Opinion ID: 2781980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims resolved on summary judgment

Text: “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards that the district court should have applied.” Green v. Donahoe, 760 F.3d 1135, 1146 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We may grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[W]e examine the record and all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” which in this case is Tadlock. Green, 760 F.3d at 1146 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital because it concluded that Tadlock’s first right-to-sue letter from the EEOC encompassed her right to sue on her disability claims and that, as a result, her ADA claims were not timely. Tadlock argues that the district court erred in making this determination, and we agree. However, we reverse the summary judgment ruling only as to her claimed disabilities that have been administratively exhausted before the EEOC, which we determine to include her back injuries but not her Type II diabetes. Exhaustion of administrative remedies for federal employment 9 discrimination claims “is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.” Jones, 502 F.3d at 1183. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), a party who wishes to pursue a claim of employment discrimination in federal court must first file a formal charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the “alleged unlawful employment practice.” If the EEOC does not wish to pursue the claim on the party’s behalf, it will issue a “right-to-sue letter,” and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), the party has 90 days after receiving such a letter to file a lawsuit. If the claimant fails to file suit within 90 days, the claims alleged in the EEOC charge are foreclosed, even if the 300-day period for filing charges with the EEOC has not elapsed. See Brown v. Unified Sch. Dist. 501, Topeka Pub. Sch., 465 F.3d 1184, 1186 (10th Cir. 2006). Frequently, however, plaintiffs amend their claims in employment discrimination lawsuits factually and legally from what was presented to the EEOC, and we must analyze whether a plaintiff has sufficiently presented her current claims to the EEOC. In Jones, a case on which the district court relied, we stated that although charges are to be “liberally construe[d]” in the favor of the plaintiff, “our inquiry is limited to the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow from the discriminatory acts alleged in the administrative charge.” 502 F.3d at 1186 (emphasis in original omitted). The question before us in this case is whether Tadlock’s ADA claims were covered by her original EEOC charge, which on its face claimed only “retaliation” as a basis for discrimination and stated that the retaliation was based 10 on Title VII, not the ADA. When determining what the EEOC likely investigated, we have said, “[t]he failure to mark a particular box creates a presumption that the charging party is not asserting claims represented by that box. The presumption may be rebutted, however, if the text of the charge clearly sets forth the basis of the claim.” Id. (internal citation omitted). In Jones, we concluded that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies as to an ADA claim because, despite not checking the appropriate box on his EEOC questionnaire, he had made other comments on the questionnaire indicating he had a work-related injury. Id. at 1186-87. For example, he stated that he felt that UPS had unfairly refused to allow him to return to full duty. Id. at 1187. He also filled out a section of the questionnaire devoted to making a disability claim. Id. at 1186-87. Based on the entirety of the questionnaire, the court determined that the EEOC reasonably would have investigated Jones’s disability claims. Id. at 1187. However, Jones is distinguishable from the instant case. In Jones, we were attempting to divine from Jones’s questionnaire what the EEOC investigated before it issued him a generic right-to-sue letter; there was no formal charge of discrimination stating the basis of Jones’s claim. In contrast, the EEOC in this case prepared a charge on Tadlock’s behalf, and that charge referred only to Tadlock’s belief that she was retaliated against on Title VII grounds. There is no reasonable explanation as to why EEOC staff would not have checked the 11 “disability” box for Tadlock if they actually thought she was pursuing a disability claim based on her initial letter and questionnaire. We decline to infer that the EEOC reasonably investigated the possibility of an ADA claim when it made no indication of such an investigation in its documentation of Tadlock’s claim. Therefore, we conclude that Tadlock’s ADA claim was administratively exhausted by her second EEOC charge, not her first, and is timely. The hospital argues that a second right-to-sue letter can only extend the deadline to file a suit if the EEOC has reconsidered the charge on its merits or if new facts or evidence are presented. However, the cases cited by the hospital—Washington v. City of Gulfport, 2008 WL 4793757 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2008) and Sparks v. Lowe’s Home Center, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Tex. 2004)—are not persuasive on either score. First, they are factually distinguishable. In Washington, the district court dismissed a claim against the city as untimely when the plaintiff had filed an earlier EEOC charge against the city and a later charge against a different entity; there was no question that the earlier right-to-sue letter covered the city and the alleged discrimination at issue. See 2008 WL 4793757, at -2. In Sparks, both EEOC charges at issue claimed discrimination under the ADA on their face. 341 F. Supp. 2d at 672-74. Moreover, neither adequately addresses the law of this circuit. Although Sparks states that a right-to-sue deadline can only be extended if the EEOC chooses to reconsider the case, id., our caselaw does not indicate any such requirement and 12 appears generally favorable to the idea that plaintiffs may file additional charges based on new facts or legal theories. See Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting plaintiff’s discussion of sex discrimination in a charge alleging retaliation would have been considered a “prelude” or “explanation” of the grounds for retaliation rather than a separate claim had she not amended the charge with the EEOC). The hospital also makes much of the fact that Tadlock had consulted with a workers’ compensation attorney at the time she began the EEOC administrative process, but Tadlock’s letter to the EEOC raises an issue of fact as to whether she actually received advice from that attorney about an EEOC complaint. Having concluded Tadlock’s ADA claim is not time-barred, we must next analyze whether she exhausted her administrative remedies as to her claimed disabilities. Her second EEOC charge stated that she was discriminated against based on disc and nerve conditions caused by an on-the-job injury. However, in response to the hospital’s summary judgment motion, she amended her disability to include her non-injury-related degenerative disc disease and Type II diabetes. A liberal reading of the charge would encompass the degenerative disc disease. The definition of “disability” under the ADA does not require that the EEOC analyze the cause of the disability, but rather determine whether it “substantially limits one or more major life activities of [an] individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). Tadlock provided a relatively clear description of her back 13 injuries in her second charge and stated that they caused “exhaustion from standing or walking for long periods, trouble sitting for extended periods, and caring for myself.” App. at 240. Such allegations are sufficient to exhaust her remedies as to degenerative disc disease, which contributed to the disc and nerve issues stated on the claim. However, Tadlock did not state in her charge that she was discriminated against based on her Type II diabetes. There is a brief reference to diabetes in the email print-outs that accompanied her first charge of discrimination. Id. at 225 (“I told you about my toe and how I was worried about it because I am diabetic.”). But we conclude that is insufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies as to that claimed disability. MacKenzie v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266, 1274 & n.13 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding a plaintiff did not exhaust her remedies for a disability claim based on depression when she originally claimed her disability was coronary disease). The hospital also argues Tadlock has not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination because she did not establish she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) (“a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual”). “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that [s]he is ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that [s]he is qualified—with or without reasonable accommodation; 14 and (3) that [s]he was discriminated against because of h[er] disability.” Butler v. City of Prairie Vill., Kan., 172 F.3d 736, 748 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, the hospital argues that because Tadlock’s claim was based on a temporary, injury-related condition, she has not established that she is disabled. Aplee. Br. at 13 (citing Bush v. Donahoe, 964 F. Supp. 2d 401, 417 (W.D. Pa. 2013)). Without belaboring the point, the summary judgment record on her disability contains medical records that establish at least a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of a long-term disability. Tadlock also claimed in her second EEOC charge she had difficulty standing, walking, or sitting for extended periods of time, which would constitute one of more major life activities under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), and her medical records support such claims. 3 The hospital also argues that Tadlock did not establish the third element of the prima facie case, that her separation occurred “under circumstances which give rise to an inference that the termination was based on her disability.” Aplee. Br. at 14 (citing Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997)). 3 Notably, the second element of the prima facie case is not discussed by either party in detail. Tadlock pleaded in her complaint that she was able to perform her “sedentary” managerial job without accommodation and that it was just the additional duties and overtime that had caused problems with her disability. App. at 3. Although the hospital submitted evidence that the job description listed the dietary manager job as requiring being on one’s feet for two-thirds or more of the time, such descriptions are not dispositive in our analysis of whether someone is able to perform the essential functions of her job, nor did the hospital dispute on summary judgment or on appeal that Tadlock was qualified. Hennagir v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 1255, 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (listing factors). 15 Moreover, the hospital argues that it provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for accelerating her resignation, and that Tadlock did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut those reasons as pretextual. We disagree. Tadlock correctly points to the temporal proximity between her discussions with hospital superiors about her physical injuries and requests for time off and her eventual separation from the hospital as something that could both satisfy the third element of the prima facie case and “lend support to the pretext analysis.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 7; see Pastran v. K-Mart Corp., 210 F.3d 1201, 1206 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Close temporal proximity between the employee’s complaint and the adverse employment action is a factor in determining whether the employer’s proffered reason is a pretext for retaliation.”). Regardless, Tadlock notes that it is often inappropriate for an appellate court to serve as a fact finder in cases such as these, and we agree. Schiller v. Moore, 30 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 1994) (“While it is true that we review the district court’s decision de novo, it is not appropriate for us to make factual findings on appeal.”). The district court made no factual findings as to whether Tadlock had met her burden of establishing a prima facie case, and we therefore remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on this claim.
