Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-03100/USCOURTS-ca10-14-03100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Berry Plastics Corporation
Appellee
Karry L. Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

KARRY L. THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 14-3100 

_________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-02565-KHV)

_________________________________ 

Alan V. Johnson (Danielle N. Davey, with him on the briefs) Sloan, Eisenbarth, 

Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, L.L.C., Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Josh C. Harrison (Elmer E. White, III, The Kullman Firm, Birmingham, Alabama, and 

John T. Bullock, Stevens & Brand, L.L.P., Lawrence, Kansas, with him on the brief) The 

Kullman Firm, Birmingham, Alabama, for Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff-Appellant Karry L. Thomas—who is African American—worked for 

Defendant-Appellee Berry Plastics Corporation (“Berry”) from 2003 to 2010. 

Following his termination, Thomas sued Berry, alleging that Berry terminated him in 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

September 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 1 
2 

retaliation for opposing racial discrimination within the company. The district court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Berry. Exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. 

I. Facts 

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Thomas, see Ward v. Jewell, 

772 F.3d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir. 2014), the record established the following: 

From 2003 to 2010, Thomas was employed by Berry, which owns and operates 

over seventy manufacturing plants throughout North America. Thomas was initially 

hired as a Printing Operator in Berry’s Kansas facility, but after a few years, he was 

promoted to Printing Technician. As a Printing Technician, Thomas was responsible 

for setting up the machines and ensuring that they ran properly. 

Over the course of Thomas’s seven-year employment, eight different Berry 

supervisors initiated at least thirteen disciplinary actions against him. These actions 

ranged in severity from verbal coaching and written warnings to suspensions and 

final warnings. 

According to Thomas, the series of events leading up to his termination began 

in May 2009, when Jason Morton became Thomas’s group leader. As group leader, 

Morton had limited disciplinary authority. Although Morton’s limited authority 

prevented him from independently issuing high levels of discipline (e.g., suspensions, 

last chance agreements, final warnings, and terminations), he nonetheless played 

some role in most of the disciplinary actions leading up to Thomas’s termination in 

September 2010. 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 2 
3 

The most relevant of these actions began in July 2010, when Morton, after 

conferring with his supervisor, suspended Thomas for a print-quality issue. As a 

result of this suspension and a prior suspension issued by a different supervisor two 

months earlier, Printing Manager Watson—who oversaw the entire Kansas 

operation—executed a Last Chance Agreement with Thomas. This agreement 

provided that Thomas would be “subject to disciplinary action, up to and including 

termination of employment, for future rules or attendance violations.” Suppl. App. 

at 105. Morton was not involved in the decision to place Thomas on a Last Chance 

Agreement. 

A few weeks later, Morton, acting pursuant to Watson’s and Human 

Resources’ direction, gave Thomas a Final Warning. This Final Warning, which 

indicated that Thomas’s employment would be terminated if he had any further 

quality or performance related issues, was based on Thomas’s alleged failure to pack 

product properly on July 27. When Morton and two other Berry representatives met 

with Thomas to discuss this Final Warning, Thomas maintained that he did not fail to 

pack the product properly on July 27 and stated that he felt he was “getting 

discrimination because of race.” App. at 86. Upon further investigation, Morton 

discovered that the July 27 packing problem was not Thomas’s fault and rescinded 

the related performance issue. 

Thereafter, Morton submitted a report to Printing Manager Watson that faulted 

Thomas for a print-quality issue that occurred on September 10. After reviewing this 

incident and without consulting Morton, Watson decided to terminate Thomas’s 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 3 
4 

employment. Before Human Resources could review and approve Watson’s 

termination decision, Morton, acting pursuant to another supervisor’s instructions, 

issued a written warning to Thomas based on another incident wherein Thomas failed 

to complete paperwork. Shortly thereafter, Berry officially terminated Thomas’s 

employment. 

Thomas initially challenged his termination through Berry’s Termination 

Review Process,1

 arguing that his termination was not warranted because he was not 

at fault for the September 10 print-quality issue. After meeting with Thomas and 

reviewing his full disciplinary history, the Termination Review Panel—which was 

comprised of two independent Berry managers—affirmed Watson’s termination 

decision. 

Thomas thereafter filed suit for wrongful discharge, alleging, inter alia, that he 

was terminated in retaliation for opposing race discrimination in violation of Title 

VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.2

 Berry moved for summary judgment. Although Thomas 

initially argued that Printing Manager Watson possessed retaliatory animus that 

infected his termination decision, Thomas eventually invoked the “cat’s-paw” theory 

of recovery, arguing that it was Morton—an intermediate supervisor who reported to 

 1

 Pursuant to Berry’s company policy, “termination review” is an appeal 

process available as a benefit to employees in the event of involuntary termination. 

