Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01380/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

KRIS OLSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-1380 

_________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-03098-MEH)

_________________________________ 

Scot C. Kreider (Sara A. Green with him on the briefs), of Bachus & Schanker, Denver, 

Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellant. 

Cynthia K. Springer of Faegre Baker Daniels, Indianapolis, Indiana (Thomas W. Carroll 

of Faegre Baker Daniels, Denver, Colorado, with her on the briefs), for Defendant–

Appellee. 

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

_________________________________ 

Kris Olson managed a warehouse for Penske Logistics, but Penske fired him 

while he was on medical leave. He filed suit under the Family and Medical Leave 

Act (FMLA), alleging Penske had unlawfully interfered with his FMLA rights. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

August 26, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 1 
– 2 – 

Penske moved for summary judgment. It argued that Mr. Olson could not 

satisfy the third element of an FMLA interference claim: he could not show that his 

termination was “related to the exercise . . . of [his] FMLA rights,” Dalpiaz v. Carbon 

Cty., 760 F.3d 1126, 1132 (10th Cir. 2014). Because of his poor job performance, 

Penske argued, Mr. Olson would have been fired even if he had not taken leave. 

Penske’s motion was granted, and Mr. Olson now appeals. 

Mr. Olson contends summary judgment was inappropriate because there is 

enough evidence for a jury to believe his termination was related to his leave. For 

this argument to succeed, Mr. Olson must identify some “causal connection” between 

his leave and Penske’s decision to fire him. Campbell v. Gambro Healthcare, Inc., 

478 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Olson identifies two. A reasonable jury 

could find, he argues, that if he had not taken leave, he would have been able to 

defend his job performance and persuade Penske not to terminate him. And, he 

argues further, a reasonable jury could find he was really fired for taking leave when 

he was urgently needed at work. 

We reject both of these arguments. While they might initially seem plausible, 

neither of them survives close contact with the facts. 

BACKGROUND 

Penske hired Mr. Olson in 2002. He started out as a dispatcher, with no 

subordinates, but over the next ten years he was promoted three times. By 2013 he 

was the Operations Manager of Penske’s Denver warehouse and responsible for 

everything that went on there: hiring, financial records, moving and tracking 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 2 
– 3 – 

inventory, regular inventory audits, and so on. He supervised “approximately 30 or 

34” Penske employees. (Appellant’s App. at 115.) 

Initially, his performance seemed adequate. His 2013 performance review 

gave him mostly “3” grades on a 5-point scale, indicating “Successful Performance” 

but not “Highly Successful Performance” or “Exceptional Performance.” (Id. at 85–

92.) He received “2” grades—meaning “Inconsistent Performance”—in four 

categories: communication, team building, efficiency, and achieving results. (Id. at 

86–88.) Mr. Olson’s supervisor, Rick Elliott, gave the following recommendation 

about Mr. Olson’s future with Penske: “Kris needs to continue working as an 

Operations Manager or something similar for [2014]. He has performed well [in 

2013], but needs to continue his training in his present position.” (Id. at 92.) 

2014 did not go as planned. In January, Mr. Olson received his first formal 

discipline from Penske, a written warning reprimanding him for not firing a worker 

who had violated safety rules. The warning advised Mr. Olson, “In the future your 

failure to properly follow procedures will result in more severe disciplinary action up 

to and including discharge.” (Id. at 198.) 

“More severe disciplinary action” happened in June. It was prompted by an 

email from Mr. Olson to Mr. Elliott: “We are in need of lift operator support. . . . Is 

there anyone in the region that could help us out with 3–4 operators?” (Id. at 55–56.) 

Mr. Elliot responded incredulously: “Kris I am shocked to receive this email 

and you telling me you need 3 to 4 people from other regions. I have been pushing 

you hard for the past 6 months to get people hired . . . .” (Id. at 54.) He encouraged 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 3 
– 4 – 

Mr. Olson to be creative and cut corners if necessary in order to get the warehouse 

caught up: “Maybe you skip cycle counts [i.e., inventory audits], or reduce them. 

