Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-09-2001

Case Style: John Etukakpan v. St. Jude Medical

Case Number: 99-2648

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description: Etukakpan, who is black and Nigerian, was employed by St. Jude from March 23, 1992 until July 12, 1995. His work history with St. Jude was marked by confrontations and difficulty in getting along with co-workers.

In October 1993, he was involved in an altercation with John Horwath and suspended for two days. Horwath, who is white, was fired. Etukakpan filed a charge of race and national origin discrimination with the EEOC in December 1993, alleging, among other things, that his suspension for this incident was discriminatory.

In February 1994, co-workers sent an anonymous memo to five managers and supervisors complaining that Etukakpan and another employee caused tension in the workplace by intimidating, harassing, and manipulating co-workers. Follow-up interviews conducted by St. Jude revealed that Etukakpan had a bad attitude, belittled others, and was abrasive. St. Jude hired an outside consulting firm to assess Etukakpan's work group, and it concluded, "Conflict has centered around one employee, with other factors clearly contributing to the conflicts and tension." The outside firm then conducted training and team-building workshops to improve staff relations.

Etukakpan received a number of formal warnings about his behavior. On December 6, 1994, he received a verbal warning for insubordination for comments he allegedly made to Christine Zabel, a Senior Human Resources Representatives at St. Jude. On February 16, 1995, he received a written warning for abusive remarks he allegedly made to Paula Hutton, Manager of Corporate Benefits. Etukakpan contends that he did not use abusive language toward either Zabel or Hutton. He received another written warning on May 18, 1995 for not requesting or receiving prior approval for a two-day absence. This warning notified him that it was his third warning for work rule violations within the past twelve months and that any future absences without prior approval or other violations would result in his termination.

On July 11, 1995, he was absent from St. Jude for at least forty-three minutes, which is longer than the allotted thirty-minute dinner break. Etukakpan was terminated the next day for abandoning his work station.

Etukakpan filed another charge with the EEOC, and he also filed a complaint in state court. After the EEOC determined that St. Jude discriminated against Etukakpan, he filed an amended complaint, adding a Title VII claim. St. Jude removed the action to federal court. Etukakpan's complaint alleged breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; defamation; discriminatory discharge; discrimination in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; and retaliation. Etukakpan stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of his defamation claim. The district court granted summary judgment to St. Jude on the remaining claims.

The court first held that Etukakpan failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because his inability to get along with his co-workers and his violation of company rules rendered him unqualified for his position. Etukakpan argued that there was no evidence that he was failing to meet expectations regarding co-worker relations at the time of his discharge in July since he had received no discipline related to this issue since February. He also filed an affidavit denying that he used abusive language in his conversations with Zabel and Hutton. The district court held that this denial did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment and that the record was replete with evidence of his poor interpersonal skills and harassing behavior. The court pointed to the memorandum sent to Etukakpan's managers and supervisors and to the outside consulting group's conclusion that the conflicts centered around one employee. The court also pointed to Zabel's and Hutton's written reports of Etukakpan's inappropriate behavior toward them. Although the incident precipitating his dismissal did not involve his alleged inability to interact with others, it was the fourth incident in which he received a verbal or written reprimand in accord with St. Jude's disciplinary policies.

The district court went on to hold that even if Etukakpan had established a prima facie case, St. Jude had proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his discharge and Etukakpan had not shown pretext. The four disciplinary infractions were the basis for his dismissal, and the court found nothing in the record to suggest that Etukakpan's race or national origin was a factor in his termination. The district court rejected Etukakpan's efforts to show pretext based on evidence that, two years before his discharge, two white employees abandoned their work station for an extended dinner break and received written warnings and two-day suspensions without pay. The district court found that these employees were not similarly situated to Etukakpan because neither had any prior disciplinary notices. The district court also observed that the suspensions for their first-time offenses were consistent with Etukakpan's suspension for his first offense in October 1993. Because there was no evidence of discrimination based on race or national origin, the district court granted summary judgment to St. Jude on this claim.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: