Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc.
740 F.3d 530
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Smothers worked for Solvay 1990–2008; serious neck/back pain with multiple surgeries and chronic sleep disruption.
- He took FMLA leave for his health condition and faced pressure about absences and shift changes.
- In August 2008, during an acid wash, Smothers removed a spool piece before lockout, allegedly violating safety policy; a line break permit was later obtained.
- A six-person decision group terminated Smothers; most members weighed the Mahaffey quarrel and alleged ‘defiant’ behavior in the firing decision.
- Solvay had prior instances of treating similar safety violations less severely and conducted an alleged inadequate investigation of the quarrel; the Handbook allowed termination for serious offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA retaliation pretext present? | Smothers shows disparate treatment and pretext. | Solvay had a legitimate safety-based termination. | Yes; triable issue on pretext. |
| ADA discrimination; is Smothers disabled under the ADA? | Sleeping impairment substantially limits major life activity. | Smothers not shown a substantial limitation. | Disputed; material question on substantial limitation. |
| Was the investigation into the Mahaffey quarrel fair and adequate? | Solvay relied on one-sided allegations and did not hear Smothers’ version. | Investigation supported by available testimony. | Reasonable juror could find inadequacy pretext. |
| State-law breach of implied contract based on Handbook? | Handbook terms were violated or misapplied. | Discretion to terminate allowed by handbook and justified. | Solvay entitled to summary judgment on contract claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (framework for circumstantial employment claims)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (prima facie burden and pretext guidance)
- E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (overlap of decision-makers for similarly situated employees)
- Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, 524 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of investigation as pretext evidence)
- Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (pretext evidence can arise from biased investigation)