Zisumbo v. Ogden Regional Medical Center
801 F.3d 1185
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Raymond Zisumbo, a CT technician at Ogden Regional Medical Center (ORMC), alleged race discrimination and retaliation after he complained about his supervisor; ORMC investigated and fired him for submitting apparently fraudulent employment letters.
- Zisumbo sued under Title VII (discrimination and retaliation) and state law (good faith and fair dealing); after motions and appeals, only Title VII retaliatory and discriminatory termination claims proceeded to jury trial.
- Jury found for ORMC on discrimination but for Zisumbo on retaliation; remedies phase followed with contested awards for back pay, front pay/reinstatement, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
- District court granted summary judgment to ORMC on the Utah good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim and denied multiple untimely motions to amend Zisumbo’s complaint to add § 1981 and other state-law claims.
- The district court curtailed back pay and denied reinstatement/front pay based on Zisumbo’s post-termination misdemeanor assault conviction; it also denied a punitive-damages instruction and reduced Zisumbo’s fee award for limited success.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: denial of leave to amend, summary judgment on the state claim, denial of JMOL for ORMC on retaliation, denial of punitive instruction, limitation of remedies tied to post-termination conviction, and the fee reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion denying leave to file second amended complaint adding § 1981 and state claims | Zisumbo said counsel only realized § 1981 viability later and discovery produced supporting facts | ORMC said amendment was untimely under scheduling order and no adequate excuse for delay | Denial affirmed: untimeliness with no adequate explanation; Rule 15/16 analysis unnecessary |
| Whether ORMC owed duty of good faith and fair dealing based on Code of Conduct (summary judgment) | Zisumbo argued Code created implied-in-fact contract modifying at-will status | ORMC pointed to clear, conspicuous disclaimers in application and handbook preserving at-will employment | Affirmed: disclaimers preclude implied contract; summary judgment for ORMC proper |
| Whether JMOL should have been granted to ORMC on retaliation (causation and pretext) | Zisumbo argued temporal proximity, joint decision-making by supervisor who knew of complaints, and investigative weaknesses showed retaliation and pretext | ORMC argued sole decisionmaker (HR) didn’t know of complaints and that termination reason (fraudulent letters) was legitimate | Denied: evidence permitted jury to find supervisor participated and knew of complaints; evidence of timing and investigation supported pretext/inference of retaliation |
| Whether remedies (punitive damages, back pay, front pay/reinstatement, attorneys’ fees) were proper | Zisumbo sought full back pay, reinstatement or front pay, punitive damages, and full fees | ORMC argued punitive unwarranted; back pay limited by after-acquired and post-termination misconduct (assault conviction); fee reduction appropriate for limited success | Affirmed: punitive instruction denied (Kolstad standard not met); back pay limited to termination–conviction period and reinstatement/front pay barred by conviction; attorneys’ fees reduced for limited success and unrelated litigation conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir.) (Rule 15 amendment principles; undue delay justification)
- Woolsey v. Marion Labs., Inc., 934 F.2d 1452 (10th Cir.) (late realization of claim does not justify untimely amendment)
- Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standards for punitive damages under Title VII; good-faith compliance defense)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence and effect on remedies)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (attorneys' fees: reduction for limited success)
- Nassar v. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)