Balding v. Sunbelt Steel Texas

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ROBERT J. BALDING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 16-4095
(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00090-CW)
SUNBELT STEEL TEXAS, INC.; (D. Utah)
SUNBELT STEEL TEXAS, LLC;
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.,
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BALDOCK, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After he was fired from his job as a steel salesman, Robert Balding sued his
employer, Sunbelt Steel Texas, Inc., its predecessor, Sunbelt Steel Texas, LLC
(together, Sunbelt), and Sunbelt’s parent company, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.
(Reliance). He asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
enrichment1 under Utah state law, and for violations of the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district
court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, and Balding
appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse on the
breach-of-contract claim as to both Sunbelt and Reliance and affirm in all other
respects.
BACKGROUND
In April 2009, Balding began working as a salesman for Sunbelt, a distributor
of specialty steel bar headquartered in Texas. Balding was the lone Sunbelt
employee based in Utah. The terms of his compensation were originally set out in an
email from Sunbelt’s Vice-President of Sales, Jerry Wasson: $30,000 a year in base
salary plus 1.5% commissions on “total gross sales.” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 56.
Wasson told Balding his base salary was lower than that of a salesman who could not
earn commissions and he could not “have it both ways” (i.e., higher salary and
commissions). Id. Sunbelt never paid Balding any commissions, but it did raise his
base salary to $40,000 in January 2010. Sunbelt’s Executive Vice President, Kathy
Rutledge, who directly supervised Balding at the time, claimed she told Balding the
raise was in lieu of commissions, but Balding denied ever having been told that.
1
We will refer to this claim as the “unjust enrichment” claim. See Jones v.
Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler, 355 P.3d 1000, 1012 (Utah 2015) (explaining that
unjust enrichment, also known as “[c]ontracts implied in law” or “quasi-contract[],”
is one of quantum meruit’s “two distinct branches” (the other being “contracts
implied in fact”)). In this claim, Balding sought relief under the “unjust enrichment”
branch of quantum meruit. See Aplt. App., Vol. I at 35.
2
Sunbelt later raised his base salary to $45,000 in April 2011, $52,000 in January
2012, and $60,000 in May 2012. Between December 2010 and October 2012,
Sunbelt also paid Balding seven bonuses totaling $23,250.
During the course of his employment with Sunbelt, Balding suffered from, and
Sunbelt was aware of, various medical issues, including a panic attack on
November 20, 2013. The next day, Balding informed Sunbelt that his doctor
recommended he take some time off work, and Sunbelt told him he could do so.
While Balding was out, his supervisor, Mike Kowalski, Jr., was monitoring his
email. On November 26, one of Balding’s customers, Weatherford, emailed Balding
about the status of an order and also emailed him a copy of the associated purchase
order, which was dated November 5, 2013. Kowalski and Sunbelt’s Inside Sales
Manager, Todd Perrin, investigated and determined that although the order had not
been entered into Sunbelt’s system, Balding had promised Weatherford by email on
November 21 that the order was “in process,” he was “rushing [it] through,” the
“dock date” would be “3 days,” and the parts would be “to freight forwarder” by
November 26, 2013. Id., Vol. II at 355–56. According to Kowalski and Perrin, none
of that could have been true without a purchase order in Sunbelt’s system.
Kowalski and Perrin called Balding and asked why he had told Weatherford
the order was in process. According to Kowalski, Balding denied having told
Weatherford the order was in process until Kowalski revealed that he had reviewed
Balding’s email. But according to Balding, he told Kowalski he did not know why
he had not entered the Weatherford order, and that although Kowalski accused him of
3
lying about his representations to Weatherford, he told Kowalski he had reserved
steel bars for the order while waiting for the hardcopy of the purchase order.