Under Oklahoma law, an employee alleging retaliation based on a workers’ compensation claim must prove: “1) employment; 2) a job related injury; 3) 16 medical treatment so that the employer is put on notice or a good faith start of Workers’ compensation proceedings and; 4) consequent termination.” Wallace v. Halliburton Co., 850 P.2d 1056, 1059 (Okla. 1993) (emphasis in original omitted). The district court found that the first three elements had been met, and the hospital does not appear to challenge those findings on appeal. Thus, this appeal centers on Tadlock’s claim that the district court erred in concluding that she had not established the fourth element of a prima facie workers’ compensation retaliation claim, “consequent termination.” The district court concluded that the timing between the hospital’s knowledge of Tadlock’s workers’ compensation action and termination was not sufficient to establish that the termination was retaliatory under Oklahoma law. Indeed, Oklahoma courts have said as much. See Thompson v. Medley Material Handling, Inc., 732 P.2d 461, 464 (Okla. 1987); Wallace, 850 P.2d at 1059 (“[T]iming does not by itself give rise to the level of evidence required to establish a prima facie case.”). In addition to timing, Tadlock also argues that the hospital’s “false denials of knowledge” regarding Tadlock’s workers’ compensation claim “ha[ve] special significance” as circumstantial evidence that the hospital was retaliating against her for filing a claim. The district court rejected that evidence as insufficient to establish “consequent termination” under Oklahoma law, and we agree. The hospital’s attorney unsuccessfully argued in his motion for summary judgment that the change in ownership between Integris and Marshall County HMA meant 17 that Marshall County HMA was unaware of Tadlock’s claim against Integris despite the fact that the employees of the hospital were essentially the same under both owners. However, nothing in the record indicates that any individual hospital employee denied knowledge of Tadlock’s workers’ compensation claim. By contrast, the record reflects several points at which employees were asked about paperwork related to Tadlock’s workers’ compensation claim, and the employees agreed that they had seen it or had knowledge of it. That the district court did not accept the hospital’s argument does not indicate that it is evidence of hospital employees denying their knowledge of Tadlock’s claim in bad faith. Tadlock also appears to argue for the first time on appeal that the hospital’s “own evidence showed a ‘consequent termination’ and precluded summary judgment on that issue.” Aplt. Br. at 11. Specifically, she points to an email attached as an exhibit to the hospital’s summary judgment motion in which the hospital’s human resources director stated, “Now that I’ve had the chance to really digest this information, it appears that Rhonda is trying for whatever sticks at this point.” App. at 192. Such a statement suggests that hospital employees believed Tadlock was making bad-faith claims against the hospital and accelerated her “resignation” to counteract them. Moreover, Oklahoma law would appear to consider such statements probative evidence of “consequent termination.” Thompson, 732 P.2d at 464 (“He does not even allege that his supervisors or others at any time made any reference regarding termination as a 18 result of bringing the Workers’ Compensation action.”); Taylor v. Cache Creek Nursing Centers, 891 P.2d 607, 610 (Okla. Ct. App. 1994) (“[P]laintiff has failed to show that her firing was such a consequence. There is no evidence, for example, showing a pattern of termination of workers who filed claims, or of pressure put on workers not to file claims. Plaintiff does not allege her supervisor or other employer representative referred to the claim.”). However, arguments not raised before the district court are waived on appeal. Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 721 (10th Cir. 1993). Although the email in question was attached as an exhibit to both the hospital’s summary judgment motion and to Tadlock’s response, Tadlock never argued to the district court that it was evidence of “consequent termination” and we will not consider it now. Thus, we affirm the district court’s holding that Tadlock did not provide sufficient evidence of “consequent termination” to establish a prima facie case of workers’ compensation retaliation under Oklahoma law.