F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 22 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARY ANGELA MORALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-1145
(D.C. No. 02-M-261 (BNB))
McKESSON HEALTH SOLUTIONS, (D. Colo.)
LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , McKAY , and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
Mary Angela Morales brought an employment discrimination suit against
McKesson Health Solutions, LLC, claiming that McKesson violated Title VII,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, by discriminating against her based on her
religion. The district court granted summary judgment to McKesson; Morales
appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
I
Morales, a Roman Catholic, was employed by McKesson from
November 22, 1998, through December 24, 1999, as a telephone triage nurse.
Patients call the triage service to receive a brief assessment of their symptoms for
the purpose of determining the appropriate level and priority of medical treatment.
McKesson requires its triage nurses to query the callers using a computer-based set
of branching algorithms designed to sort patients into different risk categories.
Nurses are required to proceed systematically through the algorithms to reach the
appropriate level, timing, and provider of medical care, and may not make personal
observations. The average call is to last nine minutes. When asked for medical
information, the nurses are instructed to refer to items from a set list of approved
information sources. McKesson has written policies against deviation from
standard algorithm practices, inefficient work performance, insubordination,
engaging in behavior which creates discord, and distributing printed materials on
company time.
In disregard of McKesson’s procedures and, we are told, occasionally
instilling fear in McKesson patients, Morales injected Roman Catholic prayer and
dogma into triage calls. She referred one patient, for example, to a priest for
inquiry into whether his condition might be a “Eucharistic miracle.” Her
supervisors orally reprimanded her for such actions on December 3, 1999, and
-2-
reasserted their policy against discussions outside the bounds of the algorithms.
McKesson further specified that if the callers themselves raised religious issues, as
Morales asserted some had done, she was to refer them to their local spiritual
leaders rather than imparting her personal religious viewpoint.
Morales, however, persisted in making religious comments that callers
apparently found scary or offensive. She became embroiled in a dispute with one
caller who “t[ook] the Lord’s name in vain.” R., vol. 1, doc. 52, Ex. M at 1. The
caller was offended and terminated the encounter. She also recited the “Divine
Mercy” prayer to a caller even though she acknowledges that it was “probably
more than [she] should do.” Doc. 52, Exhibit Y, 148:13-18, and later engaged in
an hour-long call without entering any algorithm information, in violation of the
algorithm procedure as well as McKesson’s policies governing efficient work
performance.
Morales also engaged in a series of harassing incidents involving
co-workers, including telling one co-worker she was under attack by the “powers
of darkness,” and implying that another was Satan, or possessed by Satan
(although she later testified that she was speaking to Satan in the email to her
co-worker, rather than addressing the co-worker directly). Doc. 39, Exhibit J,
377:3-12.
-3-
McKesson prepared a written warning for Morales and presented it to her
on December 23. The warning sought assurances from Morales that she would
refrain from discussing religious beliefs or praying with callers, broaching
religious discussions in the workplace without the invitation of another employee,
distributing religious literature on company premises, and submitting forms
requesting the inclusion of spiritual information in the algorithms. Morales
declined to agree to the conditions specified in the warning. McKesson then
terminated her employment.
Morales filed this religious discrimination suit alleging that she was
discharged for her nonacceptance of McKesson’s secularism. McKesson filed a
motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Morales
appealed.
II
Morales’s appeal is governed by the summary judgment standard, requiring
this court to review
the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the
same standards applied by the district court. The evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Summary judgment is
appropriate only where 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 a judgment as a matter of law.
-4-
Stover v. Martinez , 382 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Title VII prohibits an employer from discharging “any individual . . .
because of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To
prevail, a plaintiff must prove termination was based upon intentional
discrimination. EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. , 220 F.3d 1184,
1191-92 (10th Cir. 2000). Where there is no direct evidence of discrimination,
the court evaluates a summary judgment motion under the burden-shifting
framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. , 220 F.3d at 1191. Applying the McDonnell
Douglas approach, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of unlawful
discrimination, so that the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s termination. Id. If the employer
produces such a reason, the burden returns to the plaintiff, who can avoid
summary judgment by showing that the employer’s proffered reason was merely a
pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id.
Here, the appropriate prima facie case for plaintiff’s discriminatory
discharge claim requires a showing that: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected
class; (2) she was qualified to perform her job; (3) despite her qualifications, she
was discharged; and (4) the job from which she was terminated was not
-5-
eliminated. Perry v. Woodward , 199 F.3d 1126, 1140 (10th Cir. 1999). For the
purposes of our analysis, we assume that Morales’s evidence meets this test.
“Nothing in the case law in this circuit requires a plaintiff to compare herself to
similarly-situated co-workers to satisfy the fourth element of her prima facie
case.” Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. , 220 F.3d at 1195. Thus, the district court
erred in requiring Morales to demonstrate that similarly situated employees were
treated differently.
Nevertheless, this error does not affect the validity of the district court’s
entry of summary judgment. As an alternative basis for its ruling, the district
court proceeded to the second step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. It
properly determined that McKesson had articulated legitimate reasons for
terminating Ms. Morales’s employment and Morales had failed to demonstrate
pretext. “To show pretext, the plaintiff must call into question the honesty or
good faith” of the employer’s assessment of the situation. Exum v. United States
Olympic Comm. , 389 F.3d 1130, 1137 (10th Cir. 2004).
Pretext may be demonstrated by revealing “weaknesses, implausibilities,
inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered
legitimate reasons for its action [such] that a reasonable factfinder could
rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did
not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reason.” Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. , 108
-6-
F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997). In Morales’s case, in contrast, she testified
that neither her boss, nor “any of the other supervisors” were anti-Catholic,
alleging only a generalized institutional secularism. Doc. 52, Exhibit Y 125:6-14.
She furthermore does not deny having engaged in the harassing and rule-violating
conduct that form the basis of her dismissal.
On our review of the record, we agree with the district court that
Morales’s repeated straying from the algorithms and disruptions of workplace
harmony were violations of McKesson’s workplace policies, and constitute valid,
nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment – reasons that Morales
has not shown to be pretextual under the standards of Exum or Morgan .
Under Title VII, an employer is required reasonably to accommodate an
employee’s religious practices or beliefs where accommodation does not cause
undue hardship to the company’s business interests. Shapolia v. Los Alamos
Nat’l Lab. , 992 F.2d 1033, 1037 (10th Cir. 1993). However, a religious
accommodation claim is distinct from a “straightforward disparate treatment”
claim. Id. In the instant case, Morales claims that she was fired because she did
not hold the same religious beliefs as her supervisors. Morales’s counsel did not
raise the accommodation issue below and we will not reach it here. See United
States v. Chavez-Marquez , 66 F.3d 259, 261 (10th Cir. 1995) (stating that we do
not consider issues which are raised for the first time on appeal except to review
-7-
for plain error resulting in manifest injustice). As in Shapolia , “[t]he question for
the trier of fact is straightforward,” whether Morales’s termination was motivated
by an animus directed against non-secular employees. Id. We cannot conclude
that it was.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-8-