Opinion ID: 1375811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Do Genuine Issues of Material Fact Remain?

Text: Our standard of review on summary judgment is stated in Mitzner v. State Dept. of SRS, 257 Kan. 258, 260-61, 891 P.2d 435 (1995). The Court of Appeals decided that the third McKennon prong (if the employer had known of the misconduct, the employer would have discharged the plaintiff) of the after-acquired evidence doctrine test was satisfied, and neither party sought review of that determination. However, we consider review of that prong included in review of the question of whether the other two prongs were satisfied. The Court of Appeals found that material issues of fact remained as to the first two prongs. We agree and find material issues of fact remain as to the third prong, as well. Good Samaritan attached to its motion for summary judgment the affidavit of its administrator, Craig Goth, which provided in pertinent part: 3. The Employee Handbook distributed to all employees requires immediate termination for any employee found to have engaged in `theft from coworker(s), resident(s), and/or the facility.' There are no exceptions to this policy. 4. Pursuant to express Company policy, I would have been required to immediately terminate Peggy Gassmann once I learned of her theft of Company property. 5. If Gassmann would have still been employed by Good Samaritan at the time I learned of her theft of Company property, I would have immediately terminated her. The affidavit only mentions Gassmann's theft of Company property. It does not describe what the theft was or identify Gassmann's misconduct. Is Good Samaritan claiming that Gassmann's taking the videotape home was the act of theft (although it was returned the next morning)? Is Gassmann's copying of that tape considered by Good Samaritan to be the theft? Goth's affidavit does not answer even these initial questions. The affidavit does not discuss whether Good Samaritan had a policy requiring employees to watch videotapes of in-service meetings they did not attend, or whether Good Samaritan allowed employees to take those tapes home to watch. If Good Samaritan allowed employees to take the videotapes home to watch, then Gassmann's taking the tape home, watching it, and returning it the next morning would not be theft. The affidavit provides no information about what Good Samaritan's policies were regarding the in-service meeting videotapes. Gassmann's affidavit contradicts her deposition testimony to the extent she claims in her affidavit that the only restriction on taking home videotapes of in-service meetings was to return them for others to watch. Questions of fact cannot be created by affidavit statements in response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment when the affidavits contradict prior deposition testimony. Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 233 Kan. 38, 42, 47, 661 P.2d 348 (1983). Even if the contradicted portions of Gassmann's affidavit are discounted, the Keenan affidavit remains. Neither the Gassmann nor Keenan affidavits said that Gassmann's copying of the videotape was within the bounds of company policy. However, Good Samaritan is not relying on Gassmann's breach of confidentiality in arguing that the after-acquired evidence doctrine should apply. Good Samaritan relies solely on theft. In McKennon, the discharged employee's misconduct (taking home confidential company financial records) concerned her breach of confidentiality. Good Samaritan presented no evidence regarding confidentiality in its motion for summary judgment. Even assuming Good Samaritan had presented confidentiality evidence, if Good Samaritan routinely allowed its employees to take home videotapes of in-service meetings to watch, there is a question as to the confidentiality of those tapes. The purpose for which Gassmann took home the tape, copied it, and gave the copy to Keenan, although relevant to show a breach of confidentiality or lack of loyalty, seems less relevant to whether a theft occurred. The Goth affidavit is so conclusory that none of the McKennon prongs are satisfied. All the Goth affidavit establishes is that if Gassmann had committed theft of company property and Good Samaritan had known about it, Gassmann would have been terminated, as provided by the personnel handbook. The affidavit never identified what Good Samaritan considered to be Gassmann's act of theft. The Goth affidavit does not say that had Good Samaritan known that Gassmann had taken home a videotape, copied it, and returned the original videotape, Good Samaritan would have fired her. Gassmann contradicted the conclusory allegation of theft with the two affidavits asserting that Good Samaritan allowed its employees to take the videotapes home to watch, so long as they were returned. The Court of Appeals compares the definition of criminal theft under K.S.A. 21-3701(a), urged by Gassmann, and the dictionary definition, urged by Good Samaritan. Theft is not defined in the employee handbook. However, regardless of which definition is applied, the answer to the question of whether Good Samaritan allowed its employees to take videotapes home to watch will bear significantly on the theft issue. Material issues of fact remain. The Court of Appeals is affirmed in adopting the after-acquired evidence doctrine. The Court of Appeals is also affirmed in its holding that there remained material fact issues as to the first two McKennon prongs. We broaden the remand to the district court and reverse summary judgment on all three prongs. LARSON, J., not participating. E. NEWTON VICKERS, Senior Judge, assigned. [1]