# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 30 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tod d E. Lin de m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Sai nt Luk e's Hos pi ta l o f Kan sa s C it y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Aug us t 9 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ove r ei gh t y ears , To d d Li n d e man wor ke d in a nu m be r of po si ti on s fo r St

. Luk e’s Hos pi ta l of K a ns as Ci ty. Tho ug h m uc h of th at ti m e was un ev en tfu l, he

qu ic kl y pr og res se d th ro ug h th e st ag es of St

. Luk e’s di sc ip li na ry po li cy fro m Ja nu ary
to Apr il 20 14

. Afte r hi s fo ur th in frac ti on , Lin de m an was te rm in at ed

. The reaf te r, he

su ed St

. Lu k e’s, al le gi ng di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act ( A DA) an d Age Dis cri m in at io n in Em pl oym en t Act (ADEA). St

.Luk e’s fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d. 1
Lin de m an ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

Lin de m an be ga n wor ki ng fo r St

. Luk e ’s in 20 06 whe n he was 40 y ears ol d. Alt ho ug h he en

joy ed a go od em

pl oym en t reco rd fo r m

uc h of hi s te nu re, th is ch an ge d whe n Tod d I s b e l l an d Ro sa Paro di be cam e hi s su pe rv is or s at so m e po in t in 20 13

. Acco rd in g to Lin de m an —wh o su ffer s fro m ob se ss iv e co m pu ls iv e di so rd er, at te nt io n de fic it di so rd er, bi po la r di so rd er, an d ot he r ph y si cal li m it at io ns —Is be ll an d P aro di

were m uc h m or e de m an di ng , an d m uc h le ss pl eas an t to wor k wit h, th an hi s pr ev io us

su pe rv is or , Lorra Em

be rs

. 2

St

. Luk e’s ha s a pr og res si ve di sc i p l i ne syste m un de r whi ch an em pl oyee

rece iv es a ve r b a l w a rn in g fo r th e fir st in frac ti on , a writ te n warn in g fo r a se co nd in frac ti on , a su sp en si on or se co nd writ te n warn in g fo r a th ird in frac ti on , an d

t e r mina ti on fo r an y su bs eq ue nt in frac ti on

. Fu rth er, th e ho sp it al ha s cl ear r u l e s
pr oh ib it in g th e d i s s e mina ti on of co nf id en ti al pa ti en t in fo rm at io n, in cl ud in g pa ti en t

na m es

. W he n he be ga n hi s em pl oym en t at St

. Luk e’s, Lin de m an rece iv ed co pi es of

t h e s e po li ci es , an d th e ho sp it al al so pe rio di cal ly co nd uc te d ad di ti on al tra in in g

se ss io ns on pa ti en t co nf

id en ti al it y

.

On Ja nu ary 1, 20 14
, Lin de m an rec e i v ed a ve rb al warn in g aft er he be cam e
arg um en ta ti ve whe n rece iv in g co ach in g fo r fai li ng to an swe r or ret ur n a su pe rv is or ’s

The Hon or ab le St ep he n R. Bo ug h
, U n i t ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Lin de m an al le ge s th at Is be ll an d Paro di m ad e st at em en ts to Lin de m an su ch as 2

“ I be tt er se e th e whi te s of y ou r ey es or el se ” an d “ I’ll m at ch y ou r ADD wit h m y ADD

an d I wi ll win .”

-2

-p h o n e cal ls

. Late r th at m on th
, Lin de m an rece iv ed a writ te n warn in g fo r fai li ng t o

ab id e b y t he ho sp it al ’s ti m ecar d an d cal l-i n pr oc ed ur es at le as t fiv e ti m es in two week s. In la te Feb ru ary, Lin de m an rece iv ed a te m po rary su sp en si on fo r fai li ng to cal l in pr io r to m is si ng a sc he du le d sh ift

. Fi na ll y , in Apr il 20 14
, Lin de m an m en ti on ed th e

na m e of a pa ti en t to a nu m be r of in di vi du al s in si d e a n d o u t s id e of th e St

. Luk e’s faci li ty, whi ch vi ol at ed th e ho sp it al ’s co nf id en ti al it y po li ci es

. Thi s fo ur th in frac ti on
qu al ifi ed hi m

for ter m in at io n, wh ic h o ccu rred on Apri l 2 5, 2 01 4.

Lin de m an th en br ou gh t th is su it ag ai ns t St

. Luk e’s, as se rti ng cl ai m s un de r th e ADA an d ADEA. Afte r di sc ov ery, St

. Luk e’s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t g ran te d t he m ot io n. Lin de m an ap pe al s.

II.