Kowalski Jr. then informed Rutledge and Sunbelt’s President, Mike Kowalski,
Sr., what had happened. The three of them agreed to terminate Balding’s
employment because he had made misrepresentations about the order to Weatherford
and then lied about it to them, and because Kowalski Jr. previously had received
complaints from two of Balding’s other customers, had issued a written warning in
August 2013 to Balding based one of those complaints, and had issued another
written warning less than two weeks prior to the Weatherford incident because
Balding was consistently late with reports and his voicemail was constantly full.
Rutledge called Balding that day (November 26) and told him he was fired.
In this action, Balding alleged Sunbelt owed him $173,277.92 in commissions
based on the compensation agreement set out in Wasson’s email or under a theory of
unjust enrichment. In his claims under FMLA (interference and retaliation) and the
ADA (discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate), Balding alleged he
was fired because of his health issues and for trying to take FMLA leave. He further
claimed Reliance was jointly liable with Sunbelt for any alleged wrongful conduct.
In seeking summary judgment, Sunbelt maintained there was no breach of the
promise to pay commissions because Balding agreed to new compensation terms
when he continued to work while accepting the raises and bonuses without objection
to not being paid any commissions. Sunbelt also argued the contract between Sunbelt
and Balding foreclosed the unjust enrichment claim under Utah law. And Sunbelt
4
asserted there was no evidence Balding had a disability as defined in the ADA, it had
provided all the accommodations Balding had requested, and it had fired Balding for
a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason, which foreclosed relief
under the ADA and FMLA. Reliance, which had acquired Sunbelt in October 2012,
argued it was not liable on any claims because it was not Balding’s employer and
also for the same reasons set out in Sunbelt’s motion for summary judgment.
After a hearing, the district court issued an oral ruling granting defendants’
motions for summary judgment on all claims. Balding sought relief under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59, which the court granted in part as to the FMLA claims and the ADA
retaliation claim against Sunbelt, concluding there was sufficient evidence of pretext
to get to the jury. The court left unchanged the remainder of its oral rulings, although
it fleshed out its reasoning on most of the other claims, including that Sunbelt was
entitled to summary judgment on the ADA discrimination and accommodation claims
because Balding had not established that he had a qualifying disability and because
Sunbelt had provided every accommodation Balding had requested.
Sunbelt and Balding then both filed Rule 59 motions seeking reconsideration
of the first post-judgment decision. The court granted Sunbelt’s motion and denied
Balding’s. The court concluded that in its first post-judgment decision, it had
misapprehended the controlling law on pretext, and under the correct analysis,
Balding’s evidence was insufficient to avoid summary judgment. The court therefore
awarded summary judgment to Sunbelt on all the FMLA and ADA claims, including
the ADA discrimination and accommodation claims. Balding appeals.
5
DISCUSSION
We review an order granting “summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standards that the district court should have applied.” Fields v. City of Tulsa,
753 F.3d 1000, 1008 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A “court
shall 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 nonmoving party.” Fields,
753 F.3d at 1009 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A. ADA and FMLA claims
The district court granted summary judgment to Sunbelt on the FMLA and
ADA claims by applying the McDonnell Douglas2 burden-shifting analysis and
concluding that Balding had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact that
Sunbelt’s proffered reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. See Aplt.
App., Vol. IV at 1156–65. It was proper to do so for the FMLA retaliation and ADA
claims. See DeWitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299, 1306–07 (10th Cir. 2017)
(describing three-step burden-shifting analysis applicable to FMLA retaliation and
ADA discrimination and accommodation claims); Foster v. Mountain Coal Co.,
830 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2016) (same with respect to ADA retaliation claim).
But because the burden-shifting analysis does not apply to a FMLA interference
2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).
6
claim, “no pretext analysis is necessary”; instead, “summary judgment for [an]
employer is warranted when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
regarding alternative reasons for termination.” DePaula v. Easter Seals El Mirador,
859 F.3d 957, 978 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district
court recognized this distinction in its first post-judgment decision, see Aplt. App.,
Vol. IV at 1028, but in its second post-judgment decision, the court engaged in only a
pretext analysis for all the FMLA and ADA claims, including the FMLA interference
claim.
