NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0770n.06 No. 09-5185 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

Jere m y Thayer, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

BEFORE: MERRITT, GIBBONS, an d McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges

ME RR I T T , Ci rc u it Judge. Plaintiff J ere my Thay er c laims that his former e mploy er, Ty son Foods, Inc. (“ Ty son”), f

ired him in retaliat i o n fo r fi l i nga wor kers’ compensation claim. Ty son claims it terminated Tha

y er f or alter ing a doctor’s f

orm stating that his il lness was not work r elated. Th ay e r a pp e a ls the Di str ic t Co ur

t’ s summ ary jud g me nt dis mis sa l of his re ta liator y dis c ha rg e c la im. The issue be fore us is whether a ny rea sonable juror

could find that Ty son fired Thay er in re taliation fo r f ili nga wo rk e rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n c la im. B e c a us e Th ay e r h a s n ot p oin te d to fact s su ff ic ie nt t o
overc ome Ty son’s honest belief that Thay er falsified medical documents, we ag ree with the District Court
. I. F AC TS We adopt the fa cts found by the District Court as set out below:No. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-2- At t h e ti m e th e act s al l ege d i n t h i s l aw s u i t o cc u rr ed , t h e P l ai n t i ff wa s em p l o y edat T y s o n 's c hic ke n p ro c e ssi ngpla

nt in Uni on City , Te nn e sse e . I n O c tob e r 2 00 7, he wa s w or kin g a s a pa lle t ja c k o pe rator

in t he wh ite me a t de bo ne de pa rtme nt. On Oc tob e r 22 , 20 07 , he we nt t o the plant' s clinic complaining of whe ezing a nd shortness of bre ath. T h e P l ai n t i ff

wa s ex am i n edt h e n ex td a y b y G r o v er F. S ch l ei fe r, M

. D. , o n e o f T y s o n 's wo rk e rs ' c omp e ns a tio n p ane l p hy s i c i a n s . F o l l o w i n g

t h e e xa m i n a tio n, the nurs e inf

or me d h im that Dr. Schleife r believe d t h e illness was not work re lated. Tha y er w as g iven two sets of docume n t s b y t h e nurse, one of w hich he wa s instructed to kee p and the other to be forwa rded to his employ er. The phy sician' s office re t ai n ed another copy for its files. The copy of the for

m contained in Dr . Schleifer ' s files ref lected that Thay er' s i l l n es s was " not work re lated." Upon his return to wor

k, the Plaintiff g ave the white (original) and gre en copie s of the for m to the nurse at the Ty son clinic. Thay er then returne d to work. Ac cordingto the deposition testimony of Ty son' s nurse super

visor, Gayle B lackley , it appear ed that the orig inal form had been a ltered. V ickie Culp, a nurse at Ty son' s clinic i n Union City , stated under oath that the word " not" in the phr ase " not work related" appea red to ha ve been scribbled or smudg ed out on the orig inal. Although disputed by the Plainti ff

, Culp reca lled that, when que stioned about the mar

king, T hay er told her Dr

. S chleife r had initially thought the illness wa s not work re lated and then chang ed him [sic] m ind. Accor ding to Culp, the explanation struck her as odd, as i t was her understanding the clinic had a lrea dy rec eived a

telephone c all from the phy sician' s office advising that the illness was not work r elated. A few hours af ter the Plaintiff's return to t he fa cility , the Def endant' s human resour ces de partment c alled Tha y er in for a me eting , during which employ ment manag er Fr anky e Wil liams informed him of the appar ent inconsistency

betwee n the g ree n and white c opies of the form he had pr ovided. Thay er w as suspende d for thre e day s while Ty son conducte d an investig ation into the matter. Ty son policy

provides that deliber ate a lteration or falsification of c ompany documents or other misrepr esentations can re sult in t ermi n ation. A " discipline letter" issued by the Def endant state d that "[ o ] n T u es day October 23, 2007 J ere my

turned in pape r work [sic] fr om t he wo rk [sic ] co mpe ns a tio n d oc tor to t he c lin ic that alle g e dly