Start thinking through this.” (Id.) He later met with Mr. Olson and put him on a 60-

day “action plan,” which instructed Mr. Olson to hire more workers, process 

inventory more quickly, and respond promptly to phone calls and email. (Id. at 57.) 

The action plan concluded with the following warning: “Failure to meet and 

maintain all requirements will result in your immediate termination of employment.” 

(Id.) 

Mr. Olson did as instructed, and Mr. Elliott soon emailed him some 

encouragement: “At this time you have been meeting all the requirements of your 

action plan. Please continue that kind of performance and you will be successful.” 

(Id. at 58.) So far as we know, this was the last performance review Mr. Olson 

received before he requested FMLA leave on July 9. His leave was eventually 

approved, and his last day at the warehouse was Friday, July 18. 

July 18 was also the first day of the inventory crisis that cost him his job. 

Inventory control was one of Mr. Olson’s responsibilities—he was expected to 

keep accurate inventory records and prevent inventory losses. Every week he 

presented an inventory report to Whirlpool, Penske’s customer for whom he did 

nearly all of his work. Every month Whirlpool graded the warehouse on a scale from 

A to F, depending on how much of Whirlpool’s inventory had been lost. And from 

January through May of 2014, Whirlpool gave the warehouse an A. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 4 
– 5 – 

But on July 18, Mr. Elliott received the warehouse’s grade for June: a D. He 

asked Nicki Brurs, a supervisor at another warehouse, to travel to Denver to 

investigate. When Ms. Brurs arrived the following week, she discovered a situation 

that even Mr. Olson now refers to as a “crisis.” (Reply Br. at 20.) The warehouse’s 

inventory reconciliation report—a list of known discrepancies between the 

warehouse’s records and its actual inventory—was 152 lines long, with some 

discrepancies dating all the way back to June.1

 The warehouse had done only 37 

random audits “over the last months,” and when Ms. Brurs arrived the warehouse was 

567 audits behind schedule. (Appellant’s App. at 209.) 

“We will have an inventory loss here,” Ms. Brurs emailed Mr. Elliott, “but I 

honestly cannot say or even lean to [sic] how much I think it will be. There are too 

many holes in the inventory.” (Id. at 210.) As to the reason for the crisis, Ms. Brurs 

was more confident. “There looks to be a lack of processes and training. Everyone 

relied on [Mr. Olson] for everything.” (Id.) 

Soon Mr. Elliott became aware of a further problem with Mr. Olson’s 

performance: dishonesty. In his last months on the job, Mr. Olson had not billed 

Whirlpool for extra work—“reworks”—performed by the warehouse. (Id. at 193.) 

Worried that Penske would not collect money it was owed, Mr. Elliott had asked Mr. 

Olson why he had not billed Whirlpool for reworks. Mr. Olson answered that there 

 1

 Mr. Olson’s counsel asked Mr. Elliott about this report, “Did [any 

discrepancy in the report] jump out at you that it was really old?” (Appellant’s App. 

at 443.) Mr. Elliott’s colorful response: “Jiminy Christmas. I—I’m just thinking the 

enormity of it. The—it was over a hundred model . . . a hundred model numbers in 

variance. So that’s what would have jumped out at me.” (Id. at 443–44.) 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 5 
– 6 – 

had been no reworks to bill for. But on July 28, Mr. Elliott discovered there had been 

several reworks, and he concluded that Mr. Olson had lied to him. 