That was incorrect. But regardless, the two standards are similar enough that
we are confident in the court’s final analysis. In examining pretext, the relevant
inquiry, as the district court correctly noted, is not whether Sunbelt’s “‘proffered
reasons were wise, fair, or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and
acted in good faith upon those beliefs.’” Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 1160 (quoting Lobato
v. N.M. Env’t Dep’t, 733 F.3d 1283, 1289 (10th Cir. 2013)). Similarly, in
considering an employer’s proffered rationale for an adverse employment action that
allegedly interfered with an employee’s FMLA leave, “[w]hat is important is . . .
whether the [employer] terminated [the employee] because it sincerely, even if
mistakenly, believed [in the proffered rationale].” Dalpiaz v. Carbon Cty., 760 F.3d
1126, 1134 (10th Cir. 2014).3
3
As to his FMLA claims, Balding argues, as he did before the district court,
that where wrongful conduct is carried out by the employer’s “corporate proxy,” the
employer is subject to strict liability under Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S.
(continued)
7
In reaching the conclusion that summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt was
warranted on all the FMLA and ADA claims, the district court examined four facts
bearing on Sunbelt’s claimed reason for firing Balding: (1) Sunbelt knew about a
number of Balding’s health issues before terminating him; (2) Sunbelt decided to fire
Balding the same day it learned about the Weatherford issue and while Balding was
on leave and without a meaningful investigation; (3) Sunbelt’s senior management
(including Kowalski Sr. and Rutledge) had agreed on November 22 that Sunbelt
might have to fire Balding after January 1, 2014;4 and (4) management was on notice
that Weatherford might have backdated to November 5 the purchase order it sent on
November 26.
17, 21 (1993). Aplt. Opening Br. at 57. Like the district court, we reject this
argument. Although Balding is correct that the burden-shifting analysis does not
apply to FMLA interference claims, that is not because of anything in Harris. Harris
was not a FMLA case and makes no mention of strict liability for conduct by a
“corporate proxy.” Hence, Harris is wholly irrelevant to Balding’s argument, and we
are at a loss why his counsel has repeated this argument on appeal.
4
This fact was set out in Exhibit O to Balding’s declaration filed with his
opposition to summary judgment. The district court considered this fact despite
finding defendants’ evidentiary objection to it “well taken.” Aplt. App., Vol. IV
at 1033 n.9. The court also considered “well taken” defendants’ evidentiary
objections to a large number of paragraphs of Balding’s declaration and other
exhibits attached to it. Id. In his opening appellate brief, Balding did not take issue
with the court’s ruling on the evidentiary objections, so defendants argued he
therefore waived any challenge to that ruling. In his reply brief, Balding finally
challenged the ruling. We need not sort out the evidentiary ruling because the district
court considered Exhibit O, and none of our rulings in this decision are dependent
solely on any of the other stricken provisions or exhibits. We express no view on the
propriety of the district court’s ruling on the evidentiary objections.
8
The district court concluded that despite these facts, there was no genuine
dispute that Sunbelt honestly believed Balding had misled Weatherford about the
status of the order and then lied about it when confronted. The court provided a
thorough explanation that we need not repeat here; we have reviewed it, along with
the record, the controlling law, and the parties’ arguments, and we agree with the
court’s analysis. We therefore affirm summary judgment on the FMLA and ADA
claims for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s second
post-judgment decision. In addition, to the extent the ADA accommodation claim
concerns pre-termination conduct, we also affirm summary judgment in favor of
Sunbelt because Balding failed to show he did not receive any pre-termination
accommodation he requested. See Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 1043 (concluding, in first
post-judgment decision, that Balding’s failure to make this showing “independently
defeats [his] ADA failure to accommodate claim”). We do not see how the failure to
show pretext warrants summary judgment on any pre-termination accommodation
claim Balding may have asserted.
