* 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK J. MEDLOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-5109

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00023-GKF-TLW)

Submitted on the briefs:*

J. Vince Hightower, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephanie K. Osteen and Christina A. Jump, of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before McKAY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL,

Circuit Judge.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 1 
1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recently confirmed that a Burk tort claim

is available for age discrimination, notwithstanding the existence of the federal

statutory remedy under the ADEA. See Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,

202 P.3d 144, 145-46, 151 (Okla. 2008); see also Saint v. Data Exch., Inc.,

145 P.3d 1037, 1039 (Okla. 2006). 

2 We recognize that the district court did not address some evidence Medlock

had offered to show age discrimination directly, distinct from the method of

indirect proof set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 

See generally Sanders v. SW Bell Tel., L.P., 544 F.3d 1101, 1105 (10th Cir. 2008)

(discussing direct and indirect proof of discrimination), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.

69 (2009). We take up that evidence later and conclude it also fails to satisfy

Medlock’s burden to demonstrate a triable claim of age discrimination. 

-2-

Plaintiff Patrick J. Medlock appeals from a district court order granting

summary judgment to his former employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), on

his federal claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and

his correlative state “Burk tort” claim, see Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24

(Okla. 1989).1

 The district court held that Medlock had failed to create a triable

issue as to whether the justification given for discharging him and subsequently

denying his request for reinstatement was pretextual.2

 We review the district

court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.,

523 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th Cir. 2008), and affirm for the reasons explained below.

I. Legal Framework

We view the facts, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most

favorable to Mr. Medlock, the party opposing summary judgment. Id. “Summary

judgment is . . . appropriate if, but only if, the evidence reveals no genuine issue

of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

“The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists is borne by

the moving party.” EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184,

1190 (10th Cir. 2000). But if the matter in issue concerns an essential element of

the nonmovant’s claim, the moving party may satisfy the summary judgment

standard “by identifying a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on [that] element.” 

Id. (quotation omitted). That is the situation here, where the district court held

Medlock had failed to demonstrate a triable issue of pretext necessary to the legal

sufficiency of his discrimination claims. 

This case differs from the typical discriminatory-termination suit in that it

is not really about Medlock’s termination, which was based on a legitimate

disciplinary policy that he concedes (as he must on our record) was evenhandedly

applied. Rather, the focus of this case is on the allegedly discriminatory refusal

to reinstate Medlock like many other employees initially terminated for the same

or similar conduct. See Reply Br. at 10 (clarifying that “[t]he disparate treatment

practiced on Medlock by UPS was not his initial employment termination . . ., but

UPS’ refusal to reinstate Mr. Medlock during the grievance process”). Thus, the

crux here is not the reason given for terminating Medlock, but the explanation

given for denying his grievance seeking reinstatement. 

In order to defeat summary judgment by creating a triable issue of

pretext, Medlock had to show “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies,

incoherencies, or contradictions in the [explanation for denying

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 3 
-4-

reinstatement] . . . that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find [it] unworthy

of credence and hence infer that [UPS] did not act for the asserted

non-discriminatory reasons.” Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, 524 F.3d 1149, 1158

(10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). A common way to do this, and the one

primarily relied on by Medlock here, is to present evidence of “differential

treatment of similarly situated employees.” Id. We summarize the evidence

below. 

II. General Factual Background

Medlock lost his job as a driver for UPS when he was fifty-six years old.

He was fired by Tulsa Division Manager Marc Cortez for having an avoidable

runaway accident. Article 52 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

between UPS and the Teamsters Union includes such accidents among the causes

for summary discharge (colloquially referred to as “Article 52” infractions). 

