Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03216/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Wichita
Appellee
Robert G. Vinson
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL L J 

United States Court of Appeal~ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 C 1993 

ROBERT G. VINSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

CITY OF WICHITA, 

Defendant-Appellee . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 92 - 3216 

) (D.C . No. 90-1531 - K) 

) (D. Kan. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge . 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed . R. App. P. 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Ci rcuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-3216 Document: 010110212785 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff commenced an action alleging age discrimination in 

employment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, retaliation in 

violation of 42 U.S . C. § 1983, conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S . C. 

§§ 1985 (3 ) and 1986, and pendent state law claims. The district 

court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. With 

respect to the§ 1983 claim, the district court determined that 

plaintiff did not support his claim with proof of a "causal link 

between the alleged constitutional violation and an identifiable 

official policy or custom." Aplt. App. at 152-53. The district 

court rejected any claim of age discrimination prior to 

plaintiff's alleged forced retirement as not brought within the 

statute of limitations, and any claim of age discrimination due to 

the retirement as lacking a connection with age. Id. at 153. The 

district court held there could be no conspiracy since the 

corporate defendant could not conspire with its employees. Id. at 

154. Finally, the district court dismissed the pendent claims 

without prejudice. Id. at 154-55. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues 1 ) the district court erred in 

ruling there was no factual basis supporting a causal link between 

the alleged unconstitutional violation and any identifiable policy 

or custom of defendant to support a§ 1983 claim; 2 ) the district 

court erred in ruling there was no factual basis for any 

retaliation claim based on age discrimination occurring within the 

statut e of limitations; 3 ) the district court erred in ruling that 

a claim of conspiracy of defendant's employees to deprive 

plaintiff of his constitutional rights cannot be maintained under 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3216 Document: 010110212785 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 2 
§§ 1985(3) and 1986; and 4) the district court erred in dismissing 

the pendent claims. 

After reviewing the briefs, appendices, and relevant case 

law, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the 

district court in its memorandum and order filed May 29, 1992. 

Aplt. App. at 148. We do, however, make one additional comment 

with regard to plaintiff's claim of retaliation. There is an 

inference of retaliation only if the retaliatory action is taken a 

short time after an employee engages in a protected activity. See 

Burrus v. United Tel. Co. of Kan., Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th 

Cir.) (because termination occurred nearly three years after filing 

of discrimination charges, plaintiff did not establish a prima 

facie case of retaliation), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 (1982). 

Because the alleged retaliatory action of forced retirement in 

1988 took place several years after the alleged protected speech 

activities in 1981, there is no justification for an inference of 

retaliation. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3216 Document: 010110212785 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3216 Document: 010110212785 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 4