Arthur Cordova, Michael McKee Edmundo Heredia v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing, An Illinois Corporation, 105 F.3d 669, 10th Cir. (1997)
Arthur Cordova, Michael McKee Edmundo Heredia v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing, An Illinois Corporation, 105 F.3d 669, 10th Cir. (1997)
3d 669
97 CJ C.A.R. 69
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
Plaintiffs Arthur Cordova, Michael McKee and Edmundo Heredia appeal the
district court's grant of summary judgment against them on their claims alleging
defendant A.E. Staley Manufacturing (Staley or defendant) discharged them in
retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. The only issue on appeal is
whether the allegations in plaintiffs' amended complaint alone were sufficient
to make summary judgment improper.
received workers' compensation benefits and did not work for periods ranging
from approximately ten to fifteen months before their termination.
3
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Age Discrimination in Employment Act. They later sent defendant a
proposed amended complaint and tendered a copy to the district court, adding a
claim of retaliatory discharge. They did not, however, file a motion seeking
leave to amend their complaint until approximately three weeks later.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all charges in the proposed
amended complaint. Shortly thereafter the district court granted plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs then responded to defendant's
summary judgment motion except as to the retaliatory discharge claim, stating
it was not yet "at issue." Appellants' App. 33.
The district court granted summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs had failed
to allege facts supporting the necessary elements of a retaliatory discharge
claim and had presented no evidence that Staley terminated their employment
because they received workers' compensation benefits.3 We review de novo an
order granting summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district
court. FDIC v. Hastie (In re Hastie), 2 F.3d 1042, 1044 (10th Cir.1993).
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 a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party
seeking summary judgment carries the burden of showing the "absence of
evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin
Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). If "the moving party has met its burden, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there is a genuine issue of
material fact." Bacchus Indus., 939 F.2d at 891; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). A party
may not oppose a summary judgment motion "by reference only to its
pleadings." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325 (referring to discussion of
amendments to Rule 56(e)). The court should not weigh the evidence but
determine whether "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the nonmoving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
6
employee was terminated as the result of refusing to perform the act directed by
the employer," and that the employer was aware that the employee, in refusing
to comply with the employer's directives, had a good faith belief that the
employee's actions were consistent with his statutory rights or privileges as a
worker. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo.1992)
(describing prima facie case in context of retaliatory discharge for employee
refusing to perform illegal act) (emphasis added).
8
Heredia likewise was injured in March 1993, and provided Staley with a work
release in June 1993 that restricted him to a three-hour work day, and prohibited
lifting over ten pounds, bending or frequent stair climbing. Id. at 132-33. He
admitted to eventually being able to do more than indicated on the work
release, but failed to inform Staley of his improved condition. Id. at 133-39. He
acknowledged rototilling his garden and transporting firewood, and other
vigorous activity. Id. at 148, 163-65. He stated in his deposition that he had no
basis to challenge the defendant's stated reasons for his termination. Id. at 148,
167.
10
McKee made similar admissions. His early 1993 injury required surgery in May
1993. He worked light duty until his surgery, but then had no contact with
Staley until submitting a work release in December 1993 that prohibited lifting
more than a hundred pounds, and running or jumping. Id. at 193-95, 198-99.
McKee expressed concern to Staley about stair climbing and requested light
duty at that time. Id. at 204-06. Defendant had no light duty available. Id. at
214-15. McKee's only reasons for believing his dismissal was retaliatory were
the terminations in the instant case, id. at 238, and his belief that others with
workers' compensation claims were fired for that reason.
11
Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to come forward with evidence showing
that there was a genuine issue of material fact on the causation element.
Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
defendant.
12
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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
We summarize here the fact finding by the district court. This background is
collateral to the issue determinative of the appeal and evidently supported by
the district court record, much of which was not included in the record on
appeal
Heredia and McKee contended that Staley did not sufficiently analyze the
available work before concluding no jobs existed consistent with their work
restrictions. The district court found to the contrary and that is not an issue on
appeal
On plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration the district court held that summary
judgment was appropriate despite the procedural anomaly that defendant
moved for summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim before the
district court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint adding those
allegations