Medlock filed a grievance seeking reinstatement, which was denied at the local

level by Cortez and UPS District Labor Manager Matt Hoffman, whose decision

remained undisturbed at the highest level of grievance review. While Medlock’s

ensuing EEOC complaint referred to his discharge (and mistakenly attributed it to

his more immediate supervisor, Brent Kashwer, in addition to Cortez), his case

has come to focus on the allegedly discriminatory motives of Cortez and Hoffman

in refusing to reinstate him in the grievance process. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 4 
-5-

The runaway accident occurred when Medlock was making a delivery to a

gated location on his rural route. He exited his truck to punch in the code for the

gate, which began to open very slowly inward. While waiting for the gate, he

went to the back of the truck to prepare packages for delivery. At this point the

truck moved forward and rolled into the gate, which later had to be cut off from

the front bumper with a welding torch. Medlock promptly reported the incident

to the UPS office. Two supervisors, one of whom was Mr. Kashwer, arrived to

investigate and bring Medlock back to the UPS Tulsa hub. Another driver

completed his deliveries for the day and Medlock was placed on paid leave

pending investigation results. His truck, in particular its parking brake and

transmission assembly, were inspected and found to be in good working order by

UPS Automotive Supervisor Richard Hawk and a UPS mechanic. 

Kashwer brought the information, documents, and findings of the

investigation to Cortez, who made the decision to terminate Medlock for an

avoidable runaway accident pursuant to Article 52 of the CBA. Prior to that,

however, Medlock–who insisted he had properly set the parking brake and put the

truck in gear–suggested that an engine compression problem might have caused

the truck to roll despite his precautions. The truck was sent for further testing,

which did not support Medlock’s exculpatory suggestion. He was terminated and

thereafter denied reinstatement, as already touched on above. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 5 
-6-

There are additional pertinent facts, particularly relating to Medlock’s

conduct in the grievance process and UPS’s reinstatement of other employees who

were terminated for comparable Article 52 infractions. We set out and address

these facts where relevant to the analysis of the legal issues raised by this appeal,

to which we turn next. 

III. Discipline, Reinstatement, and Pretext

The bulk of Mr. Medlock’s argument on appeal concerns the treatment of

eight younger UPS drivers who he asserts were similarly situated to him by virtue

of their misconduct but kept their jobs. Like Medlock, these “comparators” were

initially fired by Division Manager Cortez for Article 52 infractions. All save

one, however, were reinstated voluntarily by UPS–and by the same managers,

Cortez and District Labor Manager Hoffman, who refused to reinstate Medlock. 

He also discusses another set of younger terminated-but-reinstated drivers that is

both narrower and broader than the first: narrower in that these three drivers all

committed the same Article 52 infraction as Medlock, and broader in that two fall

outside the scope of Cortez’s tenure at the Tulsa division. One driver, Travis

Thompson, fits into both groups and is the subject of Medlock’s sharpest

comparison for pretext purposes, so we will consider him first. But before we get

to any of the identified comparators, we address a threshold objection advanced

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 6 
3 UPS advances this as an argument that Medlock has failed to establish a

prima facie case of age discrimination, but the authority it relies on concerns the

demonstration of pretext, which is also the focus of our review here. 

4 Carey did not involve disparate resolution of similar employee grievances,

as present here and in Magruder, but an entirely different situation. In Carey, a

white plaintiff alleged discrimination after losing out on a promotion to a black

co-worker. The employer explained that it gave the promotion to the co-worker

to settle an EEOC complaint he had brought for being passed over for promotion

earlier. All Carey held was that “[c]onciliation agreements which settle Title VII

(continued...)

-7-

by UPS to the use of any grievance resolutions involving other employees to

establish discriminatory animus toward the plaintiff.3

 

UPS relies primarily on a district court decision holding that a plaintiff

“cannot base a Title VII claim on the [more favorable] settlement of other

employees’ grievances.” Magruder v. Runyon, 844 F. Supp. 696, 704

(D. Kan. 1994), aff’d, No. 94-3069, 1995 WL 311740 (10th Cir. May 22, 1995). 

UPS also notes that the district court in Magruder relied, in turn, on Carey v.