B. Breach-of-contract claim
On the breach-of-contract claim, the district court ruled that Balding was
precluded from claiming entitlement to the 1.5% commission on his total gross sales
set out in his original compensation agreement because he accepted raises and
bonuses for several years and did not object to Sunbelt’s failure to pay him any
commissions. The court determined “a jury could find only that from January 2010
through the end of his employment in November 2013, Balding accepted salary
9
increases, accepted bonuses, never complained to his direct supervisors about not
receiving commissions, and never asked Sunbelt for an accounting or in any way
made a demand for commission payments.” Id. at 1026.
The court reached this conclusion by testing the facts against several principles
of Utah law concerning modification of unilateral contracts with implied-in-fact
terms. In doing so, however, the court seems to have overlooked an important
component of such a modification—whether Balding could only have reasonably
believed Sunbelt was extending a new offer based on the new terms.
In Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997 (Utah 1991), the Utah
Supreme Court set out the general principle that in unilateral employment contracts,
an employee’s conduct can result in a new or changed contractual obligation:
In the case of unilateral contract[s] for employment, where an at-will
employee retains employment with knowledge of new or changed
conditions, the new or changed conditions may become a contractual
obligation. In this manner, an original employment contract may be
modified or replaced by a subsequent unilateral contract. The employee’s
retention of employment constitutes acceptance of the offer of a unilateral
contract; by continuing to stay on the job, although free to leave, the
employment supplies the necessary consideration for the offer.
Id. at 1002 (internal quotation marks omitted).5 The district court relied on this
passage from Johnson. But Johnson went on to state that although it was unclear
“what type of evidence is sufficient to raise a triable issue concerning the intentions
5
The issue in Johnson was whether an implied-in-fact contract between an
employer and employee included a provision that the employee, who otherwise was
an at-will employee, could be fired only for good cause. Notwithstanding this factual
distinction, Johnson’s analysis can be applied here.
10
of the parties and therefore the existence of an implied-in-fact contract term,” it was
“clear that the evidence must be sufficient to fulfill the requirements of a unilateral
offer.” Id. And to find an implied-in-fact provision in a unilateral contract
enforceable, Johnson requires the employer to communicate to the employee its
intent that it is offering a new term in a manner sufficiently definite for the employee
to reasonably believe the employer is offering that term:
[F]or an implied-in-fact contract term to exist, it must meet the
requirements for an offer of a unilateral contract. There must be a
manifestation of the employer’s intent that is communicated to the
employee and sufficiently definite to operate as a contract provision.
Furthermore, the manifestation of the employer’s intent must be of such a
nature that the employee can reasonably believe that the employer is
making an offer of employment [on new terms].
Id. (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
The chief manifestation of Sunbelt’s intent concerning base-salary raises is
disputed—whether Rutledge told Balding the initial $10,000 raise was in lieu of
commissions. The district court considered this factual dispute immaterial under
Johnson and other Utah law and instead focused on Balding’s conduct in accepting
raises without complaining about the lack of commission payment.6 The district
6
In addition to the one quote from Johnson, the district court also relied on
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(4) (Am. Law Inst. 1981), which provides:
“Where an agreement involves repeated occasions for performance by either party
with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it
by the other, any course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection
is given great weight in the interpretation of the agreement.” And the district court
cited B.R. Woodward Marketing, Inc. v. Collins Food Service, Inc., 754 P.2d 99, 103
(Utah Ct. App. 1988), for the principle that “one cannot prevent a waiver by a private
mental reservation contrary to an intent to waive, where his or her actions clearly
indicate such an intent.” As we proceed to explain, there is a genuine dispute of
(continued)
11
court concluded it would be unreasonable for Balding to believe he was still on a
commission structure when his first raise ($10,000) far exceeded the commissions he
alleged he was owed at that point ($3,725),7 and Wasson’s initial email offer of
employment told Balding he could not have both commissions and a base salary as
high as a non-commissioned salesman.
