The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a black employee was unable to successfully prove that alleged discrimination by his supervisor is what led to the termination of his employment.
Karry L. Thomas worked at Berry Plastics Corp. (BPC) as a printing operator and then as a printing technician from 2003 - 2010. During this employment period, Thomas was subject to 13 disciplinary actions and as a result, his employment was terminated.
Jason Morton became Thomas’ immediate supervisor in 2009. While Morton did not have the authority level to personally terminate Thomas, he had been involved in some of the disciplinary actions that led to Thomas’ termination. A little while before his termination, Thomas alleged that he was subject to racial discrimination. Just a few months later, Thomas received a disciplinary report for a print-quality issue that occurred in September 2010.
Since Thomas challenged his termination, he was given the opportunity to sit in front of a BPC termination review panel, which was comprised of two independent BPC managers who received his full disciplinary history. Thomas, at this point, was able to make a statement in his own defense. The panel still decided that the decision to terminate Thomas was just and it was upheld.
At this point, Thomas filed suit against BPC under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability. He alleged that Morton took disciplinary action against him because of his race.
The Kansas District Court ruled in favor of BPC as well as the 10th Circuit. The appeals court felt as though Thomas was unsuccessful at proving Morton had retaliated against him based on race. Additionally, Morton didn’t have the authority to make any kind of human resource termination decision on his own.
Human resource experts and professionals feel that this particular case highlights the extreme importance of an independent review of employee discharges. These panels become even more important in cases revolving around claims of retaliation and racism as they can help a company disprove these kinds of claims.
