Macon v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
743 F.3d 708
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- UPS fired Jeff Macon for dishonesty after multiple discipline steps; regional grievance panel ultimately terminated him based on an honest belief of dishonesty.
- Macon had two work-related elbow injuries covered by Kansas WC; settlement offer accepted March 16, 2009.
- Macon faced multiple disciplinary actions after returning to work in late 2008 and in 2009, culminating in a termination after review by the regional grievance panel.
- Grievance procedures at UPS involve local and regional panels with joint union/management representation; final decision to terminate rests with the panel.
- District court granted summary judgment for UPS, applying Kansas law on retaliatory discharge and McDonnell Douglas framework; on appeal, court reviews de novo for pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Macon showed pretext for retaliation. | Macon argues pattern of retaliation and dishonesty not proven, training issues. | UPS asserts the panel independently found dishonesty; no pretext shown. | Pretext not shown; panel independent; no reasonable inference of pretext. |
| Whether the final decisionmaker’s independent review cuts against pretext. | Regional panel lacked bias; timing suggests retaliation. | Panel independently reviewed records and corrected misconduct; unbiased. | Panel's independent decision defeats pretext inference. |
| Whether there is sufficient causal link between WC claim and termination. | Temporal proximity supported by post-injury discipline. | Temporal gap too long; no causal connection proved. | Causal link not shown; no retaliation established. |
| Whether comparators show disparate treatment establishing pretext. | Kelly's similar misconduct and lack of termination shows pretext. | Tim Kelly is not properly situated; not similarly situated; no pretext. | No valid similarly situated comparator; no pretext shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (guides pretext evaluation via supervisor vs. final decisionmaker focus; panel independence matters)
- Rebarchek v. Farmers Co-op. Elevator & Mercantile Ass’n, 35 P.3d 892 (Kan. 2001) (Kansas adopts McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliatory discharge)
- Foster v. Alliedsignal, Inc., 293 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment standard in Kansas retaliation context guidance)
- Thomas v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2011) (reiterates summary judgment burden and pretext framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (establishes standard for genuine disputes at summary judgment)
- Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) (discusses evidence as pretext indicators under Kendrick framework)
- Bausman v. Interstate Brands Corp., 252 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2001) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to retaliatory discharge)