Lin de m an as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng St

. Luk e’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. W e “ rev ie w[] de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t,” Torg ers on

v

. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), “ vi ewin g t h e

ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [Lin de m an ], th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Kirk eb erg v. Cana di an Pac. Ry
., 61 9 F.3 d 89 8,
90 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e wil l affi rm if “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). Sp eci fic al ly, Lin de m an arg ue s on ap pe al th at he ha s sh own th at St

. Luk e’s reas on fo r hi s te rm in at io n is pr et ex t fo r in te nt io na l di sa bi l i t y di sc riminat io n an d th at he 3

ex ha us te d hi s ad mi n i s t r at iv e rem ed ie s on hi s fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e cl ai m

. W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn

.

In it s op en in g br ie f, St

. Luk e’s as se rts th at Lin de m an waiv ed hi s ADEA cl ai m 3 by no t m en ti on in g it in hi s op en in g br ie f. Eve n as su m in g th at Li n d e man pr op erl y pr es en te d th e ADEA cl ai m on ap pe al
, hi s al le ga ti on of pr et ex t un de r th e ADEA fai ls fo r th e sa m e rea so ns th at hi s co m pa rab le cla im

un de r th e ADA is in su ffi ci en t.

-3

-A.

The ADA pr oh ib it s di sc riminat io n “ on th e ba si s o f d i s ab il it y .” 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a). W he n pr es en te d on ly wit h ci rcu m st an ti al e v i d e n c e, we an al y ze ADA cl ai m s un de r th e fam il ia r McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng an al y si s. EEOC v. Pro d. Fa br ic at or s, In c., 76 3 F .3d 96 3, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). To s ur vi ve a m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t un de r th i s a na lysis
, th e em pl oyee ha s “ th e in it ia l bu rd en of

pr ov in g a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n.” McNa ry v. Sch rei be r Fo od s, In c., 53 5 F.3 d 76 5, 76 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e em

pl oyer “ to art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on f o r th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Fi na ll y , “ th e bu rd en sh ift s ba ck to th e pl ai nt iff t o sh ow th at th e em pl oyer’s pr of

fere d reas on is

m erel y a pr et ex t fo r in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n.” Pro d. Fab ric at or s, 76 3 F.3 d at 96 9. Here, on su m

m ary jud gm en t an d on ap pe al
, th e pa rti es ha ve as su m ed th at Lin de m an

can es ta b l is h hi s pr im a faci e cas e. Fu rth er, St

. Luk e’s pr of fere d reas on fo r Lin de m an ’s te rm in at io n— di s c lo su re of co nf id en ti al in fo rm at io n in vi ol at io n of h o sp it al po li ci es —i s a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r th e ad v e r s e

em pl oym en t act io n. See Twy m on v. W el ls Farg o & Co
., 46 2 F.3 d 92 5, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W e ha ve co ns is te nt ly he ld th at vi o l a t i n g a co m pa ny po li cy is a le gi ti m at e,

no n- di sc riminat or y rat io na le fo r te rm in at in g an em pl oyee.”). Our fo cu s is th eref or e li m it ed to whet he r Lin de m an ha s s ho wn t ha t St . Luk e’s reas on is pre te xt ua l.

In or de r to do so , Lin de m an “ m us t pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de m on st rat e bo th th at th e em

pl oyer’s art ic ul at ed reas on fo r th e ad ve rs e e mp l o ym en t act io n was fal se an d th at di sc riminat io n was th e real reas on .” McNa ry , 53 5 F.3 d at 76 9 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. To m eet th is bu rd en , Lin de m a n r e l i e s o n two types of

ev id en ce: Fi rs t, he cl ai m s th at ot he r em pl oyees al so di sc lo se d th e na m e of th e pa ti en t

an d rece iv ed no di sc ip li ne

. Seco nd
, he arg ue s th at hi s hi st or y of po si ti ve pe rfo rm an ce fo ll owe d by hi s qu ic k pr og res si on th ro ug h th e di sc ip li na ry po li cy de m on st rat es th at

an un la wfu l re as on act ua ll y m ot iv at ed hi s t erm in at io n.