The court also relied on the fact that after the initial raise in January 2010, the
only conversation Balding had with a supervisor occurred in April 2012, when
Balding sent an email to Kowalski Sr. after having had an oral discussion with him
about commissions. Balding wrote:
I could tell that you were surprised to hear of a commission which was
written up for me. I would like you to know that I am grateful for profit
sharing and other incentives Sunbelt Steel gives. I am here to help grow
[the company] and become [a] huge part of Sunbelt Steel. If there could be
some consideration that [sic] would be grateful.
Aplt. App., Vol. II at 536. Kowalski Sr. replied: “Thanks, Rob. I plan to have
follow-up conversations with Kathy [Rutledge] & Jerry [Wasson] this week and will
get back to you. Hang in there!” Id. Kowalski Sr. never got back to Balding. In his
material fact whether Balding had “knowledge” of the claimed nature of the raises
and bonuses such that he had to have reasonably believed commissions were no
longer part of his compensation package. And tied to that disputed material fact is
whether Balding “clearly indicate[d],” id., (or could have indicated) an intent to
waive the base-salary+commission structure.
7
As time went on, Balding’s sales grew to the point where the total in
commission he alleges he is owed far exceeds what he earned in raises and bonuses.
The district court did not take that into consideration, but it bears on the
reasonableness of Balding’s belief that the raises and bonuses were not in lieu of
commissions.
12
affidavit, Kowalski Sr. explained that he “let the matter drop” and “no one at Sunbelt
was earning commissions at [that] time.” Id. at 373. The court declined to accept
Balding’s speculation that Kowalski Sr.’s failure to get back to him was evidence of
deceit and guilt. The court also pointed out that when asked, Balding said he did not
know why he did not raise the commission issue with either Rutledge or his other
direct supervisor, Kowalski Jr., other than he thought Wasson was the one to go to.8
The district court’s focus on Balding’s conduct overlooked whether the offer
of a raise in lieu of commissions was adequately communicated to Balding (setting
aside what Rutledge allegedly told Balding) such that the only reasonable inference
to be drawn from the facts is that Balding must have reasonably believed that Sunbelt
had made that offer. And the only other record evidence of a manifestation of
Sunbelt’s intent regarding the raises is a “Personnel Change Notice” Sunbelt entered
on January 6, 2012, reflecting a “merit increase effective 1/2/2012” for Balding. Id.,
Vol. III at 622 (emphasis added). The notice states that his “Old Title/Salary” was
“$45,000,” and his “Job and Salary Change” was to “$52,000 yearly.” Id. (some
8
The district court also noted Balding twice asked Wasson when he might get
paid commissions he was owed. Wasson first told Balding the “keystone group” of
investors would not authorize a commission payment, Aplt. App., Vol. I at 258, and
later said Sunbelt was just getting profitable and Balding should start seeing his
commissions “shortly,” id. at 259–60. But as the court observed, Balding testified he
had contacted Wasson about commissions before the first raise in January 2010, so
those contacts do not support Balding’s argument that he believed he was entitled to
commissions despite the parties’ course of conduct after the January 2010 raise.
Balding testified he spoke with Wasson about commissions again some time later,
but he could not recall when or the content of the discussion.
13
capitalization omitted). By referring only to base salary and not commissions, the
notice could be viewed as a manifestation of Sunbelt’s intent to supplant
commissions with raises. But the space for Balding’s signature is empty; hence, it is
unclear whether Balding saw the notice prior to his termination (neither he nor
Sunbelt asserts that he did). Even if he did, a factfinder could view the notice as
evidence that Sunbelt simply gave Balding a merit-based raise to his base salary.
