Court Opinion

ID: 9533702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:34:03.30631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:08.302031
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
dissenting: The majority opinion states the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights and the trial court “both found appellant’s reasons offered for Woods’ termination were *743not legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons,” and then concludes this court’s duty is to “determine if this finding is supported by substantial competent evidence.” This statement is misleading. It is, however, highly significant and serves well as the focal point for beginning the discussion of how the majority, in my opinion, reached its legally incorrect result in this case.
Let us first view the statement as it relates to the KCCR. The KCCR, in its order, stated the applicable burden of proof to be as follows:
“With respect to the burden of proof, it is incumbent upon the Complainant in the first instance to establish a prima facie case and thereafter in order to rebut the prima facie showing, the Respondent is required by clear and convincing evidehce to establish that its acts or conduct were justified or nondiscriminatory. If the Respondent is successful in rebutting the prima facie showing of the Complainant, the Complainant is granted the opportunity to show by competent evidence that the acts and conduct of the Respondent were a pure pretext.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The KCCR then concluded:
“Based upon all the evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom, the Complainant has clearly established his prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of his race in violation of his rights protected under K.S.A. 44-1009(a)(l), in the terms and conditions of his employment and also the manner in which he was terminated on August 11, 1977. Respondent has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant was not discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his employment and that he was terminated for any justifiable reasons.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Midwest appealed this order to the district court where it was affirmed with the trial court utilizing the same clear and convincing evidence burden of proof standard levied against Midwest as enunciated by the KCCR. Midwest appealed to this court. This court specifically and unequivocably rejected this standard on the burden of proof. In Woods v. Midwest Conveyor Co., 231 Kan. 763, 648 P.2d 234 (1982) (Woods I), this court stated:
“Appellant claims it was error to require it to show by clear and convincing evidence its acts were justified or nondiscriminatory. It cites Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 67 L.Ed.2d 207, 101 S.Ct. 1089 (1981), a case dealing with Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 200e et seq. In the opinion Justice Powell wrote for a unanimous court:
“ ‘In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), we set forth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case *744alleging discriminatory treatment. First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id., at 802. Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Id., at 804.
“ ‘The nature of the burden that shifts to the defendant should be understood in light of the plaintiffs ultimate and intermediate burdens. The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff. See Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24, 25, n. 2 (1978); id., at 29 (Stevens J., dissenting) ....
“ ‘The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous. . . . The prima facie case serves an important function in the litigation: it eliminates the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiff s rejection. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358, and n. 44 (1977). . . . Establishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. If the trier of fact believes the plaintiffs evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case.
“ ‘The burden that shifts to the defendant, therefore, is to rebut the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons. See Sweeney, supra, at 25. It is sufficient if the defendant’s evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff. To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff s rejection. The explanation provided must be legally sufficient to justify a judgment for the defendant. If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted, and the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity. Placing this burden of production on the defendant thus serves simultaneously to meet the plaintiffs prima facie case by presenting a legitimate reason for the action and to frame the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. The sufficiency of the defendant’s evidence should be evaluated by the extent to which it fulfills these functions.
“ ‘The plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion. She now must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision. This burden now merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she had been the victim of intentional discrimination. She may succeed in this either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-805.’
*745“We note the federal court was careful in Burdine to point out that the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the respondent intentionally discriminated against the complainant remains at all times with the complainant. The burden of proof never shifts to the respondent. It is the burden of going forward with the evidence that is placed on defendant after plaintiff has established a prima facie case.
“Federal court decisions concerning Title VII are not controlling on this court. Harder v. Kansas Comm’n on Civil Rights, 225 Kan. 556, 559, 592 P.2d 456 (1979). They are persuasive authority, however. McCabe v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 5 Kan. App.2d 232, 235, 615 P.2d 780 (1980). Especially is this true when they concern general law in the field of civil rights. We accept and embrace the rules stated in Burdine as to burden of proof, prima facie case and burden of going forward with the evidence in discrimination cases.
“The burden of proof in a proceeding under the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., is on the complainant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is guilty of a discriminatory practice. Initially, the complainant must present a prima facie case of discrimination. Then the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to respondent and this burden may be discharged by evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for respondent’s conduct. Once the respondent discharges this obligation, the complainant must continue with the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by respondent were merely a pretext for discrimination.
“The record discloses the complainant’s evidence was determined by the trier of fact to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. At that point in the proceeding the burden of going forward with the evidence shifted to the respondent to introduce evidence of some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for respondent’s conduct. We do not reach the question of whether respondent met this burden. To give evidence of some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for conduct does not require proof by clear and convincing evidence. The trier of fact erred in imposing such a burden of proof on the respondent.” 231 Kan. at 766 - 68.