-4

-Pret ex t m ay be de m on st rat ed by sh owi n g d i s p arat e pu ni sh m en t be twee n

si m il arl y si tu at ed em

pl oyees, bu t Lin d e man mu st sh ow th at he an d th e al le ge d

co m pa rat or s “ were si m il arl y si tu at ed in al l rel ev an t res pe ct s.” Ry an v. Cap it al
Co nt ract or s, In c., 67 9 F.3 d 7 7 2
, 7 7 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Thi s is “ a rig or ou s st an da rd at t he pre te xt st ag e.” Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3d at 10 51 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. To be si m il arl y si tu at e d, a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at he an d th e m or e le ni en tl y tre at ed em pl oyees ha ve “ co m

pa rab le di sc ip li na ry hi st or [ie s].” Fo rres t v. Kraft Fo od s, In c., 28 5 F.3 d 68 8, 69 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). And th e

em pl oyees al so “ m

us t ha ve de al t wit h th e sa m e su pe rv is or , ha ve be en su bjec t to th e

sa me s t a n da rd s, an d en ga ge d in th e sa m e co nd uc t wit ho ut an y m it ig at in g or di st in gu is hi ng ci rcu m st an ces .” Pro d. Fab ric at or s, 76 3 F.3 d at 97 0 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Lin de m an as se rts th at two ot he r em pl oyees al so rev eal ed th e na m e of th e pa ti en t bu t were no t di sc ip li ne d in an y way

. Howev er, Lin de m an po in ts to no

ev id en c e t h a t t h o se two in di vi du al s were al so at th e la st st ag e of th e pr og res si ve di sc ip li na ry po li cy , th ereb y warra nt in g te rm in at io n fo r an ad di ti on al vi ol at io n. Thi s is fat al to hi s arg um en t. See Fo rr es t, 28 5 F.3 d at 69 2. Add it io na ll y , Lin de m an

co nc ed es th at he m en ti on ed th e pa ti en t’s nam e aft er bei ng ex pr es sl y to ld th at do in g

so was a vi ol at io n of St

. Luk e’s po l i c i e s , a n d th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e ot he r

em pl oyees e ng ag ed in a si m il ar co ur se of co nd uc t. See Bo ne v. G4 S You th Serv s., LLC, 68 6 F.3 d 94 8, 95 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [T]o be pr ob at iv e ev id en ce of pr et ex t, th e

m is co nd uc t of m or e le ni en tl y di sc ip li ne d em pl oyees m

us t be of co m

pa rab le

se rio us ne ss .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Lin de m an ha s th eref or e fai le d to sh ow t ha t h e is si m il arl y

si tu at ed to th e p ur

po rte d c om

pa rat or s.

Lin de m an ne xt po in ts to hi s hi st or y of po si ti ve pe rfo rm an ce, whi ch he cl ai m s is de m on st rat ed by a rev ie w fro m Em be rs , hi s fo rm er su pe rv is or , gi ve n on Apr il 11
, 20 13

. Acco rd in g to Lin de m an , th is rev ie w sh ows th at th e reas on St

. Luk e’s of fere d fo r hi s term in at io n was pret ex t beca us e he ha d fav or ab le pe rfo rm an ce rev ie ws un ti l
Paro di an d Is be ll be cam e hi s s u pe rv is or s, at whi ch po in t th os e in di vi du al s in te nt io na ll y be ga n di sc ip li ni ng Lin de m an du e to hi s di sa bi li ti es

. In su pp or t of thi s

-5

-arg um en t, Lin de m an rel ie s on au th or it y fro m th e Ten th Ci rcu it
, an d he as se rts th a t

“ [e]vi de nc e of co ns is te nt , lo ng -te rm go od pe rfo rm an ce, fo ll owe d cl os el y by a se rie s of ad ve rs e di sc ip li na ry act io ns is ev id en ce of pr et ex t.” A p p e l l a n t’s Br. 25 (ci ti ng Green e v . Safewa y

Sto res , Inc ., 98 F.3d 55 4 (1 0t h C ir. 1 99 6) ). 4

The re are a nu m

be r of fla ws in th is arg um en t. Fi rs t, in th is ci rcu it
, “ [e]vi de nc e of a st ro ng em

pl oym en t hi st or y wil l no t al on e crea te a ge nu in e is su e of fact reg ard in g
pr et ex t an d d is cri m in at io n.” Gui m arae s v . Sup erVal u, In c., 67 4 F .3d 96 2, 9 75 (8t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Thu s, ev en were we to co nc lu de th at

on e fav or ab le pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w es ta bl is h e d th at Lin de m an ha d a “ st ro ng

em pl oym en t hi st or y ,” th is wou ld be in su ffi ci en t to sh ow pr et ex t. Id