Suppl. App. at 25. 

2

 Thomas also alleged age and race discrimination. We do not consider the 

age-discrimination claim because Thomas does not pursue it on appeal. We also do 

not consider the race-discrimination claim because Thomas waived the pretext 

theory—the only theory of recovery for race discrimination he offers on appeal—by 

failing to argue pretext below. See Campbell v. City of Spencer, 777 F.3d 1073, 

1080 (10th Cir. 2014). 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 4 
5 

Watson—who possessed the retaliatory animus that infected Watson’s termination 

decision.3

 Under a cat’s-paw theory of recovery (also known as “subordinate bias” or 

“rubber stamp” theory), an employer who acts without discriminatory intent can be 

liable for a subordinate’s discriminatory animus if the employer uncritically relies on 

the biased subordinate’s reports and recommendations in deciding to take adverse 

employment action. See E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476, 

484–85 (10th Cir. 2006). According to Thomas, Morton possessed retaliatory animus 

against Thomas as a result of Thomas’s opposition to racial discrimination during the 

Final Warning meeting. 

The district court ultimately granted Berry’s motion for summary judgment, 

and Thomas appealed.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Thomas argues that the district court erroneously granted summary 

judgment in favor of Berry because, according to Thomas, he presented sufficient 

circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the stated 

reason for his termination was a pretext for retaliation based on a cat’s-paw theory of 

recovery. We disagree. Reviewing the district court’s summary judgment order de 

novo and applying the same standard as the district court, Ward, 772 F.3d at 1202, we 

conclude that the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Berry for two 

reasons, either one of which requires our affirmance. 

 3

 Because Thomas clearly argued that Morton was the retaliatory actor in his 

response to the district court’s Order to Show Cause, we reject Berry’s argument that 

Thomas waived his cat’s-paw argument with respect to his retaliation claim. 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 5 
6 

A. Legal Framework 

A plaintiff can state a valid claim under Title VII or § 1981 by presenting 

either direct or circumstantial evidence of retaliation.4

 Ward, 772 F.3d at 1202. 

When a plaintiff presents only circumstantial evidence, the McDonnell Douglas5

burden-shifting framework typically applies. Id. Under this framework, the plaintiff 

bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation by 

demonstrating that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity, (2) he or she 

suffered a material adverse action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the 

protected activity and the adverse action. See Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 649 

F.3d 1189, 1195 (10th Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to the employer to 

articulate a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for taking the adverse employment 

action before ultimately shifting back to the plaintiff to establish that the employer’s 

explanation is pretextual—i.e., unworthy of belief. See id. at 1196. 

Although the parties disagree about whether Thomas established a prima facie

case of retaliation—the first step of the McDonnell-Douglas framework—we focus 

our analysis on whether Thomas established pretext—the last step of the framework. 

Because we conclude that Thomas failed to meet his burden of establishing that 

Berry’s explanation for terminating his employment was pretextual, we need not 

separately consider whether Thomas established a prima facie case of retaliation. 

 4

 Because “the showing required to establish retaliation is identical under 

§ 1981 and Title VII,” see Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 998 

(10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), we do not distinguish between 

these bases for recovery here. 

5

 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 6 
7 

Where, as here, the plaintiff lacks evidence that the actual decisionmaker 

possessed an unlawful retaliatory animus, the plaintiff can establish pretext by 

invoking the cat’s-paw theory of recovery and presenting evidence that a biased 

subordinate who lacked decisionmaking power used the formal decisionmaker as a 

dupe in a deliberate scheme to bring about an adverse employment action. See BCI 

Coca-Cola, 450 F.3d at 484–85. To survive summary judgment when a retaliation 

claim is based on the cat’s-paw theory, the plaintiff must establish that there is a 

genuine issue of material fact as to (1) the retaliatory animus of the subordinate, and 

(2) whether the subordinate’s animus translated into retaliatory actions that caused 

the decisionmaker to take adverse employment action. See id. at 488; Simmons v. 

Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 2011). 

B. Animus 

Because Thomas’s retaliation claim was based on a cat’s-paw theory, Thomas 

needed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to Morton’s retaliatory animus 

in order to survive summary judgment. On appeal, Thomas argues that he made this 

showing because a reasonable jury could infer that Morton possessed retaliatory 

animus based on two pieces of circumstantial evidence. 

