Smith v. Sprint/United Management Co.
17-1142
| 10th Cir. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Anthony Smith, an African-American call-center representative, received multiple corrective-action notices (2012–2013) for attendance and performance; in June 2013 he received a final-level corrective action after failing to return a customer call.
- Smith filed an internal complaint (June 18, 2013) and an EEOC charge (June 21, 2013) alleging harassment and discrimination; he again failed to return a customer call on July 7, 2013.
- Sprint’s HR investigation (completed July 8, 2013) found no evidence of discrimination; Smith was recommended for termination by supervisor Lindsey Mason and was terminated July 15, 2013 for repeated policy violations and poor metrics.
- Smith sued pro se in district court asserting race- and color-discrimination and retaliation claims under § 1981 and Title VII, a breach-of-contract claim based on Sprint’s Code of Conduct, and a tortious-interference claim against Mason; some claims were earlier dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Sprint and Mason, adopting the magistrate judge’s R&R; the district court found Smith failed to establish prima facie discrimination, failed to show pretext for retaliation, and waived contract arguments by not including missing pages of his summary-judgment response.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held Smith waived challenge to the discrimination rulings by not objecting to the R&R, rejected his pretext evidence for retaliation, and applied the firm-waiver rule to his contract claims because he failed to supply the missing pages below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith established a prima facie race/color discrimination claim | Smith contended facts supported an inference of discrimination and pretext | Sprint argued Smith had no direct evidence and legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons supported termination | Waived on appeal because Smith did not object to the R&R disposition; appellate review declined |
| Whether Smith showed pretext for retaliation | Smith argued inconsistent reasons from supervisor and other evidence show pretext | Sprint offered nondiscriminatory reasons: attendance, policy violations, poor metrics, failures to return calls | Court held evidence did not show inconsistencies or other weaknesses sufficient to prove pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Smith preserved breach-of-contract and tortious-interference claims | Smith later produced missing pages of his response claiming they contained contract arguments | Sprint argued Smith failed to raise these arguments below and omitted the pages from the district-court record | Waived under the firm-waiver rule; district court properly declined to consider belatedly produced pages |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural defaults | Smith argued procedural mistakes should be excused because he is pro se | Sprint and courts noted pro se litigants must still comply with rules and support arguments with record citations | Court applied firm-waiver rule and denied equitable relief; pro se status did not excuse failures |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2006) (pretext standard articulated for employment claims)
- Bennett v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (elements of prima facie discrimination claim)
- Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants’ briefs must comply with court rules; court will not act as advocate)
- Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2010) (firm-waiver rule for failure to object to R&R)
- Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008) (exceptions to waiver rule explained)
- James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2013) (conclusory allegations insufficient to resist summary judgment)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se litigants are responsible for factual development of claims)