. We disagree. Viewing Foster’s evidence in the light most
favorable to her and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom, we conclude that
the district court should not have granted summary judgment to defendant. A
federal court’s responsibility to apply the clear-and-convincing standard of proof
at the summary judgment stage is not a license to engage in a mini-trial. Indeed,
as the Supreme Court explained in Anderson,
Our holding that the clear-and-convincing standard of proof
should be taken into account in ruling on summary judgment motions
does not denigrate the role of the jury. It by no means authorizes
trial on affidavits. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the
evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are
jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion
for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. The evidence of the
nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be
drawn in his favor. Neither do we suggest that the trial courts should
act other than with caution in granting summary judgment or that the
trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case where there is
reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full
trial.
-12-
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (citations omitted). Because our responsibility to
apply the clear-and-convincing standard of proof at summary judgment does not
authorize us to perform jury functions, our role is simply to determine whether the
evidence proffered by plaintiff would be sufficient, if believed by the ultimate
factfinder, to sustain her claim.
Foster has provided sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. At
the very least, she has presented evidence that, if believed, would be sufficient for
a factfinder to conclude that (1) her December absences were due to her work-
related injury, (2) the company personnel responsible for firing her either knew or
should have known that her absences were related to a work injury, and (3) her
employment was terminated within a week of AlliedSignal’s receipt of notice that
she had filed a workers compensation claim. In order to affirm summary
judgment for AlliedSignal, we must conclude that Foster “failed to produce any
evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn” that AlliedSignal’s
proffered reasons for her firing were pretextual. Stewart v. Adolph Coors Co.,
217 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077 (2001).
Particularly given that “[c]lose proximity in time may provide some probative
evidence of retaliatory intent,” Sanjuan, 160 F.3d at 1299, we cannot conclude
that Foster has failed to meet her burden at the summary judgment stage. See also
Gertsch v. Cent. Electropolishing Co., 26 P.3d 87, 90 (Kan. Ct. App.) (reversing
-13-
summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff “presented evidence of a
retaliatory motive. The trial court agreed that Gertsch presented evidence of close
temporal proximity to his discharge and the protected activity. This is highly
persuasive evidence of retaliation.”), review denied, 2001 Kan. LEXIS 722 (Kan.
Sept. 26, 2001).
In its grant of summary judgment to AlliedSignal, the district court held
that Foster had failed to set forth any evidence that the company’s articulated
reasons for her discharge were a pretext for a retaliatory motive, and seemed to
require Foster to show by “clear and convincing evidence that she was not in
violation of [AlliedSignal’s] attendance policies.” (3 Appellant’s App. at 808.)
We have already noted that Foster presented substantial circumstantial evidence
from which one might derive an inference of retaliatory intent. In addition, we
reiterate that a plaintiff does “not need to show that retaliation was the employer’s
sole motive or reason for the termination.” Sanjuan, 160 F.3d at 1298.
Accordingly, a plaintiff in a retaliatory discharge case need not prove that her
employer’s proffered, nonretaliatory motive for terminating her employment was a
factual impossibility. Rather, plaintiff can simply demonstrate that her discharge
“was ‘based on,’ ‘because of,’ ‘motivated by,’ or ‘due to’ the employer’s intent to
retaliate.” Id. (quoting Brown, 815 P.2d at 88). Foster’s evidence, if believed by
the jury, is sufficient to do so.
-14-
III
The district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant AlliedSignal is
REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED.
-15-