United States Postal Service, 812 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1987), which, the district

court stated, “rejected a similar claim.” Magruder, 844 F. Supp. at 704. But UPS

fails to note that the Tenth Circuit panel that affirmed Magruder disavowed the

district court’s categorical exclusion of grievance settlements from the pretext

analysis as a misreading of Carey: “As for the alleged disparity in the

[employer’s] settlement of grievances, we do not believe that our opinion in

Carey should be read to preclude all claims of discriminatory settlement of

grievances.”4

 Magruder, 1995 WL 31170, at *2. Instead, the panel affirmed the

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 7 
4

(...continued)

claims may not be considered independent acts of discrimination against those not

benefitted by the agreement.” 812 F.2d at 624 (quotation and alteration omitted). 

Carey does not support, as UPS and the Magruder district court opinion suggest,

the quite different proposition that inconsistent treatment of similarly situated

employees somehow ceases to be material to the pretext inquiry if that treatment

concerns their grievances–so that, as relevant here, an employer could selectively

disfavor an older employee (or any protected class) with impunity as long as it

waited until the grievance process to effectuate the discriminatory policy. 

5 UPS advances several arguments for affirming summary judgment at the

prima facie case stage of the analysis rather than the pretext stage at which the

district court made its ruling. These arguments are generally meritless. First,

UPS cites Medlock’s failure to show that his route was given to a younger driver

after his termination, as if that were a necessary element of the prima facie case

in every age discrimination suit. But the appropriate formulation of the prima

facie case is flexible, looking to those logically salient circumstances of each case

that may raise the requisite inference of discrimination. Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d

1092, 1099-1100 (10th Cir. 2005). Thus, “where [as here] an employer contends

the actual reason for termination is . . . unsatisfactory conduct, the status of the

employee’s former position after his or her termination is irrelevant,” id. at 1100,

and a comparison to the disparate discipline meted out to younger co-workers is

appropriate, see Sorbo v. United Parcel Serv., 432 F.3d 1169, 1173-74 (10th Cir.

2005). Second, UPS notes all of the comparators were terminated, just like

Medlock. Of course they were; but this case is about disparate reinstatement. As

for UPS’s third contention, objecting to the use of grievance settlements as

evidence of disparate treatment, we have just explained above why that is

meritless. Finally, UPS contends that the comparators are not in fact similarly

(continued...)

-8-

grant of summary judgment for the employer by looking to the circumstances of

the contrasted grievance settlements–like any other instance of differential

treatment asserted as evidence of pretext–and concluding that “[t]he disparate

treatment of the five males’ grievances does not raise an inference of pretext

because the men were not similarly situated [to the plaintiff].” Id. We follow the

same course here.5

 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 8 
5

(...continued)

situated to Medlock. As this contention turns on the reasons given for reinstating

the comparators and refusing to reinstate Medlock, it goes to the

justification-versus-pretext inquiry as much as to the prima facie case. Since we

ultimately agree that the reasons given have not been shown to be pretextual in

any event, we need not definitively attribute the deficiency in proof to a particular

point in Medlock’s circumstantial case for discrimination. See id. at 1173 n.5,

1174. 

6 Matt Hoffman, who jointly resolved Medlock’s local grievance (and those

of the comparators) with Cortez, expressed a stronger version of this rationale for

refusing to reinstate Medlock: Hoffman felt Medlock was prevaricating in his

attempt to deny his own operating error and deflect responsibility for the runaway

accident through vague and unsubstantiated suggestions of mechanical failure.

See Aplt. App. at 162-63 (deposition pages 69-74). 

-9-

A. Reinstatement of Travis Thompson

Cortez terminated Travis Thompson under Article 52 after an avoidable

runaway accident, but later agreed to reinstatement in settlement of Thompson’s

resultant grievance. At his deposition, Cortez explained that the basis for

reinstating Thompson–and, as we will see, several other comparators–was that

Thompson admitted and expressed remorse for the infraction. See Aplt. App. at

319-21. Cortez specifically noted that remorseful acknowledgment of error is

what distinguished Thompson from Mr. Medlock.6

 Id. at 322-23. Medlock does

not challenge the soundness of treating employees who admit error and indicate a

motivation to avoid it in future differently than those who do not–nor would we

be in a position to second-guess such business judgment in any event, see, e.g.,

Salguero v. City of Clovis, 366 F.3d 1168, 1177 (10th Cir. 2004); Kendrick v.

Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1233 (10th Cir. 2000). Rather,

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 9 
-10-

Medlock points to several aspects of Cortez’s deposition testimony that, he

claims, undercut in different ways this stated justification for the disparate

treatment. 

First, Medlock notes that Cortez could not remember the incident involving

Thompson when initially questioned about it, yet an hour later was able to come

up with the specific reasons why he reinstated Thompson but not Medlock. But a

straightforward explanation for this came from Cortez himself: he had “been

looking through the paperwork over the last hour” and had refreshed his memory. 

Aplt. App. at 320. Medlock cites no authority, nor are we aware of any,

indicating that a memory refreshed in this way is per se insufficient to support

summary judgment. On the contrary, see Crockett v. Abraham, 284 F.3d 131,

133-34 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (granting summary judgment for employer based on

justification for denial of promotion provided by decision-maker only after she

refreshed her memory through review of pertinent records). 

Second, Medlock points to one response in Cortez’s deposition where he

referred to Thompson as “[t]his young man.” Aplt. App. at 320. We cannot agree

with Medlock that this one passing use of a common colloquial reference to a

younger adult male, used well after the operative events giving rise to this suit,

materially undercuts the facial neutrality of the reason given by Cortez for

reinstating Thompson but not Medlock. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 10 
-11-

Third, Medlock makes much of Cortez’s acknowledgment that his practice

of reinstating Article 52 violaters who admitted misconduct and pledged to

correct it was not mandated by a formally documented UPS policy. Evidently, the

tacit premise here is that an otherwise reasonable justification for a business

decision somehow loses its legitimacy simply because it reflects an exercise of

managerial judgment rather than a ministerial execution of written policy–as if a

manager could not legitimately fire an employee for vandalizing property,

stealing from co-workers, or assaulting a customer absent a formal company

policy specifically addressing such misconduct. Medlock offers no authority for

this facially untenable idea, which is belied by countless employment

discrimination cases decided on the basis of legitimate business justifications

without any reference to formal policies necessarily legitimizing those

justifications. Indeed, such a constricted view of legitimacy would render suspect

innumerable decisions required in the practical operation of the workplace,

leaving the management of businesses open to just the sort of second-guessing the

case law consistently admonishes against. The decision at issue here is a case in

point: we are asked to second-guess a classic (and facially plausible) business

judgment by a manager, regarding the disciplinary relevance of an employee’s

remorseful acceptance of responsibility, simply because that judgment had not

been preordained by a written policy. The law does not permit, much less

require, us to do so. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 11 
-12-

Finally, and more materially, Medlock cites this qualification by Cortez in

his response regarding the reinstatement of a hypothetically remorseful Medlock:

If Mr. Medlock had come in and said “I left the vehicle in neutral” or

“I didn’t set the park brake; it was my fault, I’m remorseful[,]” then

the outcome could have turned out differently. I can’t sit here and

say yes, for sure he would have been able to come back. 

. . . .

Chances are I would have [let him come back]. 

Aplt. App. at 323 (emphasis added). There is no further elaboration or follow-up

explanation of this qualification, at least on the incomplete record of the

deposition provided us. Thus, we are left with a bald concession by the

decision-maker that, even if the asserted justification for treating Medlock

differently had been absent, he might still have been treated differently. 

There may well be other reasonable interpretations of or explanations for

the qualification expressed by Cortez, but one is relevant to the critical issue of

motivation: it is an acknowledgment that the reason given as the sole basis for

reinstating Thompson but not Medlock was not necessarily the only basis for

treating these two employees differently. Thus, the asserted justification for the

disparate treatment does not fully negate the possibility that age discrimination

could have played a role in a potentially mixed-motive decision. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 12 
-13-

This does not avail Medlock on his ADEA claim, for which it is not the

employer’s burden to negate any possible contributory role played by age in the

challenged adverse action but, conversely, the employee’s burden to show that

age was the “but for” cause of the action. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc.,