a pp e ars to b e a lte re d. Al l te a m me mbe rs are e xpe c te d to tur n in me dic a l doc ume ntatio n tha t re fl e c ts tru e and a c c ur a te information." Neither Wil liams nor Connie Be tz, assistant complex human resour ces manag er at the Union C i t y p l an t , wa s i nch ar ge o f a d m i n i s t er i n g wo rk er s ' co mp en s at i o ncl ai m s fo r t h e D ef en d an t 's employ ees. D uring the ensuing investigation, Wil liams interviewe d Thay er c oncer ning the fo rm s p ro vid e d b y

him to the c omp any ' s cli nic

. Willi a ms co nta c te d D r. Sc hle if e r' s o ff ic e in order to determine w hether

one o f h i s employ ees ha d altere d the form. An individual identified as " Nurse Shar on" in Dr . Schleifer ' s office pulled the phy sician' s copy of the for m c on ta ine d in

his fi le s and a dv ise d Willi a ms t ha t it did no t be ar a sc ri bb le mark . A t Will iams'No. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-3- reque st, Nurse Sharon f

axed to Ty son the form c opy from Dr

. Schleifer ' s files as we ll as her state me nt r e g ard ingthe fo rm . T he state me nt r e a d a s f oll ow s: Mr . T ha y e r p re se nte d to the of

fi c e on Tu e sd ay , O c tob e r 2 3r d f or e va luatio n o f h is breathing diff

iculties. We were specific ally asked to a ddress c ausation. The ref err al and treatment f

orm that was sent with Mr. Tha y er w as complete d at the time of the evaluation. Af ter his e x amination, the patient wa s escor ted by office staff from the tre atment ar ea to the f ront offic e – the r efe rra l form was still attache d to the char t and the char

t was in the pos session of our off ice staf f. Copies wer e made from the top sheet of the 4-ply form -- one "g ood" copy for the patient (as the patient copy is the last pag e of a 4-ply form and is rare ly leg ible) and a

nother for insurance filing purposes. The white and gr een copies were f olded up and the patient was instructed to turn those in to the nurse' s station; the pink patient copy and a X er ox copy

wer e g iven to the patient for

his re cords. The y ellow copy along with the second X erox wa s f ile d in the patie nt c ha

rt
. Th e patie nt d id n ot h a ve a c c e ss to t he fo rm be fo re the c op ie s w e re ma de , a nd he did not return to the tre atment are a afte r the copies wer e made to have c hang es made by the phy sician or nur sing staf f. No c hang es had been made to the form by front-of fice staff. Acopy

of the for m as it ex ists in our recor d is being sent for your re fer ence . On Octobe r 24, 2007, Will iams asked the Plaintiff to bringin the pink copy of the for m that the do c tor ' s o ff

ic e ha d g ive n him fo r his re c or ds . T ha y e r v olu nte e re d th a t he a lso ha d in his possession an additional white copy . He pr ovided both to Wi lliams. I t is undisput ed that neither r efle cted a

ny marking over the word " not." Ty son terminated Tha y er on O ctober

29, 2007, stating that the g rounds for the discharg e was falsification of medical doc umentation. R. 27, Order

Gra nting Summary

J udg ment, pp. 2-4 (inter

nal citations omitted). II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We will affirm a g rant of summary judgme nt “if the plea dings, the discovery and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and th a t th e mo v an t is e n ti tl e d to ju d g me n t a s a matt e r o f la w .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) . We view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to t h e nonmovi ng party
. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Cor

p. , 4 75 U. S

. 57 4 (1 98 6) . T he ke y inq uir y is “ wh e the r t

he e vid e nc e pr e se nts aNo. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-4- su ff ic ie nt d isa g re e me nt t o r e qu ir e su bmi ssi on to a jur y or wh e the r i t is so on e -s ide d th a t one pa rt y must prevail as a

matter of la

w.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). III . D ISC USS ION Tenne ssee law

