Taylor v. Cramer, Inc.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 5 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STEVEN TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-3302
(D.C. No. 01-CV-2228-GTV)
CRAMER, INC., (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Steven Taylor appeals from an order of the district court granting
defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Title VII action. We affirm.
Mr. Taylor, an African-American, was employed by defendant for almost
two years. He was terminated after an altercation between him and another
African-American employee after an investigation. 1 Mr. Taylor appealed the
decision through the union’s collective bargaining agreement arbitration
procedure, which determined that Mr. Taylor’s termination was for just and
proper cause. Mr. Taylor then filed this action in district court. In his complaint,
Mr. Taylor, proceeding pro se, alleged his termination was based on his race. He
further contended he was falsely accused by a white female employee of sexual
harassment. He claimed Cramer gave credence to her allegation while refusing to
give credence to his denial and, further, he was not permitted to defend against
the charge.
The district court granted summary judgment to Cramer, holding that
Cramer had produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating
Mr. Taylor, which he had not shown was pretextual. The court also noted that
Mr. Taylor had stipulated in the pre-trial order that his race was not a factor in
determining whether to terminate him, a stipulation that was fatal to his claim.
1
The co-worker was also terminated for his part in the altercation.
-2-
On appeal, Mr. Taylor argues his termination was based on an unfounded
accusation of sexual harassment made by a white employee. He contends Cramer
did not investigate that charge, but rather accepted the accusation as true. He
admits he was dismissed for another infraction, but maintains that the sexual
harassment charge was erroneously considered in the arbitration hearing.
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same
legal standard used by the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Timmons
v. White, 314 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 2003). Rule 56(c) provides that
summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
In the pre-trial order, Mr. Taylor stipulated that his race was not a factor
Cramer considered in terminating him because of the altercation between him and
the other employee. He agreed that Cramer considered his short tenure of less
than two years with the company and his misconduct in the altercation. But, he
maintained that “the information that Cramer gained during its investigation of
the [altercation] that Taylor allegedly has sexually harassed” a white female
co-employee should not have been considered. Rec. doc. 35 at 2-3.
-3-
The record supports the district court’s holding that Mr. Taylor did not
present evidence sufficient to show that Cramer’s reasons for discharging him
were pretextual. See, e.g. , Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc. , 220 F.3d
1220, 1229 (10th Cir. 2000) (setting forth burden-shifting scheme). The record
does not support Mr. Taylor’s statement that he was not permitted to rebut the
testimony showing sexual harassment. See, e.g. , Rec. doc. 25, ex. A at 95-96
(testifying that he never performed any of the three acts allegedly showing sexual
harassment); id. ex. D at 3 (“Grievant denied the sexual harassment allegations.”).
The arbitrator determined that Mr. Taylor’s testimony was not credible
regarding the sexual harassment misconduct allegations. Mr. Taylor was
terminated after the work-place confrontation with the other employee. Cramer
asserted that the termination was justified because Mr. Taylor had violated two of
the rules of conduct for employees. Further, both employees were terminated for
their part in the altercation. The harassment issues which arose during the
investigation did not provide the primary reason for Mr. Taylor’s termination, but
rather provided additional support. Mr. Taylor presented no evidence that Cramer
refused to investigate the sexual harassment charges because the female employee
was white and Mr. Taylor is black.
-4-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in its order of July 3, 2002.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-5-