129 S. Ct. 2343, 2351 (2009). Cortez’s testimony does not establish a triable

issue of age as the but-for cause here. His main point, that failure to admit fault

was the only operative basis for his decision not to reinstate Medlock, obviously

weighs against age even being a factor. His hypothetical qualification–that had

Medlock admitted fault, something else might have led Cortez not to grant

reinstatement–does not deny the causal operation of the stated justification on the

actual facts, much less substitute age as the but-for cause to satisfy Gross. Cortez

merely acknowledged that some other, unspecified consideration(s) could count

against reinstating Medlock, so that Medlock’s failure to admit fault, though the

operative basis for denying reinstatement here, may not constitute a but-for cause

for doing so. But that is immaterial under Gross: it is not UPS’s burden to show

that its justification was the but-for cause for its challenged action, i.e., that it

would have reinstated Medlock but for his failure to admit fault; rather, Medlock

must show that age was the but-for cause, i.e., that UPS would have reinstated

him, despite his failure to admit fault, but for his age. Nothing Cortez said

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 13 
7 The Gross but-for standard does not apply to Burk tort claims. Such claims

are governed by a “significant factor” test, Vasek v. Bd. of County Comm’rs,

186 P.3d 928, 934 (Okla. 2008), imposing on the plaintiff “a more lenient

standard than the ‘but for’ test,” Elzey v. Forrest, 739 P.2d 999, 1001

(Okla. 1987); Wallace v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Okla. 1993). 

Medlock argues in general terms that this disparity in standards should have

prevented the district court from concluding that his failure of proof on the ADEA

claim was fatal to his Burk tort claim as well. He does not specifically refer in

this regard to the testimony considered above, which would appear to at least

implicate the basic thrust of his argument. We will return to this point after

considering the rest of the evidence offered on the issue of age discrimination,

when we can engage in a fully informed assessment of the Burk tort claim. 

-14-

supports the latter inference.7

 Indeed, nothing he said affirmatively supports an

inference that age played any role in his decision. 

In sum, the comparison with Thompson does not create a triable issue of

pretext–or, alternatively, in prima facie case terms, the comparison does not give

rise to a reasonable inference of age discrimination, see supra note 5. We turn

next to the other Article 52 violaters who were reinstated. 

B. The Other Comparators

One other driver, Tim Randolph, was reinstated by Matt Hoffman after an

avoidable runaway accident. Cortez was not involved in the termination or the

reinstatement, but Hoffman’s participation in the reinstatement arguably suffices

for a comparison to Medlock. But this comparison does not support Medlock’s

case, for the same reason the comparison to Thompson does not: the reason given

for reinstating Randolph was his admission of error, which clearly distinguishes

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 14 
8 The cited document is a chart of drivers terminated for Article 52 violations

since June 27, 2004 (this predates the tenure of Cortez and Hoffman, so not all of

the drivers are discussed in the parties’ briefing). It recites infraction dates and

descriptions, terminating supervisors, subsequent grievance decisions, reasons for

the decisions, and the grievance decision-makers. It was attached as an exhibit to

Matt Hoffman’s affidavit, which recited that the “chart accurately represents the

information contained therein.” Aplt. App. at 139. Medlock objects that the chart

lacks an adequate foundation. Its conclusory affirmation of accuracy, with no

statement of the factual basis for the affirmation, much less a showing of personal

knowledge of the facts, is problematic. But UPS relied on the chart in its

summary judgment motion, see, e.g., 26, 34, 39, and Medlock raised no objection

in his response (and he has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, in the

event he objected then). Moreover, the chart summarizes information in UPS’s

answers to interrogatories, see id. at 421-30, which Medlock himself offered into

evidence and relied on. Under the circumstances, we consider any objection to

the chart waived. 

-15-

his situation from Medlock’s. See Aplt. App. at 146.8

 The record shows one

other avoidable runaway accident resulting in the termination-and-reinstatement

of a driver, Terrence Galloway, in 2003. See id. at 434-35. While Medlock refers

in passing to this incident, he does not include it in his set of comparables, and

for good reason: the incident occurred before Cortez became Division Manager

in 2006 and Hoffman became District Labor Manager in July 2005, so neither of

the decision-makers in Medlock’s case were involved. 