applies t o the s ubstantive issues in this diversity suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); See Surle s ex re l Johnson v. Gre

yhound Lines, Inc. , 4 7 4 F. 3 d 2 8 8 , 296 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007) (c iting Er ie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). Under Te nnessee common law, Tha y er be ars the b u rd en o f p ro v i n g t h e f

o l l o wi n g el em en t s t o e s t ab l i s h a c au s e o f a ct i o nfo r r et al i at o ry d i s ch ar ge ba se d o n the fi lin g of a wo rk e rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n c la im: (1 ) Th ay e r wa s e mpl oy e d by Ty so n a t th e tim e of the a lleg ed injury ; (2) Tha y er f iled a claim for worke rs’ c ompensation bene fits ag ainst Ty son; (3) Ty so n te rm inate d T ha

y e r; and (4 ) T ha y e r’ s c la im f

or wo rk e rs’ com pe ns a tio n b e ne fi ts w a s a substantial fac tor in Ty son’s motivation to t erminate Thay er’ s employ ment. An de rso n v . S

tan da rd Register Co. , 857 S.W .2d 555, 558 (Tenn. 1993)

. I f Thay er suc cee ds in showing e ach of these four

elements, he h as m ad e out a pr im a fa c ie

case of reta liatory discharg e. The burden then shifts to Ty son to a rticulate a leg itimate, nonreta liatory

rea son for the discha

rg e. Id. a t 55 9. I f T y so n ma ke s su c h a

sh ow ingthe b ur de n s hif

ts back to Tha

y er to pr o d u ce “additional, compelling evide nce of prete x t” by

showing “spec ific, admissible fac ts, which rea listi cally challeng e the defenda

nt’s stated reasons” for i ts actions. El lis v. Buzzi Unice m USA , 2 93 F . App ’x 36 5, 36 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) ; W

ilkins v. Eaton Corp. , 790 F.2d 515, 521 (6th Cir. 1986). Ty so n a rgue s th a t T ha

y e r h a s f a ile d to satis fy

the fo ur th e le me nt –

that hi s w or

ke rs ’ compensation claim was a substantial fa ctor in T y son’s motivation to fire him – beca use he ca nnotNo. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

T h e T en n es s ee S u

p re m e C o u rt i s i n t h e p ro ce s s o f r ev i ew i n g Kin sle r v . B e rk lin e, LLC , No. 1 E2007-026202-COA- R3-CV, 2008 WL 4735310 at *5 (Te nn. Ct. Ap p. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal granted (Apr. 27, 2009) (“[P] roof of close prox imity in time between a n employ ee’ s exercise of a pro t ec t edri gh tu n d er

t h e w o rk er s ’ c o mp en s at i o ns t at u t es an d a m aterially

adver se employ

ment action is s uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sha pr ima fa c ie c a se of

c a us a tio n. ” ). B e c a

us e the Di str ic t Court

de c ide d th is iss ue in Th ay e r’ s f

a vo r a nd be c a us e we fi nd

that T ha y e r’ s c la im f

a ils re g ard le ss, we ne e d n ot w a it for this dec ision. -5- sh ow c a us a t i o n . “ P r o o f

o f d i s c h ar g e w i t h o u te v i d e n c e o f a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e nt h e c l a im for be nefits and the disc harg e does not prese nt an is sue for the j ury .” Anderson, 857 S.W .2d at 558- 59 . T o s ho w c a

us a tio n, Th ay e r r e lies on the sh or t ti me be tw e e n th e su

bmi ssi on of his wo rk e rs ’

c omp e ns a tio n c la im ( Oc tob e r 2 3, 20 07 ) a nd his te rm inatio n (O c tob e r 29, 20 07 ). F or purp os e s o f t his

c a se , we a s s u m e w i t h o u td e c i d i n g t h a t , u n d e r T e n n e s s e e l aw , c l o s e t i m i n g a l o n e c ane s t a b l i sh

c a us a tio n in a c a se of re ta liator y dis c ha rg e ba se d o n th e fi lin g of