By August 1, a week after receiving Ms. Brurs’ email, Mr. Elliott had made up 

his mind. He sent a human resources representative, Vanessa Perry, a report 

summarizing the problems he had discovered, including more dishonesty. (Id. at 

204.) According to Mr. Elliott, Mr. Olson had hidden inventory losses in a “ghost 

stow.” (Id. at 441.) That is, Mr. Olson had created records for an imaginary storage 

location, and when he could not find inventory, he would assign it to the imaginary 

location so that Whirlpool would think it was still in the warehouse. The ghost stow 

had received its first “deliveries” in July of 2010; Mr. Olson had apparently been 

using it to hide losses for four years. (Id. at 204.) Finally, Mr. Olson had directed his 

staff not to tell Whirlpool when inventory was missing; instead he told them to report 

the missing units as damaged. 

Mr. Elliott’s recommendation was straightforward: “I understand that I cannot 

replace Kris while he is out on medical leave. What I want to do is bring in an 

[Operations Manager] as a temporary replacement, terminate Kris his 1st day back, 

‘if ever’, from medical leave and then make the temporary [Operations Manager] 

permanent.”2

 (Id. at 202.) Ms. Perry discussed this recommendation with Bruce 

Gruebner—the human resources official responsible for approving all terminations at 

Penske—and Mr. Gruebner agreed that Mr. Olson should be fired. According to Mr. 

 2

 When asked about the words “if ever” in his email, Mr. Elliott testified he 

had been told by Denver warehouse employees that Mr. Olson did not plan to return 

to work after his leave. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 6 
– 7 – 

Gruebner’s affidavit, Mr. Olson’s “numerous and substantial instances of poor 

performance were unacceptable and warranted termination.” (Id. at 176.) 

But Penske’s investigation continued, and Mr. Olson was not fired for nearly 

two more weeks. First, Mr. Gruebner asked Ms. Perry to find out whether Mr. Olson 

was on approved FMLA leave. Ms. Perry asked another human resources employee 

about it, but for reasons not apparent from the record, she received the wrong answer. 

She was told Mr. Olson’s leave had not been approved, and she forwarded that false 

information to Mr. Gruebner. 

Second, Penske sent a “Loss Prevention team” to audit the warehouse more 

thoroughly. (Id. at 184.) After a week at the warehouse, the loss prevention team 

submitted a report describing still further problems with Mr. Olson’s job 

performance. To begin with, it discovered that Mr. Olson had hidden losses in not 

just one ghost stow, but “roughly 26” ghost stows. (Id.) When his employees 

performed inventory audits, Mr. Olson told them to “back out” whenever they found 

an error—that is, instead of reporting the error directly to Whirlpool as policy 

required, they were supposed to interrupt their audit and tell Mr. Olson about the 

problem. (Id.) He would then correct the inventory error before the auditors 

finished, giving Whirlpool the false impression that there had been no errors to begin 

with. According to the loss prevention team, “This [was] an unacceptable practice of 

inventory and [Mr. Olson] was well aware of that.” (Id.) 

According to the loss prevention team’s interviews with warehouse staff, Mr. 

Olson had not taught his employees basic inventory procedures. When they brought 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 7 
– 8 – 

inventory problems to his attention, he told them “not to worry about it, he would 

handle it,” and then did nothing to help them deal with the situation. (Id. at 184–85.) 

The problems added up, and when the loss prevention team arrived, “the inventory 

[had] been out of order for at least a year.” (Id. at 185.) Auditing only the 

warehouse’s major appliances, the loss prevention team found more than $120,000 of 

errors in the warehouse’s records and wrote off more than $41,000 of inventory 

losses.3

Finally, in addition to the inventory problems and dishonesty, Penske’s 

investigation found numerous lesser failures in Mr. Olson’s performance: failure to 

train his employees, failure to enforce attendance policies, failure to return damaged 

items to Whirlpool, and so on. On top of it all, all the investigators (incorrectly) 

believed that Mr. Olson had taken leave without approval. The loss prevention report 

concluded, “Kris has checked out of this facility and our recommendation would be 

immediate termination.” (Id. at 186.) 

The next business day, August 18, Penske sent Mr. Olson a letter informing 

him he had been fired. It reads in relevant part as follows: 

You currently are out of work on an unapproved leave of absence . . . . 