The rest of the comparables involve reckless accidents or failures to report

accidents. Reinstatement was granted in the former cases based on the presence

of external factors that negated or attenuated fault on the part of the driver, such

as road and weather conditions, another motorist’s excessive speed, and, in one

instance, the union successfully argued that the driver had not been given proper

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 15 
-16-

training. See Aplt. App. 146-49. Such factors, not present in Medlock’s case,

present a legitimate basis for the reduction in discipline ultimately imposed on

these drivers. In the failure-to-report category, drivers who had been terminated

for non-traffic accidents were reinstated based on a lack of proof and, in one

instance, the driver’s claim that he had not been aware of the accident, see id.

at 146-48. Such factors also were not present in Medlock’s case. As alluded to

earlier, UPS denied reinstatement to one driver, Dustin Prock, terminated for

failure to report an accident, though a regional grievance committee later ordered

his reinstatement. See id. at 149. We agree with UPS that this involuntary

reinstatement does not support Medlock’s case for pretext. See Hiatt v. Rockwell

Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 771 (7th Cir. 1994). On the contrary, the refusal to

voluntarily reinstate the twenty-four year old Prock cuts against Medlock’s claim

that the decision to reinstate turned on an employee’s age. 

There is one unexplained reinstatement decision, made before Cortez had

arrived but after Hoffman had been made District Labor Manager. Brad Popejoy

was terminated for failing to report an accident in September 2005, but reinstated

by a grievance settlement for which UPS had “insufficient data” to identify the

basis for settlement and who made the decision. See Aplt. App. at 147. This one

factual gap in the record hardly creates a triable issue of pretext as to the reasons

given for the decisions in all other Article 52 cases, including Medlocks’. To

state the obvious, missing evidence, by definition, cannot establish facts that the

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 16 
-17-

evidence, if present, would have shown. The data insufficiency here demonstrates

nothing more than we cannot say what the reasons were for reinstating Popejoy.

To conclude somehow from this that Popejoy was reinstated for reasons that cast

doubt on the justification for not reinstating Medlock would be sheer conjecture,

which we have long recognized is an inadequate basis on which to oppose

summary judgment, see, e.g., Hinds, 523 F.3d at 1198 n.6 (quoting Branson v.

Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1988)). And while a

tell-tale pattern of tactically missing data could perhaps warrant skepticism as to a

limited set of data offered by an employer in support of its position, we have no

such pattern here. 

C. Other Evidence of Pretext

Medlock contends that three other facts bolster his case for a triable issue

on pretext. Not one of these is material. 

First, he notes that he had been repeatedly admonished about not working

fast enough, and had found it necessary to file numerous grievances over working

excessive hours in order to complete his route. There is no evidence that work

speed played a role in Medlock’s termination and non-reinstatement; Cortez

specifically testified to the contrary. But, even if it had played a role, that would

not support Medlock’s discrimination claim. Work speed or productivity is a

facially neutral and obviously relevant performance criterion for a delivery driver.

Had Medlock presented persuasive evidence demonstrating that the reasons given

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 17 
-18-

for terminating and not reinstating him were pretexts for getting rid of an

unacceptably slow worker, that would not forestall summary judgment for UPS on

his claims of age discrimination: “an employer would be entitled to judgment as

a matter of law if the record [on pretext] conclusively revealed some other,

nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision.” Zamora v. Elite Logistics,

Inc., 478 F.3d 1160, 1172 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson

Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 (2000)). Medlock’s suggestion that

employer concern over sub-par work pace or productivity is a mask for age

discrimination is untenable as a general inference and unsupported as a particular

inference on our record. 

