ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Mark Jackson asserts a claim for workers' compensation retaliation against Defendant Amsted Rail Company, Inc., which does business as Griffin Wheel in Kansas City, Kansas. This matter comes before the Court on Amsted Rail's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55). Because the Court finds that Jackson has failed to meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Amsted Rail's reason for terminating him is pretextual, the Court grants Amsted Rail's motion for summary judgment.
Defendant Amsted Rail Company, Inc., operates Griffin Wheel, a steel foundry that manufactures railroad car wheels in Kansas City, Kansas. From 2001 through June 21, 2012, Plaintiff Mark Jackson worked at the Griffin Wheel facility primarily as a basement operator or basement helper. Jackson reported work injuries to his shoulder, back, and legs in 2002, 2004, and 2005. The parties agree that there was never a time that Amsted Rail refused to provide Jackson medical treatment for any of his work injuries.
Jackson received an overpayment of unemployment benefits while he was employed by Amsted. In 2009, the Griffin Wheel facility occasionally closed because of the economic downturn and lack of work. During these shutdowns, Jackson and other employees collected unemployment benefits from the state of Kansas. But when the facility reopened, Jackson continued to collect unemployment benefits while working. Jackson represented to the state that he earned no wages for at least 45 weeks from 2008 to 2010 while he was working and receiving a paycheck from Amsted Rail. Jackson does not dispute that he received between $407 and $461 in unemployment benefits each week.
In 2010, the Kansas Department of Labor sent Jackson a letter indicating that he owed $18,752.06 for the overpayment of unemployment benefits. Jackson did not appeal that determination and entered into a repayment agreement with the Kansas Department of Labor. Jackson never informed Amsted Rail of the state's determination. On September 30, 2011, Jackson reported to Amsted Rail that he suffered a shoulder injury at work and filed a workers' compensation claim on December 21, 2011. Amsted Rail paid for Jackson to have shoulder surgery, and he returned to work in January 2012 with some lifting restrictions.
In the spring of 2012, Brian Robinson, Griffin Wheel's manager of human resources and safety, received a report of unemployment benefit charges from the state. The report listed employees, including Jackson, and noted the amounts charged against Amsted Rail's unemployment account. Gina McCullough, the director of human resources, asked Robinson to investigate. Robinson's investigation revealed that six current employees, including Jackson, claimed unemployment benefits while working at Griffin Wheel.
Robinson presented a formal report to McCullough and recommended termination of the six employees' employment. Wayne Luce, Amsted Rail's vice president of human resources, participated in a conference call with McCullough, Robinson, and Michael DeCola, the Griffin Wheel plant manager. On June 21, 2012, Amsted Rail terminated the employment of Jackson and five other employees. Amsted Rail told Jackson his employment was terminated because he improperly collected unemployment benefits for a time period when he was working at Amsted.
Jackson filed suit against Amsted Rail in April 2013. Amsted Rail removed to this Court in May 2013. Jackson's amended complaint, filed in December 2013, alleges wrongful termination in retaliation for a workplace injury and filing a workers' compensation claim. Jackson also alleged civil conspiracy, which the Court previously dismissed.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In Kansas, the employer-employee relationship is governed by the employment-at-will doctrine.
In analyzing workers' compensation retaliation claims brought under Kansas law, federal courts apply the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
Amsted Rail contends that summary judgment should be granted because Jackson cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. And even if he can, Amsted Rail argues that Jackson has not met his burden of showing that its reason for his discharge was pretextual. Jackson argues that there is sufficient evidence of pretext and material facts in dispute such that Amsted Rail is not entitled to summary judgment.
To establish a prima facie case of workers' compensation retaliation under Kansas law, a plaintiff must establish the following four elements:
Amsted Rail disputes the second and fourth elements. Amsted Rail contends that Luce, who it maintains made the decision to fire Jackson and five other employees, was not aware of Jackson's injury or workers' compensation claim. Amsted Rail also alleges that Jackson has failed to show causation. Amsted Rail agrees that Jackson filed a claim and was terminated and does not dispute that the first and third elements are met.
The Court is mindful of the established principle that a plaintiff's burden at the prima facie stage is not onerous.
As for the fourth element, evidence that Jackson was terminated six months after filing his claim—by itself—is not enough to establish a causal connection.
