John Etukakpan v. St. Jude Medical

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.

Affirmed.

Unknown

Unknown

None