An Employee's Positive Performance Review Alone Does Not Indicate Reason For Termination Was Pretextual

Lindeman v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Todd Lindeman ("Lindeman") worked at Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City ("St. Luke's) for over eight years in various positions.  Lindeman, who suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, and other physical limitations, had a good employment record for most of his tenure at St. Luke's.  However, when Todd Isbell and Rosa Parodi became his new supervisors, Lindeman claimed they became more demanding and less pleasant to work with than his previous supervisor, Lorra Embers.

St. Luke's had a progressive disciplinary policy in place under which an employee would be terminated upon receiving their fourth infraction.  In early 2014, Lindeman received a warning after he became argumentative over his failure to return a supervisor's phone calls.  Later that month, Lindeman again received a warning for failing to abide by the hospital's timecard and call in procedures.  In February, Lindeman received a temporary suspension for failing to call in prior to missing a scheduled shift.  Ultimately, in April of 2014, Lindeman mentioned the name of a patient to a number of individuals (in violation of St. Luke's policy)  inside and outside of the St. Luke's facility.  This fourth infraction resulted in his termination later that month.

Lindeman subsequently filed suit against St. Luke's on the grounds that his employer violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  After the district court granted St. Luke's motion for summary judgment, Lindeman appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee on the basis of a disability.  In this instance, based upon the circumstantial evidence presented by Lindeman, the Court noted it would analyze the ADA claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis.  Under this burden shifting analysis, Lindeman has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination.  The burden then would shift to St. Luke's to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.  If St. Luke's could meet that burden, Lindeman would then be required to show that St. Luke's proffered reason was merely a pretext for intentional discrimination.

The Court noted that at this stage, it was assumed that Lindeman could establish a prima facie case.  As well, St. Luke's reason for terminating Lindeman, his disclosure of confidential information in violation of St. Luke's policies, was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.  The focus on this appeal was whether Lindeman had shown that St. Luke's reason was pretextual.  To prevail, Lindeman had to produce sufficient evidence to establish both that St. Luke's reason for the termination was false and that the discrimination was the real reason for the adverse employment action.

In this instance, Lindeman asserted that other employees had disclosed the same confidential information but were not disciplined.  Readers might recall that pretext may be demonstrated by showing disparate punishment between similarly situated employees, but Lindeman was required to show he and his coworkers "were similarly situated in all relevant aspects."  In short, the Court held that Lindeman failed to meet his burden as the other employees that had disclosed the same confidential information were apparently not in the last stage of the progressive disciplinary policy.  As well, Lindeman acknowledged that he mentioned the patient's name after being told that doing so was a violation of St. Luke's policy (but Lindeman failed to establish the other employees had engaged in a similar course of conduct).

As well, Lindeman claimed that his history of positive performance (under a prior supervisor) followed by his quick progression through the disciplinary system (under the two new supervisors) demonstrated an unlawful reason was the true motivation for his termination.  However, the Court pointed out that "[e]vidence of a strong employment history will not alone create a genuine issue of fact regarding pretext and discrimination."  Of note, the favorable review that Lindeman relied upon was made about a year before his termination.  As well, the fact that different supervisors oversaw Lindeman's work weakened his argument:  A change in supervisors was evidence of a shift in expectations that could have resulted in his work being more closely scrutinized by his new supervisors and receiving warnings for failing to properly do his job.

Judgment:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the grounds that the employee's ADA and ADEA claims failed to present sufficient evidence that his termination was pretext for unlawful discrimination.

The Takeaway:  Note to employees, just because you get a good performance review, that alone does not give you a "free pass" to skate by or assume you will not get fired for violating an employer's policy (or reaching the end of a progressive disciplinary policy).  In this instance, it was a novel argument for Lindeman to assert that his disclosure of confidential information was a pretext to his alleged unlawful termination because of his disability.  The Court did a good job walking through the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis to establish that as a result of his three prior violations (and his subsequent fourth violation), St. Luke's had a justifiable reason to terminate him, separate and unrelated from him having a disability.  Being unable to produce sufficient evidence to establish both that St. Luke's reason for the termination was false and that the discrimination was the real reason for the adverse employment action, ultimately doomed Lindeman's case.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Shepherd

Date:  August 9, 2018

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/LindemanStLukes080918.pdf