The court in Woods I then reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial on all issues. It is important to note that on remand the case returned to the district court for retrial and application of the proper burden of proof. The case was never returned to the KCCR and, hence, that agency has never applied the proper burden of proof to the facts. Yet, the majority states this court’s duty is to determine if the findings of the KCCR and the trial court relative to Midwest’s reasons for Woods’ discharge are supported by substantial competent evidence. The application of the erroneous burden of proof in this crucial area totally nullifies the KCCR’s findings relative to the reasons for Woods’ termination.
Let us, then, look at the trial court’s findings relative to the reasons for Woods’ termination. Specifically, the trial court found *746the reasons enunciated by Midwest for Woods’ termination lacked “credence” and were shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be “merely pretexts” for discriminatory treatment.
“Credence,” as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, New Twentieth Century Edition 405 (1953), is:
“Belief: credit: reliance of the mind on evidence of facts derived from other sources than personal knowledge: as we give credence to a story related by a man of known veracity.”
The use of the term “credence” by the trial court is interesting. Does the court mean it does not believe the reasons stated by Midwest? The reason for discharge is contained in the August 12,1977, memo to Woods by Thomas L. Joslin. This is set forth in full as follows:
“This memo serves as notice of your discharge as an employee of Mid-West Conveyor Company. Your action, directed towards the plant Personnel Manager on August 11, 1977, is considered to have been a threat to do physical harm to him. Specifically: You stood in front of the exit door of the foreman’s office, blocking Mr. Joslin’s way when he stated he was leaving the office; you stated that Mr. Joslin would not leave the office; you placed your hand on Mr. Joslin’s shoulder to stop him from leaving the office; you brought a wrench out of your pocket as you continued to block the exit and state[d] that Mr. Joslin would not leave; and, finally, you took the phone out of Mr. Joslin’s hand when he started to call the police and you told Mr. Joslin that he would not make any call.
“Because there has been an unwillingness in the past on your part to tolerate a two-way conversation, there will be no verbal discussion of this discharge at this time. Your Union Shop Steward is available should you decide to file a grievance over this discharge. Please be advised that, should you desire to file a grievance, it must be presented in writing to the Union within two work days of the date of this discharge or you will forfeit your right to file a grievance under the terms of the Company-Union Contract.
“Any future communications between yourself and the Company or its representatives should be through your Union or other representatives.
“The Union’s address & phone no. is:
Carpenters’ District Council 3114 Paseo
Kansas City, Mo. 64109
Phone No. 931-3414
Business Representative: William Ruby
Signed
/s/ Thomas L. Joslin
Thomas L. Joslin
Personnel Manager.”
The trial court specifically found this reason (contained in August 12 memo) lacked “credence.” Yet the evidence is un*747controverted that the August 11 incident referred to occurred. Woods’ own testimony relative to the incident fully corroborates the sequence of events set forth in the memorandum. Under such circumstances the trial court had no authority to find the incident did not occur or that the testimony relative thereto lacked “credence.” The incident occurred — the incident was the reason enunciated by Midwest for the discharge of Woods.
Legally the question then becomes whether such conduct by Woods is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Woods’ discharge. This is a question of law, not fact. The question must be answered affirmatively.
In Edwards v. Foucar, Ray & Simon, Inc., 24 EPD ¶ 31,208 (N.D. Cal. 1980), quite similar factually to the case before us, the employee’s abusive language to and threatened assault of the employee’s supervisor were held to constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Similar results under factual situations ranging from verbal abuse to actual personal injury were reached in the cases of Carson v. Bolger, 510 F.Supp. 106 (E.D. Mo. 1981); McGraw v. General Motors Corp., 6 EPD ¶ 8850 (E.D. Mo. 1973); Lazard v. Boeing Co., 7 EPD ¶ 9150 (D. La. 1972); and Goodloe v. Martin Marietta, 7 EPD ¶ 9198 (D. Colo. 1972).
My research and the briefs of the parties reveal no case in the United States where conduct such as Woods exhibited in the August 11 incident has ever been held not to be a legitimate reason for discharge. Logic and common sense dictate that severe verbal and physical assaults by an employee upon his or her supervisor constitute legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination. To hold otherwise would condone deportment of this type. It is difficult to conceive of conduct more disruptive to the operation of a company’s business.
The majority opinion, as previously noted, states the KCCR and the trial court “both found appellant’s reasons offered for Woods’ termination were not legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons” and this court’s duty is to “determine if this finding is supported by substantial competent evidence.” To iterate, this is a question of law, not fact. Yet in affirming the trial court, the majority opinion states:
“After Woods discharged his burden of proof by introducing evidence of Midwest’s discrimination, Midwest testified Woods was fired because of his *748restraining Joslin, brandishing a wrench and using abusive language. It claims this is a nondiscriminatory reason for Woods’ termination. The Civil Rights Commission and the trial court found Midwest’s reason for firing Woods to be a-subterfuge and that William Woods had sustained his burden of proof that he was fired as a result of racial discrimination. We are bound by that finding of fact if it is supported by substantial competent evidence. Woods’ testimony, though controverted, furnishes the supporting evidence.