Second, Medlock notes that the parking brake and clutch on his truck were

adjusted shortly after it was put back in action following his accident, and its tires

were replaced as well. While the extensive testing done immediately after the

accident, which found the truck in working order, would seem more compelling,

we agree that this additional evidence, particularly the brake and clutch work,

would have lent some support to Medlock’s position in the grievance proceedings

that some mechanical failure must have been responsible for his runaway

accident. Regrettably, as the undisputed evidence in our record shows, these

subsequent repairs were not brought to the attention of the decision-makers in

Medlock’s case. For that same reason, of course, the fact of the repairs does not

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 18 
-19-

undercut the validity of the decisions to terminate Medlock and deny his

grievance seeking reinstatement. 

Finally, Medlock points out that UPS opposed his application for

unemployment benefits and that the agent engaged by UPS to represent it in the

proceedings falsely stated that Medlock had left the scene of the accident, failed

to report the accident, and had only been put on suspension or disciplinary leave.

Needless to say, the agent’s actions are disreputable and distressing. But there is

no evidence tying those actions to the decision-makers involved in Medlock’s

termination and non-reinstatement. And UPS’s opposition to Medlock’s

application for benefits on the ground of misconduct does not imply any hidden

agenda, much less a specifically age-discriminatory agenda, behind the decisions

made by Cortez and Hoffman. In their view, Medlock had committed a serious

infraction by failing to follow prescribed procedures and then attempted to deny

responsibility for his actions. 

In sum, Medlock has not demonstrated a triable issue of pretext through

comparison with other UPS employees or presentation of other circumstances

sufficient to support a reasonable inference of age discrimination. As noted at the

outset, however, he also insists that he offered direct evidence sufficient to make

out a triable case of discrimination. We turn to that point next. 

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 19 
9 The quotations above are from Medlock’s interrogatory answer about the

incident. His appellate brief also refers to an affidavit from a third-party witness

that supports his account, though the affidavit is less specific in certain respects.

See Aplt. Opening Br. at 20 (quoting Aplt. App. at 405). 

-20-

IV. Direct Evidence of Age Discrimination

The direct evidence Medlock offered to show age bias consisted of a

conversation with Brent Kashwer, his direct supervisor, in the parking lot of the

UPS Tulsa Center within a week of his termination. Medlock’s version of the

conversation, which we must credit at the summary judgment stage even if

Kashwer were to dispute it, included two exchanges that he contends reveal age

bias. The conversation began with Kashwer telling Medlock that he “‘need[ed] to

speed up’” his work and adding, “‘I don’t know what we are going to do with

you.’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 20 (quoting Aplt. App. at 403-04).9

 This initial part

of the conversation is not direct evidence of discrimination. As we have already

noted, management concerns over slow work pace are clearly legitimate and

facially neutral and cannot simply be equated with age bias. Moreover, it is

undisputed that work-pace concerns played no role in Medlock’s case. 

The latter part of the conversation, touching on the subject of retirement, is

more intrinsically related to age. Kashwer asked Medlock, “‘How long he would

continue working for UPS.’” Id. (quoting Aplt. App. at 403). Tired of being

harassed off the clock about UPS business, Medlock stated that he intended to

work until he was 80, to which Kashwer replied “‘No we can’t have that.’” Id.

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 20 
-21-

(quoting Aplt. App. at 404). One such brief, and apparently facetious, exchange

would be a slender reed indeed on which to send a case to trial for discrimination,

even if the supervisor making the comment had been the decision-maker with

respect to the action challenged as discriminatory. Here, it is undisputed that

Kashwer exercised no authority as to either Medlock’s termination or the denial

of his reinstatement, nor is there any evidence that he attempted to indirectly

determine the outcome in either case. “In order to rely on age related statements,

[plaintiff] must show that they were made by a decision maker, and that there was

a nexus between the discriminatory statements and the decision to terminate.” 

McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 1998)

(following Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass’n, 14 F.3d 526, 531 (10th Cir.

1994)). 

In sum, Medlock failed to present material direct evidence of age bias. We

are thus left with a record that does not support an inference of discrimination

either directly or through undermining the legitimate and facially neutral reasons

given for his termination and non-reinstatement. The district court therefore

properly granted summary judgment for UPS on Medlock’s ADEA claim. 