First, Thomas argues that a reasonable jury could find that Morton possessed 

retaliatory animus because his report regarding the September 10 print-quality 

issue—the incident triggering Thomas’s termination—was dishonest as to a material 

fact. Cf. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000) 

(explaining that pretext can be inferred from the falsity of an employer’s explanation 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 7 
8 

for taking an adverse action). According to Thomas, Morton’s report—which 

indicated that Thomas’s press was missing a tagline for fifty-eight minutes—was 

dishonest because it did not also indicate that Thomas had properly inspected the 

product before going on his one-hour break. 

We conclude that a reasonable jury could not infer from this evidence that 

Morton was acting with retaliatory animus. Thomas does not argue that the actual 

content Morton included in his report was dishonest or false; rather, Thomas 

maintains that Morton’s report was dishonest by omission in the sense that Morton 

did not mention Thomas had properly inspected the product before taking his break. 

Importantly, however, Thomas does not argue, and nothing in the record suggests, 

that Berry does not hold Printing Technicians like Thomas responsible for errors that 

occur while they are on break.6

 Absent any reason to think that Printing Technicians 

are not responsible for print-quality issues that occur during their breaks, the 

omission from Morton’s report more likely reflects the irrelevance of the omitted 

information than retaliatory animus. 

Second, Thomas argues that a reasonable jury could find that Morton 

possessed retaliatory animus because his report regarding Thomas’s September 10 

print-quality issue was inconsistent with Morton’s rescission regarding Thomas’s 

earlier July 27 performance problem. Cf. Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, 524 F.3d 1149, 1158 

(10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that pretext can be shown by “weaknesses, 

 6

 Indeed, there is evidence in the record suggesting just the opposite. See 

Suppl. App. at 26 (indicating that “ultimately the quality of the product coming off 

the press rests with [the Printing Technician]”). 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 8 
9 

implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” in the employer’s 

explanation for taking an adverse action). The crux of this “inconsistency,” 

according to Thomas, is that Morton relied on exculpatory evidence in rescinding the 

July 27 performance problem, but Morton did not even mention exculpatory evidence 

(i.e., that Thomas had properly inspected the product before going on break) in 

reporting the September 10 print-quality issue. 

Again, we conclude that a reasonable jury could not infer from this evidence 

that Morton was acting with retaliatory animus. As an initial matter, there is nothing 

intrinsically inconsistent about including less information when initially reporting a 

disciplinary problem than when subsequently rescinding a disciplinary action upon 

further investigation. Moreover, the timing of these reports in relation to Thomas’s 

single complaint about race discrimination further negates an inference of retaliatory 

animus.7

 Morton issued both the rescission for the July 27 performance problem and 

the report for the September 10 print-quality issue after Thomas complained about 

race discrimination. The rescission—issued just days after Thomas complained 

about racial discrimination—undoubtedly benefited Thomas by absolving him of 

responsibility for the July 27 performance problem. Because there is no evidence 

suggesting that Morton’s retaliatory animus was somehow inflamed after he issued 

the rescission but before he issued the report for the September 10 print-quality issue, 

 7

 At earlier stages in this litigation, Thomas indicated that he complained about 

racial discrimination on multiple occasions. However, because Morton was not privy 

to all of those complaints, on appeal Thomas relies exclusively on the complaint he 

made in Morton’s presence during the Final Warning meeting. 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 9 
10 

a reasonable jury could not infer that Morton was acting with retaliatory animus with 

respect to just one, but not both, of his post-complaint reports. 

Because no reasonable jury could infer from Thomas’s proffered 

circumstantial evidence that Morton possessed retaliatory animus, we could affirm 

the district court’s summary-judgment order on this basis alone. 

C. Causation 

However, even if we assume that Thomas established a genuine issue of 

material fact as to Morton’s retaliatory animus, Thomas’s retaliation claim cannot 

survive summary judgment for yet another reason—he did not produce sufficient 

evidence from which a jury could infer that Morton’s animus was a “but-for” cause 

of Thomas’s termination.8

 It is well-established in this Circuit that an employer can 

“break the causal chain” between the biased subordinate’s unlawful actions and the 

adverse employment action by independently investigating the allegations against the 

employee. Young v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 468 F.3d 1243, 1253 (10th Cir. 2006). 

 8

 To establish causation where, as here, a Title VII retaliation claim is based on 

the cat’s-paw theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the biased subordinate was a 

“but-for” cause of the adverse action. Cf. Simmons, 647 F.3d at 949–50 (holding 

that, because the ADEA requires a “but-for” link between the discriminatory animus 

and the adverse action, “an ADEA plaintiff seeking to hold an employer liable 

through the discriminatory conduct of its subordinate must show the subordinate’s 

animus was a ‘but-for’ cause of the adverse employment action, i.e. it was the factor 

that made a difference”); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 

2532–34 (2013) (holding that Title VII retaliation claims, like ADEA claims, require 

proof that the desire to retaliate was a “but-for” cause of the adverse action). 