“The rule of law demands that we abide by the rules of construction and affirm the trial court. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
The majority opinion, despite its earlier pronouncement relative to the finding of the KCCR and the trial court that the reason enunciated by Midwest was not a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, bases its affirmance on the rationale that the reason enunciated was a “subterfuge.” Presumably this equates to “pretext” in the burden of proof standard set forth in Woods I. To reach the question of “pretext,” the employer must have previously stated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination. For convenience, the burden of proof set forth in Woods I is repeated at this point:
“The burden of proof in a proceeding under the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., is on the complainant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is guilty of a discriminatory practice. Initially, the complainant must present a prima facie case of discrimination. Then the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to respondent and this burden may be discharged by evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for respondent’s conduct. Once the respondent discharges this obligation, the complainant must continue with the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by respondent were merely a pretext for discrimination.” 231 Kan. 763, Syl. ¶ 2. (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority opinion states that it is utilizing the burden of proof standard of Woods I. Therefore, inasmuch as the majority decides the case on the basis that the reasons enunciated were a “subterfuge” (presumably equating to pretext), it must be assumed the majority concluded the reason espoused was a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason. Otherwise, it could never reach the question of pretext or subterfuge. Yet this lack of specificity in the majority opinion is, by itself, illuminating. It appears the majority of this court and the trial court herein both made the same error of reasoning. Each quoted the burden of proof requirements from Woods I, but failed to apply the same. Neither the trial court nor the majority make any findings of fact to support the bare legal conclusion that the stated legitimate reason of Woods’ discharge was merely a pretext. Indeed they *749could not, as no such evidence was introduced. True, Woods testified he believed his termination was racially motivated rather than for the stated reason. However, this is not evidence sufficient to support a finding the stated reason for termination was a pretext. If it were, the Woods I standards on burden of proof would have little meaning. No one would file an action such as this unless he or she believed the real reason for termination was discriminatory. Again the language of Woods I is iterated: Once the employer shows a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, “the complainant must continue with the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons offered by respondent were merely a pretext for discrimination.” As a matter of law, Woods’ bare, unsupported opinion does not and cannot carry this burden. There was no evidence other employees had behaved in a comparable manner-and had not been terminated. In fact, the personnel manager to whom Woods’ conduct was directed testified nothing similar had ever occurred. There was no evidence that Woods was “set up” to explode in anger in order to justify termination. The evidence is all to the contrary. Woods’ initial error in filing an ambiguous notice of vacation set the wheels in motion. He stated he would be on vacation August 3 -10,1977. Under that he wrote “5 days.” If beginning and ending days were taken (August 3 and 10), Woods would be absent six days (the plant operates on a five-day week). Uncontroverted evidence was introduced most employees take 1, 2 or 3 week vacations. Some unidentified clerical person, acting on his or her own initiative, logging in the Woods’ notice, noticed the inconsistency and corrected August 10 to August 9 to conform with the “5 days” stated thereon. On August 10, Woods’ absence was called to management’s attention by Woods’ foreman. A notice of termination was prepared in accordance with the plant’s union labor contract. This contract contained a disciplinary point system. Woods already had 41 disciplinary points. The five additional points for the unauthorized absence pushed him over the 45 points which required termination. Woods had, inter alia, been disciplined twice that same year, under the point system, for abusive language. The later incident included a warning that termination would occur upon any further such outbursts. Management did not keep the termination a secret. Woods was told by fellow employees on *750August 10 he was being terminated for his absence that day (they talked to him at home). On the morning of August 11, he returned to work. Shortly thereafter his foreman asked Woods to accompany him to the personnel manager’s office and advised that he was being terminated for his absence the previous day. When Woods went to the office, the personnel manager and union steward were there. Woods exploded in anger — using abusive language, physically restraining the personnel manager from leaving, and, later, from calling the police. He pulled a wrench from his overalls and waved it in what was perceived as a threatening manner. The error in the form was discovered, the termination notice was withdrawn, and Woods was told to go back to work. He was advised that some discipline would be imposed for his conduct in the office. The following day the notice of termination for the August 11 incident (previously set forth in full herein) was prepared and delivered. There simply is no evidence of conspiracy to “get” Woods or of bad faith by Midwest in handling the matter. There being no evidence the reason for termination was a pretext, then, as a matter of law, Woods has failed to meet his burden of proof.
Some comments need to be made on the issue raised relative to damages. Midwest contends the trial court misapplied the pay scale set forth in the collective bargaining agreement in computing back pay. Unfortunately, the pay scale is not included in the record on appeal and, accordingly, there is no way to determine the validity of this allegation. However, I do believe there is merit in Midwest’s contention that the trial court ignored the legal significance of Woods’ voluntary termination of his employment with the City of Kansas City. Woods testified he quit the job to seek higher paying work. There is no reason given why it was necessary to quit one job before seeking another. I believe that in computing damages it is proper to give Midwest credit for income Woods would have earned had he not quit his job with the municipality.
I would reverse the judgment of the district court.
Schroeder, C.J., and Holmes, J., join in the foregoing dissent.