Because the notice is subject to interpretation by a factfinder, it is, along with
whether Rutledge told Balding the initial raise was in lieu of commission, material to
the definiteness of an offer to substitute raises for commissions.9
As for the bonuses, the only evidence bearing on Sunbelt’s intent comes in the
form of a memo Kowalski Sr. sent to all employees in September 2011 explaining the
bonus plan Sunbelt had put in place for 2011: “[A]ll employees are eligible to
receive quarterly and annual bonuses that are based on the company’s performance
once a brief employment period has been satisfied. The bonus amounts are
discretionary and are primarily based on the achievement of certain goals such as
sales volume and profitability.” Id., Vol. II at 377. By the time of this memo,
Balding had already received three bonuses (in December 2010, April 2011, and July
2011). But the memo says the bonuses are tied to company performance, not
9
In addition to the Personnel Change Notice, the record contains two emails
from Kowalski Sr. to Sunbelt’s controller informing the controller of increases in
Balding’s base pay (from $30,000 to $40,000 in January 2010, and from $40,000 to
$45,000 in April 2011). See Aplt. App., Vol. III at 616, 618. Like the notice, neither
of the emails mentions commissions, but unlike the notice, there is no indication
Balding may have seen them during his employment.
14
individual performance, as were Balding’s commissions. The memo, therefore, sheds
little light on whether Balding had to have reasonably believed the bonuses were in
lieu of the 1.5% commission on his total gross sales he was originally promised.
In sum, there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact on the contract
claim. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment to Sunbelt on that claim.
C. Unjust enrichment
We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Sunbelt and Reliance on the
unjust enrichment claim. Although the parties dispute the terms of Balding’s
compensation, the existence of a valid, enforceable compensation contract between
Sunbelt and Balding is undisputed. As the district court ruled, under Utah law, the
existence of a valid, enforceable contract forecloses relief under a theory of unjust
enrichment because the two theories of recovery are inconsistent. See Helf v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 361 P.3d 63, 78 (Utah 2015) (“Because a breach of contract
remedy requires a valid, enforceable contract, while a quantum meruit remedy
presupposes that no contract governs the services provided, a plaintiff may recover
only one of these two inconsistent remedies.”); Concrete Prods. Co. v. Salt Lake
Cty., 734 P.2d 910, 911 (Utah 1987) (“Unjust enrichment is a doctrine under which
the law will imply a promise to pay for goods or services when there is neither an
actual nor an implied contract between the parties.”). Balding contests only an
“additional reason” the district court gave for granting summary judgment on the
unjust enrichment claim—that even if there was no contract, unjust enrichment is
15
unavailable because his compensation was reasonable. Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 1027.
We need not decide the correctness of the court’s “additional reason.”
D. FMLA, ADA, and contract claims against Reliance
Balding brought the same FMLA, ADA, and breach-of-contract claims against
both Sunbelt and Reliance, contending that Reliance and Sunbelt were a joint
enterprise and that Reliance was as much his employer as Sunbelt. We affirm the
grant of summary judgment to Reliance on the FMLA and ADA claims. But we
reverse with respect to the contract claim because the district court never decided
whether Reliance was also Balding’s employer or a party to Balding’s compensation
agreement, and we decline to do so in the first instance.
At the oral hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the district
court granted summary judgment to Reliance because the evidence was insufficient
“for a jury to conclude that the elements for the FMLA interference and other claims
that [the court] discussed would be sufficient to hold Reliance liable all for the same
reasons that [the court] explained as to Sunbelt.” Id. at 944.10 This ruling
encompassed all of Balding’s claims because the court had already “discussed” them
all. In its first post-judgment decision, the court summarily denied Balding’s Rule 59
motion “as to Reliance on all claims,” id. at 1019, because Balding had “simply
reargue[d] the same facts that the court previously considered and found to be
10
The court also considered whether the claims against Reliance were moot
because of the rulings in favor of Sunbelt on all claims. See Aplt. App., Vol. IV
at 939. But the court did not base the grant of summary judgment to Reliance on
mootness.
16
inadequate to sustain his burden of going forward, particularly as to his ‘joint’
employer/enterprise theory claims against defendant Reliance, Sunbelt’s parent
‘umbrella’ corporation,” id. at 1022. In its second post-judgment decision, “the court
decline[d] to revisit its prior ruling dismissing Balding’s joint employer/enterprise
theory claims against Reliance” and also ruled that Balding’s claims against Reliance
were moot because the court had dismissed “Balding’s FMLA and ADA claims
against Sunbelt on the grounds that their reasons for terminating him were not a
pretext.” Id. at 1149 n.3.
