Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
674 F.3d 1187
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jones, a UPS employee, alleged retaliatory discharge under Kansas common law for filing a workers' compensation claim.
- Jones was initially released to return with lifting restrictions; UPS and its doctors evaluated Jones through a third-doctor procedure under a CBA.
- Dr. Legler amended Jones's release to restrictive lifting, while Dr. Poppa later said Jones could return without restrictions; disputes arose over which doctor’s opinion controlled.
- Sloan, UPS occupational health manager, coordinated care and pressed to have doctors rely on earlier records; she urged limiting new evaluations.
- Dr. Buck conducted two examinations; the second was based on past records, leading to disputed conclusions about Jones's current abilities.
- A six-day trial in federal court resulted in judgment for Jones: compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages; UPS timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie retaliation if WC claim filed | Jones showed proximity and causal link establishing prima facie retaliation. | No causal link or retaliation evidence; discharge justified by inability to work. | Prima facie retaliation supported; proximity plus conduct suggested retaliatory motive. |
| Pretext for termination | Buck's incomplete second report and Sloan's interference show pretext. | Buck's second report based on records, not independent evaluation; no pretext. | Sufficient evidence of pretext to avoid JMOL on retaliation. |
| Jury instructions 15-16 | Instructions inadequately framed defenses and their relation to Instruction 12. | Instructions, read together with 12, properly conveyed law. | No reversible error; instructions, though imperfect, did not prejudice UPS. |
| Punitive damages availability and amount | Sloan acted with willful and malicious intent; UPS may be liable for punitive damages. | No institutional authorization/ratification; punitive damages improper or excessive. | Punitive damages findings may be supported; amount deemed constitutionally excessive; remand to enter punitive award equal to compensatory damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rebarchek v. Farmers Coop. Elevator, 272 Kan. 546 (Kan. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas framework adopted in Kansas retaliation cases)
- Bracken v. Dixon Indus., Inc., 272 Kan. 1272 (Kan. 2002) (employment-at-will with exceptions for retaliatory discharge)
- Hysten v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 530 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2008) (punitive damages not automatic in retaliation; pretext supports award)
- Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) (Seventh Amendment right to jury trial for punitive damages)
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (traditional jury determination for punitive damages; due process considerations)
- O'Gilvie v. International Playtex, Inc., 821 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1987) (remittitur and Seventh Amendment considerations for punitive damages)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (de novo review of punitive damages by appellate courts)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (Erie doctrine; substantive vs. procedural for jury deviation in trials)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (procedural nature of decision-making rules under Erie)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010) (framework for applying federal rules over state law in Erie analysis)