Opinion ID: 588143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Basis of the Grant of Summary Judgment is Erroneous.

Text: 8 The district court entered summary judgment on Reed's Title VII claims after finding that he had lied on his employment application. The court based its decision on Summers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir.1988), a case holding that an employer need not reinstate an employee if, absent the discriminatory firing, the employee would have been fired for violating company rules. We find Summers distinguishable from Reed's case. 9 In 1976, Reed was convicted of armed robbery. Two years after the conviction, Reed denied being convicted of a felony on a job application submitted to AMAX. The job application specifically stated that such falsifications were grounds for dismissal. 10 AMAX first discovered the falsified application during Reed's hearing before the IHRC. Because it discovered the misrepresentations after Reed's termination, AMAX could not use them as a justification for firing him; instead, it moved for summary judgment on the theory that the falsifications barred any potential relief under Title VII. The court agreed and granted summary judgment. 11 A court may grant summary judgment if it determines that the plaintiff is not entitled to his requested relief. See id. In Summers, for example, the plaintiff claimed that his former employer terminated him because of his age and religion. Id. at 702. After the suit was filed, the employer learned that the employee had forged one-hundred and fifty company documents. Id. at 704. The employer presented evidence showing that it could have fired the employee for the falsifications alone and that it would have done so. Id. at 708. Based on this evidence, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a remedy because he would have been fired for the falsifications, if not for his age. Id. at 709. 12 The Summers case is not as broad as AMAX would have us believe. Summers and analogous cases require proof that the employer would have fired the employee, not simply that it could have fired him. See Mount Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (requires proof that an employer would have fired an employee for constitutional reasons where an employee also fired for unconstitutional reasons); Summers, 864 F.2d at 705; see also Smith v. General Scanning, Inc., 876 F.2d 1315, 1319 (7th Cir.1989) (applicant not entitled to back pay and reinstatement where he never met the minimum educational requirements for his job). We must require similar proof to prevent employers from avoiding Title VII liability by pointing to minor rule violations which may technically subject the employee to dismissal but would not, in fact, result in discharge. 13 Unlike the employer in Summers, AMAX never proved that it would have fired Reed for lying on his application; it only proved that it could have done so. AMAX did not, for instance, provide proof that other employees were fired in similar circumstances. (Document No. 79 and attachments). We, therefore, may not affirm for the reasons given by the district court. 2 14