Additionally, in the weeks you have been out, an investigation has revealed 

several deficiencies and policy violations that clearly evidence 

unsatisfactory work performance on your part, all of which have apparently 

been going on for some time now. 

 3

 According to Mr. Elliott, the $41,000 loss “was almost completely 

eliminated” when Penske later audited the warehouse’s minor appliances. 

(Appellant’s App. at 529.) The minor-appliance records were nearly as wrong as the 

major-appliance records, but in the opposite direction—understating the warehouse’s 

inventory, rather than overstating it. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 8 
– 9 – 

Due to the unapproved status of your leave of absence, coupled with a level 

of unsatisfactory job performance that cannot be tolerated, your 

employment with Penske is being terminated effective immediately. 

(Id. at 188.) 

On August 19, Mr. Olson called to tell Penske his leave of absence had in fact 

been approved. On August 20, Penske sent him a final letter: 

Since sending our prior correspondence . . . , it has come to our attention 

that you applied and have been approved for a continuous leave of absence 

under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) . . . . 

Because the severity of your performance issues and policy violations was 

not discovered until after you went out on leave of absence, in a spirit of 

fairness, if you so desire, we will rescind your termination and continue 

your employment as being on unpaid leave through October 19, 2014. . . . 

Once you have exhausted your FMLA entitlement on October 19, 2014, 

your employment would then be terminated. 

(Id. at 190.) Mr. Olson did not accept Penske’s offer, and his termination remained in 

effect. He was never told about the warehouse’s inventory problems or given a chance to 

defend himself. 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Olson contends summary judgment was inappropriate because a jury could 

find his termination to be related to his leave. In order for this argument to prevail, 

Mr. Olson must do more than list inferences that the district court should arguably 

have drawn in his favor. He must identify facts that “establish a causal connection 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 9 
– 10 – 

between [his] termination and [his] FMLA leave.”4

 Campbell v. Gambro Healthcare, 

Inc., 458 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Olson seeks to establish two such 

connections. 

First, Mr. Olson argues that if he had not taken leave, he would have been at 

work and able to defend his job performance. He could perhaps have argued that 

some of the problems were actually the fault of his inventory clerk, who left work 

suddenly a few days before he did. He could perhaps have blamed some of his 

inventory problems on Mr. Elliott’s instruction to “skip” or “reduce” inventory audits 

while he was understaffed. Had he not been on leave, he claims, he might have been 

able to make arguments like these and save his job. 

Second, quoting one of our cases, Mr. Olson argues that he was actually fired 

because he was “missing too much work” while on leave. DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. 

Mgmt. Corp., 577 F.3d 1151, 1161 (10th Cir. 2009). His absence (he says) came at a 

terrible time for his employer. He left the Denver warehouse in the middle of an 

inventory crisis, and consequently Ms. Brurs and Mr. Elliott were forced to travel to 

Denver to do his work. Mr. Elliott spent over a month there, flying out for “a couple 

of weeks” at a time and returning home only for occasional weekends. (Appellant’s 

App. at 482.) Mr. Elliott may have resented the extra travel, feeling that Mr. Olson 

had “abandon[ed] the foxhole” when his help was badly needed. (Reply Br. at 25.) 

 4

 We therefore reject Mr. Olson’s numerous arguments that allege errors in the 

district court’s reasoning but do not explain how those errors relate to causation. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 10 
– 11 – 

Because he resented Mr. Olson’s absence—Mr. Olson argues—Mr. Elliott tried 

from the beginning to get Mr. Olson fired and replaced. He started right away. When 

he found out about the warehouse’s D grade, he did not discuss it with Mr. Olson, 

even though Mr. Olson had not yet begun his leave.5

 Then, within two weeks of Mr. 