We agree with the district court’s ruling that Reliance cannot be liable on the
FMLA and ADA claims if Sunbelt is not. The same facts concerning the legitimacy
of the proffered reason for terminating Balding’s employment are the same as to both
Sunbelt and Reliance; the only role Balding claimed Reliance played in the decision
to fire him was approving Sunbelt’s decision. But the sole reason the district court
gave for granting summary judgment to Reliance on the contract claim was its grant
of summary judgment to Sunbelt on that claim. Because we are reversing on the
contract claim as to Sunbelt, the basis for the district court’s ruling as to Reliance is
wholly undermined. Despite claiming in its first post-judgment decision that it had
already considered and found Balding’s joint employer/enterprise theory inadequate,
the court had not done so in its oral ruling; it simply granted summary judgment to
17
Reliance for the same reasons it had granted summary judgment to Sunbelt.11 We
therefore must reverse on the contract claim as to Reliance. We decline to resolve in
the first instance Balding’s joint employer/enterprise theory.
CONCLUSION
The district court’s grant of summary judgment to all defendants on the breach
of contract claim is reversed. The grant of summary judgment to all defendants is
otherwise affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
11
Balding pointed this out in his second Rule 59 motion, arguing the court
failed to provide “any analysis let alone a sound conclusion for ruling that . . .
Reliance is somehow not also Balding’s employer and a contracting party with
Balding given the agreements and contractual duties by Reliance to Balding.” Aplt.
App., Vol. IV at 1049 n.1.
18
16-4095, Balding v. Sunbelt Steel Tex., Inc.
O’BRIEN, J., concurring
The majority reverses the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants on
Balding’s breach of contract claim. While a reversal is necessary, I would limit the scope
of reconsideration. In all other respects, I join the Order and Judgment.
At-will employment permits either of the parties to modify or end the relationship
at any time for any reason—motive or purpose matter not. Of course, any change is
prospective only (both parties are bound by their agreement until it is changed or
terminated) and the employer’s right to unilaterally terminate employment is limited by
state and federal laws forbidding myriad discriminatory practices. Those exceptions
aside, an employee may demand a raise (or other changes) and may walk away without
consequence if the demand is not met. Conversely, an employer may, for whatever not
improperly discriminatory reason, decide an employee is overpaid and require him to
work for less pay or under different, but not legally prohibited, circumstances. The
employee must then decide whether to accept the new terms or forego continued
employment; it is a binary choice—unpleasant perhaps, but a choice nonetheless. There
is no requirement that demanded or imposed changes be agreeable to the other party, or
negotiable, or fair or even reasonable. If they are not accepted (or modified),
employment ends. However, to be effective the changes must be clearly communicated
to the affected party, either expressly or tacitly, and the affected party’s response must be
clearly communicated, either expressly or tacitly. “Clearly communicated” is an
objective test. With those principles in mind, I turn to the matter at hand.
Balding signed on with Sunbelt in April 2009 as an at-will employee at a salary of
$30,000 per year plus a 1.5% commission on sales. Wasson (the hiring authority for
Sunbelt) explained that a commission was included because Balding’s salary was lower
than salesmen who did not receive commissions; Balding was pointedly told he could not
have it both ways (higher salary and commissions).