. Seco nd
, th e Ten th Ci rcu it cas e is cl earl y di st in gu is ha bl e be cau se , th ere, th e pl ai nt iff ’s

pe rfo rm an ce rev ie ws were m ad e by th e sa m e su pe rv is o r. W oo ds
, 35 5 F. App ’x at 21 0. It is t h e r e f

o r e u n de rs ta nd ab le why th is co ul d se rv e as ev id en ce of pr et ex t be cau se a si ng le su pe rv i s o r c h a n g i ng hi s rat in g of an em pl oyee aft er a pr ot ect ed

act iv it y , wi th ou t s uf

fic ie nt ex pl an at io n, s ug ge st s th e po ss ib il it y of a di sc riminat or y

m ot iv e. Here, as st at ed , we are de al in g wit h di ffe r e n t su pe rv is or s, so an y po te nt ia l in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n is weak en ed su bs ta nt ia ll y by an ot he r rat io na l ex pl an at io n fo r th e ch an ge —t he sh ift in g ex pe ct at io ns of d iff eren t su pe rv is or s. Cf. Tate v. W ey erh aeu se r Co
., 72 3 F.2 d 59 8, 60 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (s ta ti ng in a Tit le VII cas e th at a ch an ge in su pe rv is or s can “ su gg es t[] a ba si s ot he r th an raci al [di sc riminat io n] for th e di ffer en ce in th e tre at m en t” ). Fi na ll y , a pa rt fro m be in g co m pi le d by a d iff

eren t

su pe rv is or , th e fav or ab le rev ie w Lin de m an rel ie s on was m ad e ne arl y on e y ear pr io r
to hi s vi ol at io n of th e co nf id en ti al it y ru le s, an d “ [a] rev ie w is su ed wit ho ut th at kn owl ed ge is irr el ev an t to whe th er” Lin de m an was act ua ll y te rm in at ed fo r th e gi ve n

reas on . Sm it h v . All en Heal th Sy s., In c., 30 2 F .3d 82 7, 8 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

Tho ug h he rep res en ts th at he is rel y in g on Green e, Lin de m a n ’s q u o te d 4

m at eri al act ua ll y co m es fro m th at ci rcu it ’s un pu bl is he d op in io n in W oo ds v. Bo ei ng Co ., 35 5 F . App ’x 20 6, 2 10 (10 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-6

-Lin de m an al so br ie fly as se rts th at he di d no t act ua ll y vi ol at e th e co nf id en ti al it y

ru le s be cau se th e pa ti en t ha d al read y an no un ced he r ho sp it al iz at io n vi a so ci al m ed ia
, th us waiv in g a ny co nf

id en ti al it y

. Bu t th is arg um en t “ m is se s th e m ark ” be cau se , at be st , it “ sh ows on ly th at th e em pl oyer’s be li ef was mi s t a k e n

. ” Lil es v. C.S.
McC ro ss an , In c., 8 5 1 F

. 3 d 8 10
, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ; a c c o r d McNa ry , 53 5 F.3 d at 77 0 (“ W he th er th ey were co rrec t in th ei r

su rm is e th at McNa ry br each ed co m pa ny po li cy is no t th e is su e.”). In st ead
, Lin de m an

ne ed ed to sh ow th at St

. Luk e ’s d id no t ho ne st ly be li ev e th at he ha d vi ol at ed it s

co nf id en ti al it y

rul es . See Lil es , 85 1 F .3d at 8 22 . He has no t.

Lin de m an ha s fai le d to sh ow th at St

. Luk e’s reas on fo r hi s t e r mi n a ti on was
pr et ex t fo r un la wfu l di sc riminat io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d

sum m ar y j udgm en t to St

. Luk e’s on Lin de m an ’s di sc riminat io n cl ai m un de r th e ADA.

B.

W e no w tu rn to th e is su e of whe t h er Lin de m an ex ha us te d hi s ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s on hi s fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e c l ai m

. In dr aft in g th e ADA, Co ng res s ad op te d th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es sp eci fie d by Tit le VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 7( a) (“ The po wers , r em ed ie s, an d pr oc ed ur es se t fo rth in [Tit le VII] s h a l l be th e po wers , rem ed ie s, an d pr oc ed u r e s t h i s su bc ha pt er pr ov id es to

. . . an y pe rs on al le gi ng di sc riminat io n on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty in vi ol at io n of an y pr ov is io n of th is

c h a p t e r

. . . .”). Und er Tit le VII, a pl ai nt iff m us t fir st ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti v e

rem ed ie s be fo re fil in g su it in fed eral co ur t. W il li am s v. Lit tl e Ro ck Mu n. W at er W or ks
, 21 F.3 d 21 8, 22 2 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 94 ). “ A pl ai nt iff wil l be de em ed to ha ve

ex ha us te d ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as to al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in a jud ic ia l co m pl ai nt th at are li ke or reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e su bs ta nc e of ch arg es ti m el y br ou gh t befo re th e EEOC

. ” Id

. Lin de m an co nc ed ed be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t th at “ hi s Ch arg e of Dis cri m in at io n d o e s no t in cl ud e an y al le ga ti on ab ou t ne ed in g or req ue st in g an

-7

-acco m

m od at io n.” As a res ul t, he fai le d to ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s on th at cl ai m , and he can no t p ur su e it in fed eral co ur t.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-