Olson’s departure, Mr. Elliott recommended his termination and asked to hire a 

replacement immediately. Once Mr. Olson had been terminated, Mr. Elliott did in 

fact hire a replacement and stopped traveling so much to Denver. The suspicious 

timing of these developments, Mr. Olson argues, has “significant probative force,” 

DeFreitas, 577 F.3d at 1160, especially since Mr. Olson’s performance problems 

were not documented until after he requested leave. 

Each of these arguments seems plausible, but neither of them has enough 

support in the record to create a genuine dispute of material fact. 

Mr. Olson argues that, but for his leave, he would have had a chance to defend 

his conduct and save his job. But he cites no evidence that he would have been 

allowed to defend himself, or that any defense could possibly have succeeded. By 

our read, the record suggests the opposite: he would not have been allowed to defend 

his conduct, and no defense could have succeeded. In particular, we note Mr. Elliott 

and Mr. Gruebner’s unchallenged declarations that they are “not aware of any 

 5

 Mr. Elliott testified that he did in fact discuss the D grade with Mr. Olson. 

But Mr. Olson testified that he was not informed about any of the performance 

problems that led to his termination. For present purposes, we resolve this dispute in 

Mr. Olson’s favor. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 11 
– 12 – 

employee who has been found to have the same level of unsatisfactory performance 

as Mr. Olson but who was not discharged.” (Id. at 179, 195.) 

Mr. Olson argues that Mr. Elliott and other Penske employees resented his 

absence and wanted to fire and replace him simply because he was missing work. 

But as to Mr. Elliott, there is no evidence that he considered himself inconvenienced: 

travel was an ordinary part of his job. Even if he did feel inconvenienced, there is no 

evidence that his inconvenience contributed to his recommendation: according to his 

uncontroverted affidavit, his recommendation was “based on poor performance, 

including the [inventory issues] and the reimbursement requests Mr. Olson lied to me 

about.” (Id. at 194.) And even if Mr. Elliott’s inconvenience did contribute to his 

own recommendation, there is no evidence that it contributed to the loss prevention 

team’s recommendation or to Mr. Gruebner’s ultimate decision to fire Mr. Olson. 

As to the other Penske employees who supposedly resented Mr. Olson’s 

absence and wanted him replaced, Mr. Olson does not even tell us who they are. 

In short, Mr. Elliott and Mr. Gruebner both affirm that Mr. Olson was not 

terminated because of his leave, but rather because of “numerous and substantial 

instances of unsatisfactory performance.” (Id. at 179, 195.) Nothing in the record 

would allow a reasonable jury to doubt their word. 

CONCLUSION 

The record contains substantial, unchallenged evidence of Mr. Olson’s poor 

job performance. Even Mr. Olson admits that Mr. Elliott “honestly believed” the 

warehouse’s problems were Mr. Olson’s fault. (Reply Br. at 24.) Mr. Gruebner and 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 12 
– 13 – 

Ms. Brurs have sworn they believed likewise, and Mr. Olson presents no evidence 

that they did not. 

There is also substantial, unchallenged evidence that Mr. Olson’s poor 

performance led to his termination. The record shows step by step how his 

misconduct was discovered, how Penske’s employees reacted to it, and why they 

ultimately decided to fire him. There are no holes, no conflicting statements, simply 

nothing that indicates inaccuracies in Penske’s story. No evidence suggests that Mr. 

Olson could possibly have kept his job once his misconduct was discovered, and two 

affiants insisted the opposite is true—they are “not aware of any employee who has 

been found to have the same level of unsatisfactory performance as Mr. Olson but 

who was not discharged.” (Id. at 179, 195.) 

Mr. Olson’s arguments, even the strongest ones, simply ignore all of this. 

Instead of confronting Penske’s facts, Mr. Olson speculates about facts not in 

evidence. Instead of grounding his stories in the record, Mr. Olson insists we must 

believe them simply because we are considering a summary judgment motion and he 

is the non-moving party. 

The rules of summary judgment cannot be pushed so far. The district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Appellate Case: 15-1380 Document: 01019678312 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 13