V. Burk Tort Claim

Medlock argues that the district court erred in summarily concluding that

his Burk tort claim for age discrimination failed for the same reasons that his

ADEA claim failed, because the two claims are governed by different causation

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 21 
10 Burk provides a tort remedy only for an employee’s actual or constructive

(continued...)

-22-

standards. We recognize the difference in legal standards, but conclude that it is

not material to the disposition of this case. 

While, as noted earlier, the “significant factor” test for the Burk tort claim

does not require but-for causation, it imposes much more than some de minimus

burden on the plaintiff. It “requir[es] a showing of more than a mere causal link,”

in that “a factor may be a cause without being significant.” Elzey v. Forrest,

739 P.2d 999, 1001-02 (Okla. 1987). The plaintiff “must do more than show that

[age] was only one of many possible factors resulting in his discharge.” Wallace

v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Okla. 1993); see White v. Am. Airlines,

Inc., 915 F.2d 1414, 1419-20 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding trial court erred by

instructing jury that employer would be liable under Burk if plaintiff showed

improper motive was “a factor in the decision to discharge him,” rather than a

significant factor). 

It is not necessary to set out our evaluation of the deficiencies in Medlock’s

evidence all over again here specifically with reference to the significant-factor

test. What we have already said should adequately explain why, in our view,

Medlock has failed to create a triable case that age played any role, much less a

significant role, in the decisions to terminate his employment under Article 52

and subsequently to deny reinstatement in the grievance process.10 In particular,

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 22 
10(...continued)

discharge. See, e.g., Vasek v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 186 P.3d 928, 934

(Okla. 2008); Mason v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 23 P.3d 964,

968 (Okla. Ct. App. 2000) (citing case law establishing that Burk “applies only to

cases of wrongful termination of employment”). Thus, Burk tort claims have been

dismissed when premised on other employment-related decisions, such as denial

of promotion, York v. AT&T Co., 95 F.3d 948, 959 (10th Cir. 1996),

demotion/reassignment, Davis v. Bd. of Regents for Okla. State. Univ., 25 P.3d

308, 310 (Okla. Ct. App. 2001), and failure to hire, Williams v. Dub Ross Co.,

895 P.2d 1344, 1346-47 (Okla. Ct. App. 1995); Sanchez v. Philip Morris Inc.,

992 F.2d 244, 249 (10th Cir. 1993). It is quite possible that Medlock’s claim,

insofar as it relies on the refusal to reinstate distinct from the initial termination

decision, is not even actionable under Burk. Given our disposition, however, we

need not resolve that question. 

Indeed, there may be a second threshold impediment to Medlock’s Burk tort

claim. Medlock was not terminable at will: Article 52 of the CBA provides that

UPS must have “just cause” in order to fire an employee. Aplt. App. at 144. The

Oklahoma cases uniformly cite as an element of the Burk tort that the plaintiff be

an at-will employee. Earlier in the development of this area of the law, we

predicted “that Oklahoma would permit a Burk action by an employee who could

be fired only for ‘just cause.’” Davies v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 971 F.2d 463, 469

(10th Cir. 1992). But recent decisions by Oklahoma courts have strictly enforced

the at-will requirement, rejecting claims by a classified employee under the

Oklahoma Personnel Act who could not be fired absent just cause, McCrady v.

Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 122 P.3d 473, 475-76 (Okla. 2005), and by a police

officer who could be fired only for cause, Wilson v. City of Tulsa, 91 P.3d 673,

681 (Okla. Ct. App. 2004). Again, given our disposition, we need not resolve this

question. 

-23-

the mere fact that Cortez left open the hypothetical possibility that Medlock could

have been denied reinstatement for some other reason even if he had admitted

fault for his runaway accident did not affirmatively support an inference that

age discrimination would have been an operative factor, much less a significant

one. To recognize this point is not to somehow improperly equate the but-for

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 23 
-24-

standard applicable to Medlock’s ADEA claim with the significant-factor test that

governs the disposition of his Burk tort claim. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellate Case: 09-5109 Document: 01018445001 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 24