Opinion ID: 155149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kansas Common Law Claim

Text: In addition to his FLSA claim, Conner asserts a retaliatory discharge claim under the public policy exception to Kansas’ employment-at-will doctrine, citing Murphy v. City of Topeka, 630 P.2d 186, 187-88 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). The district court dismissed this claim as precluded by the alternative statutory remedy available under the FLSA. The court relied on Polson v. Davis, 895 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1990), where we held the Kansas Supreme Court would not allow a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge when an adequate statutory remedy exists under Kansas law. Id. at 709. Conner claims that the Polson rationale is limited to situations where the plaintiff has an adequate statutory remedy under state law, and does not apply to situations where the plaintiff seeks statutory relief under federal law. However, we have expressly held that the Polson rationale extends to plaintiffs seeking to assert a common law cause of action for retaliation when they have a federal statutory right. Masters v. Daniels Int’l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir. 1990). - 21 - Moreover, the district court determined that no reasonable jury could find for Conner on a common law retaliation claim because the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach is used for state as well as federal retaliatory discharge claims. (citing Huffman v. Ace Elec. Co., Inc., 883 F. Supp. 1469, 1475 (D. Kan. 1995)). For the same reasons that Conner fails to survive summary judgment on his FLSA claim if McDonnell Douglas is applied, he would fail to survive summary judgment on his state claim, even if we were to recognize such a claim. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Schnuck Markets with respect to Conner’s common law retaliation claim.