Although we have not yet explicitly extended Simmons to Title VII retaliation claims 

that are based on the cat’s-paw theory, we conclude that reading Simmons in 

conjunction with the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Nassar calls for such an 

extension. See Goodsite v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 573 F. App’x 572, 585 n.7 (6th Cir. 

2014) (unpublished) (reaching the same conclusion). 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 10 
11 

Indeed, we have held that simply asking an employee for his or her version of events 

may defeat the inference that an employment decision was discriminatory, as such an 

inquiry demonstrates that “the employer has taken care not to rely exclusively on the 

say-so of the biased subordinate.” BCI Coca-Cola, 450 F.3d at 488; see also 

Pinkerton v. Colorado Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052, 1061 (10th Cir. 2009) 

(suggesting that an employer’s request that an employee give her side of the story “is 

sufficient to defeat any inference that the decision was based on a subordinate’s 

bias”). 

Here, as part of Berry’s termination review process, a Termination Review 

Panel reviewed and affirmed Thomas’s termination. The Panel, which was 

comprised of two independent Berry managers, undertook its review within two days 

of Thomas’s termination. In addition to reviewing Thomas’s entire disciplinary 

history—which included information not only from Morton but also from seven other 

supervisors who had disciplined Thomas—the Panel interviewed Thomas and gave 

him an opportunity to share his side of the story. 

We conclude that Berry’s independent termination review process broke the 

causal chain between Morton’s purported retaliatory animus and Thomas’s 

termination. Thomas does not argue, and there is no evidence to suggest, that the 

Panel’s review was a sham, that the Panel failed to adhere to Berry’s terminationreview policy, that the review policy was itself flawed, or that anyone on the Panel 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 11 
12 

acted with animus.9

 See Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 

1231 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that plaintiff’s claim based on the cat’s-paw 

theory failed and emphasizing that plaintiff did not offer any evidence showing that 

the decisionmaker’s independent investigation was a sham); Macon v. United Parcel 

Serv., Inc., 743 F.3d 708, 715 (10th Cir. 2014) (concluding that plaintiff’s claim 

based on the cat’s-paw theory failed and emphasizing that the grievance review panel 

acted in accordance with the company’s written policies in independently assessing 

plaintiff’s alleged misconduct and that plaintiff did not allege the panel was itself 

biased, had retaliatory motive, or merely rubber-stamped the termination decision). 

Although we have typically found causation lacking when an employer’s independent 

investigation was initiated before the adverse action,10 we hold here that Berry’s 

virtually immediate post-termination review process—which was designed to identify 

and unwind termination decisions that violated company practices and policies—

sufficiently constrained any retaliatory animus that Morton may have possessed. Cf. 

Macon, 743 F.3d at 711–12, 715 (explaining that although an allegedly biased 

 9

 Thomas nonetheless maintains that the Panel was not truly independent 

because the Panel (1) failed to interview two witnesses Thomas identified, and 

(2) relied on information that flowed from Morton. Both of these arguments fail. 

First, Berry’s termination-review policy makes clear that the Panel is not required to 

interview witnesses. See Suppl. App. at 25 (explaining that the Panel “may or may 

not need to contact additional people” after interviewing the terminated employee). 

Second, although the Panel did discuss the events leading up to Thomas’s termination 

with Morton, the Panel verified that termination was justified based on other sources. 

See Suppl. App. at 27 (affirming Thomas’s termination based on, inter alia, 

discussions with Jeff Wilks, another one of Thomas’s direct supervisors). 

10 See e.g., Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1231; Pinkerton, 563 F.3d at 1061; 

Simmons, 647 F.3d at 950; Lobato v. N.M. Env’t Dep’t, 733 F.3d 1283, 1296 (10th 

Cir. 2013).

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 12 
13 

subordinate started the process leading to plaintiff’s termination, plaintiff’s 

invocation of the company’s grievance procedure “triggered a review process which 

appropriately constrained any improper motive”). 

Because Thomas did not proffer sufficient evidence from which a jury could 

infer that Morton’s animus was a but-for cause of Thomas’s termination, Thomas’s 

retaliation claim cannot survive summary judgment even if we assume that there is a 

genuine issue of material fact as to Morton’s animus. 

III. Conclusion 

 For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment in favor of Berry. 

Appellate Case: 14-3100 Document: 01019496825 Date Filed: 09/25/2015 Page: 13