No commissions were ever paid and no explicit change to the employment
agreement was ever formally negotiated or even formally proposed. However, Balding’s
compensation changed significantly. Starting in January 2010 he received substantial
raises and some bonus payments, summarized as follows:
Employment start April 2009 - $30,000 + 1.5% commission
Raise 1 January 2010 – to $40,000
Bonus 1 December 2010
Bonus 2 April 2011
Raise 2 April 2011 – to $45,000
Bonus 3 July 2011
Bonus 4 October 2011
Raise 3 January 2012 – to $52,000
Bonus 5 January. 2012
Bonus 6 April 2012
Ambiguous email April 2012 – for email text see majority opinion at 12
Raise 4 May 2012 – to $60.000
Bonus 7 October 2012 (the 7 bonuses total $23,200)
Employment end November 26, 2013
According to Sunbelt, contemporaneously with his first raise, Ms. Rutledge,
Balding’s supervisor, told him the raise was in lieu of commissions. Her testimony is the
only proof. Balding says he was told no such thing by Rutledge or anyone else.
Moreover, he claims to have repeatedly complained to Sunbelt’s management team about
its failure to pay his commissions. Indeed, two of those complaints appear in the record,
2
but they occurred before his first raise. Beyond that, no admissible evidence clearly
supports his claim of repeated complaints. There is, however, an email he sent to
Kowalski, Sr. in April 2012. It is, at best, equivocal and the parties offer conflicting
interpretations.
The district judge dutifully acknowledged the dissonance in the Rutledge and the
Balding positions and resolved the matter in Balding’s favor. But that did not end the
debate. The judge went on to properly conclude that Balding’s employment was at-will
and to announce the substance of his reasoning on the breach of contract claim, writing:
On the evidence presented by Balding, a jury could find only that from
January 2010 through the end of his employment in November 2013,
Balding accepted salary increases, accepted bonuses, never complained to
his direct supervisors about not receiving commissions, and never asked
Sunbelt for an accounting or in any way made a demand for commission
payments. The one conversation with Kowalski, Sr. in April 2012 in which
Balding said he would be grateful if some consideration could be given to a
commission, even drawing all inferences in favor of Balding, is not
sufficient for a jury to find, in the face of Balding accepting raises and
bonuses for four-and-one-half years without complaint, that the original
agreement for compensation including a commission had not been
superseded by the parties’ course of dealing.
Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 1026.
Significantly, Balding knew from the start of his employment with Sunbelt that
“he could not have it both ways” (a higher salary and commissions). Somewhere along
the time continuum detailed above, but no later than May 2012, when Balding accepted a
raise to $60,000 without comment or complaint about commissions, no person could
reasonably fail to recognize that the employment terms had changed – no commissions
were paid, but raises and bonuses magically appeared and were accepted. Balding might
3
not have liked or agreed with the new reality, but he was undeniably aware of it.
Knowing the probable result of demanding payment for commissions—termination of his
employment—he chose not to rock the boat. At that point his silence and decision to
soldier on, coupled with an understanding of his binary option (accept the new
compensation scheme or quit), was an assent to the changes (implied acceptance). No
jury could reasonably conclude otherwise. In summary, there is a tipping point where
minute factual distinctions cease to matter. Where it falls, exactly, on the timeline is a
matter of fact, but the figurative “edge of the universe” is a matter of law and common
sense, not fact.
The district judge looked at roughly four years of experience and concluded things
had changed, but then he made his conclusion retroactive to the earliest possible date,
January 2010. I don’t see how that can be said without factual findings. Balding may
have smelled something in the wind, but at that early date he cannot be charged with
knowledge sufficient for summary judgment against him. For that reason I concur in the
reversal and remand on the breach of contract issue. However, I would limit the remand
to establishing a date prior to the May 2012 raise when Balding was sufficiently aware of
the new employment terms to trigger his obligation to fish or cut bait. Damages for
breach of contract, if any, should be accordingly limited. Balding is entitled to
commissions at least through January 2010. The parties’ dispute the amount; it will
require resolution.
Balding argues that the defendants interfered with his ADA and FMLA rights and
retaliated against him for attempting to exercise them. The district court entered
4
summary judgment against Balding on those claims and we have affirmed. That said, on
remand, any argument about the propriety of Balding’s termination should have no place;
he was an at-will employee—the only issues are, 1) the date of Balding’s implied
acceptance of the newly imposed compensation regime and 2) damages, if any.
5