Skip to main content

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

Opinionhttp://hr.cch.com/ELD/LindemanStLukes080918.pdf
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...