a wo rk e rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n c la im. 1 Assuming Thay er ha s made out a pr im a fa c ie claim, Ty son offe rs its belief that Tha y er ha d fa lsi fi e d me dic a l do c ume nts a s a leg iti ma te , non -r e ta liator y re a so n f or its a c tio ns . T he burd e n s hif ts to T hay er to de monstrate that this stated rea son was a prete x t for re taliation. El lis , 293 F.App’ x at 368. Thay er “must either provide direc t e vidence that a discriminatory rea son more likely

motivated the employ er, or

show indirectly

that the employ er’ s ex p l an at i o n i s not cre dible.” Burke v . W es Morgan Constr., Inc. , N o . 3 :0 2

- CV

- 1 1 8 7 , 2 0 0 5 WL 2 7 0 9 6 3 8 , a t * 8 ( M

. D

. T e n n . O c t. 2 1 , 2 0 05). Th ay e r m ay

a lso e sta bli shpr e te xt by

“ sh ow ingtha

t the [em plo y e r’ s] r e a so ns have no ba sis in f a c t,

or if they have a basis in fac t, by showing that they

wer e not re ally

fac tors motivating the discha rg e, or, if they wer e fa ctors, by

showin g t h at they

wer e jointly

insufficient to motivate the discha rg e.”No. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-6- Davis v. Re liance Elec

. , 104 S.W .3d 57, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), app. denied (May 5 , 2003) (citation omitted). Thay er of fer s as evidenc e of pr etext that Ty son failed to follow its internal policies r eg arding inv e sti g a tio n a

nd te rm inatio n b e c a

us e (1 ) T y so n d id n ot c omp le te an I nv e sti g a tio n Ch e c kli st f or m; (2) two or more mana g ement team members we re not pre sent when Tha y er w as dischar g ed; and ( 3) the loc a tio n o f t

he dis c ha rg e wa s n ot p re -a

pp ro ve d by the Di re c tor

of Human Re so ur c e s O pe ratio ns . Ty son does not dispute that these poli cies were not followed reg ardingThay er’ s termination. The Di str i c t C o u rt c o n v i n c i n g l y r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n an y of the se relatively inconseque ntial proce dural va rianc es and the cause of Thay er’ s discharg e. Thay er ne x t offer s as evidenc e of prete x t that Ty son had no fa ctual basis for concludingthat he fa lsified the documents a nd that a re asonable trier of fac t could find t hat Ty son failed to conduc t

a g oo d f a ithinv e sti g a tio n. De sp ite Th ay e r’ s argume nts to t he c on tr ary , th e Di str ic t Court c or re c tly applied an “ honest belief” standard to Ty son’s stated reason for terminating Thay er. “ An employ er has an hone st belief in its rationale whe n it reasonably relied on the particula

rized fac ts that were befor e it at the time the decision was made. [C ourts] do not r equire that the decisional proce ss used by the employ er be optimal or that it left no stone unturned.” Mi c ha e l v . C at erpi lla r F in. Se rv s. Corp. , 496 F.3d 584, 598- 99 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. de nied

_ _ U

. S.

_ _ , 1 2 8 S. Ct

. 1 6 5 7 (Mar . 17, 2008) (inter

nal citations and quotation marks omitted). The District Court found that Ty son’s belief that Thay er ha d falsified me dical re cords wa s
rea sonably

based on pa

rticularized, undisputed fa cts: (1) Thay er carr ied t he medica l documentation from the doc tor’s off

ice to Ty son’s clinic; (2) the fo rm h ad a s m u d ge or strike on it that wasNo. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-7- qu e sti on e d b y

the nurs e ; ( 3) Th ay e r o ff e re d n o e xplanatio n a s to wh y the fo rm s we re inc on sis te nt; (4) ther e wa s no evidenc e anothe r individual altere d the document; and (5) be tween 2003 a nd 2007, Ty son terminated f

orty employ ees f

or fa lsific a

tion of medical doc umentation, only five of w hom had

wo rk e rs ’ c omp ens a tio n c la ims . A c c or din g ly , th e Di str ic t Co ur t f ound tha t T y so n h a d a