McCullough testified that Robinson conducted the investigation and presented her with a formal report and a recommendation to terminate the employment of Jackson and five others. McCullough further testified that she forwarded Robinson's report to Luce. Luce and McCullough each testified that they then participated in a conference call with Robinson and DeCola. Luce testified that the decision to terminate the six employees was made after reviewing Robinson's report.
Keeping in mind that establishing a prima facie case is not an onerous burden, the Court finds that Robinson's comments to Jackson about having a lawyer and about Jackson missing work because of injury are sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. Further, there is evidence that supports a link between Robinson's comments and his recommendation and participation in the termination decision. As a result, the Court will focus its ruling on the issue of pretext.
Because Jackson has established a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to Amsted Rail to articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for terminating Jackson's employment. Amsted Rail's evidence demonstrates that it terminated Jackson's employment because Jackson fraudulently collected unemployment benefits by misrepresenting his work status while working for Griffin Steel. The parties have stipulated that Amsted Rail told Jackson that his employment was terminated because he improperly collected unemployment benefits for a time period when he was working at Griffin Wheel. The parties also have stipulated that Jackson received an overpayment of unemployment benefits during his employment with
Amsted Rail. Thus, the Court finds that Amsted Rail has satisfied its burden of articulating a nonretaliatory reason for terminating Jackson's employment. As a result, the burden of persuasion shifts back to Jackson to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Amsted Rail's stated reason is unworthy of belief. To avoid summary judgment after an employer has offered a reason for termination, "the employee must assert specific facts establishing a triable issue as to whether the employer's reason for the discharge is mere cover-up or pretext for retaliatory discharge."
The question is whether the employer honestly believed its stated reason and acted in good faith on that belief.
Ultimately, the employee's burden is to establish retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, but the evidence itself must be clear and convincing in nature.
Here, Jackson offers three reasons to show that Amsted Rail's stated reason for his termination was a pretext for unlawful retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. For one, Jackson points out that he was fired almost two and a half years after he last received improper unemployment benefits and that Amsted Rail knew about it long before the six employees were terminated. In addition, Jackson asserts that there were other employees that received an overpayment of unemployment benefits who were not terminated. Specifically, Jackson alleges that Sigmund Stewart and another employee also received improper benefits and are still employed. Jackson asserts that this is evidence of disparate treatment and pretext. Also, Jackson reiterates that Robinson's comments and actions show a discriminatory motive and that the fact that all six of the terminated employees had filed workers' compensation claims is enough to show pretext.
Jackson attempts to downplay Amsted Rail's concern about employees improperly receiving unemployment benefits by offering evidence that the company knew about it long before the six employees were terminated in 2012. Jackson points to two incidents. First, Jackson testified in his deposition that Steve Johnson, a Griffin Wheel foreman or team leader, told him in 2009 about an investigation or audit regarding unemployment benefits.
Initially, the Court notes that Johnson allegedly telling Jackson about an investigation or audit is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is not admissible as hearsay at the summary judgment stage.
Jackson alleges that there were other Amsted Rail employees who received an overpayment of unemployment benefits who were not terminated. Specifically, Jackson named Stewart, who is still employed by Amsted Rail. Jackson argues Stewart's continued employment is evidence of disparate treatment and pretext.
Notably, Jackson's evidence is based on what Stewart allegedly told him and another employee. Specifically, Jackson testified in his deposition that he believed Stewart also received an overpayment because "he told me."
Moreover, even if Jackson's evidence is admissible, he fails to provide evidence that Amsted Rail knew about Stewart's alleged misconduct. In fact, Jackson testified that he did not know if Amsted Rail knew whether Stewart received an overpayment.
Finally, Jackson offers the same evidence of Robinson's statements to suggest that discriminatory animus against those with workplace injuries is the real reason for his termination. As noted previously, Robinson's comments to Jackson about having a lawyer and about Jackson missing work because of injury meet the lower standard of sufficiently alleging causation to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. But to show pretext, a plaintiff's burden is to establish retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence itself must be clear and convincing in nature.
Ultimately, the question is whether Amsted Rail honestly believes Jackson was terminated because he improperly received unemployment benefits while working at Griffin Wheel.
The Court grants summary judgment to Amsted Rail on this ground. Jackson has failed to come forward with clear and convincing evidence that Luce or any other decision-maker did not believe the stated reason for Jackson's termination. Jackson offers isolated comments from Robinson, but the comments do not rise above mere conjecture that Amsted Rail's reason for termination is insufficient.