n h on e st belief that Thay er f

alsified medica l rec ords and ther efor e did not act with re taliatory intent. See Clay v. United Parc el Serv., I

nc. , 501 F.3d 695, 715 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Be cause Thay er c ould not show that Ty so n’ s st a te d r e a so n f

or te rm inatio n wa s mer e pr e te xt fo r re ta liatio n, the Di str ic t Co ur t c or re c tly g rante d Ty son’s motion for summary judgme nt. Th ay e r a rgue s f or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l th a t T y so n a lte re d T ha y e r’ s n ote in o rd e r t o f

ra me Thay er by

falsifying the document. Thay er c laims unconvincing ly that the ar g ument was raised below. Thay er now argues that by asser ting that he did not alter the note, he implied tha t T y so n mu st have do ne it b e c a

us e no bo dy

e lse ha d a c c e ss. Ev e n if we e nte rt a in i mpl ie d a

rgume nts a s r a ise d b e low , T ha y e r o ff e rs no ne w e vid e nc e to support the asser

tion that an employ ee at Ty son framed Thay er. “ I n order to survive a motion for summary judgme nt, the non-moving party must be able to show sufficient pr obative evide nce that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture , or fa ntasy .” Le wis v. Philip Morris Inc. , 355 F.3d 515, 533 ( 6th Cir.), cert de nied , 543 U.S. 821 (2004). Thay er a lso cannot offe r any convincing theory as to w hy Ty son would fire him in re taliation fo r m a kin g a

wo rk e rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n c la im f or a n ill ne ss that wa s no t wo rk re la te d. Un lik e ne a rl y all analog ous case s, Ty son had no financ ial motive to fire Tha y er. See, e .g., Kin sle r, su

pra (plaintiff ba c ke d o ut o f w or

ke rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n s e ttl e me nt) ; Fe de ra te d R ural El e c . In s. Ex c ha ng e v . H ill , No.No. 09-5185

Thayer v. Tyson Foods, I

nc.

-8- M2005-02461-COA- R3-CV, 2007 WL 907717 (Tenn. Ct. App. M ar. 26, 2007) (employ er pa id over $1 00 ,0 00 in m e dic a l be ne fi ts f or pla int if f’ s k ne e inj ur ie s) ; Ja i me v. A m. W ater Heate r Co. , No. E2005-00907-COA- R3-CV, 2006 Tenn. App. L EXI S 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. J an. 24, 2006) ( plaintiff ha d p re e xistin g me dic a l c on dit ion ); Mo rri s v . S tat e , N o . M 1 9 9 9

- 0 2 7 1 4

- CO A

- RM

- CV, 2 0 0 2 WL 31247079 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2002) (dispute over how m uch workers’ c ompensation plaintiff

was e ntitled for illness). Thay er of fer s that, “B y

terminating [Thay er], Ty son war ded off any future claims by Thay er wh o h a d s ho wn

that he wo uld

make su c h a

c la im. ” Ap pe lla

nt’ s Re p. B r. a t 10 . T he re is n oth ingin the re c or d to ind ic a te that T ha y e r w ou ld m a ke any

futur e c la ims or ha d an y oth e r m e dic a l pr ob le ms. Moreove r, Thay er w as, by all acc ounts, a g ood worke r. T h er e i s als o no evidenc e that Ty son has f ir e d an y o th e r w o r

k e r f o r d e mo n s tr a ti n g a w il li n g n e s s to f il e a w o r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a ti o nc la im

. We find tha t th e r e is n o e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h a r e a s o n a

b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld in f

e r th a t T y s on was mot ivate d to fi re Th ay e r f or any re a so n o the r t

ha n th e on e state d: f

a lsi fy ingdo c ume nts
. Be cause Thay er ha s not pled sufficient f acts to over come Ty son’s honest belief that he falsified me dical docume nts, we her eby AFF I RM the District Court’s order g ranting summary judgme nt for Ty son.