Pfeifer v. Fed. Express Corp.
Decision Date | 07 June 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 107,133.,107,133. |
Citation | 297 Kan. 547,304 P.3d 1226 |
Parties | Cynthia PFEIFER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60–3201 et seq., authorizes the Kansas Supreme Court to answer questions from courts of other jurisdictions when a response may be determinative of a case pending in that jurisdiction and there is no controlling Kansas precedent.
2. Kansas has long adhered to the employment-at-will doctrine, which means employment is terminable at the will of either the employer or the employee. But there are exceptions to that doctrine when an employee is terminated in violation of public policy.
3. One exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employer retaliates against an injured worker for exercising the employee's rights under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act, K.S.A. 44–501 et seq. In such cases, a common-law tort for retaliatory discharge is recognized to protect the employee's exercise of those statutory rights and the public policy underlying them.
4. The 2–year statute of limitations stated in K.S.A. 60–513(a)(4) applies to a common-law retaliatory discharge claim.
5. A contractual provision in an employment agreement that shortens the 2–year statute of limitations for filing a common-law retaliatory discharge claim based on the employee's exercise of statutory rights under the Workers Compensation Act is void as against public policy.
George A. Barton, of Law Offices of George A. Barton, P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Robert G. Harken, of the same firm, was on the brief for plaintiff.
Terrence O. Reed, of Memphis, Tennessee, argued the cause, and Richard A. Olmstead, of Kutak Rock LLP, of Wichita, was on the brief for defendant.
The issue presented is lodged squarely between two long-standing public policy interests that are at odds in this case. One concerns the protections afforded injured workers against retaliatory discharge when exercising statutory workers compensation rights. The other is the freedom to contract. This controversy comes to us from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit under the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60–3201 et seq., which authorizes this court to answer questions from other courts when that response may be determinative of a pending case and there is no controlling Kansas precedent.
The Tenth Circuit is considering a retaliatory discharge claim brought by Cynthia Pfeifer against her former employer, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). She filed her lawsuit 15 months after she was fired, alleging she was terminated for exercising her rights as an injured worker under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act, K.S.A. 44–501 et seq. Kansas law provides a 2–year statute of limitations for such claims. K.S.A. 60–513(a)(4) ( ); Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 283 Kan. 134, 144, 151 P.3d 837 (2007) ( ).
But FedEx argues Pfeifer's employment contract required her to file suit within 6 months of her termination. The federal district court agreed with FedEx and granted summary judgment. Pfeifer v. Federal Exp. Corp., 818 F.Supp.2d 1287 (D.Kan.2011). Pfeifer appealed. The certified questions and our responses are:
1. Does Kansas law, specifically K.S.A. 60–501 and/or public policy, prohibit private parties from contractually shortening the generally applicable statute of limitations for an action?
Our answer: K.S.A. 60–501 contains no express or implied prohibition against contractual agreements limiting the time in which to sue. But the public policy recognizing that injured workers should be protected from retaliation when exercising rights under the Workers Compensation Act, K.S.A. 44–501 et seq.,invalidates the contractual provision at issue because it impairs enforcement of that protection.
2. If no such prohibition exists, is the 6–month limitations period agreed to by the private parties in this action unreasonable?
Our answer: Because we hold the contract provision at issue is void, it is unnecessary to consider whether its 6–month term is reasonable.
The facts are set forth in the Tenth Circuit's certification order:
Notably, Pfeifer does not allege the contractual provision at issue is unconscionable, the product of unequal bargaining power, or that the agreement was an adhesion contract. We do not address what impact, if any, such allegations might play in another case of this type.
We are asked to determine whether Kansas law prohibits private parties from contractually shortening the statute of limitations for retaliatory discharge when the employee claims she was fired for exercising her rights under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. This question requires interpretation of the parties' contract, as well as interpretation of the statutory language in K.S.A. 60–501. Both issues are subject to unlimited review by this court. See Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver, 289 Kan. 891, 900, 220 P.3d 333 (2009) ( ); Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1193, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009) ( ). We begin with the language used in Pfeifer's employment contract, assigning the words used their plain and ordinary meaning. See First Financial Ins. Co. v. Bugg, 265 Kan. 690, 694, 962 P.2d 515 (1998) ( ).
The relevant portion of Pfeifer's contract states that “to the extent law allows an employee to bring legal action against Federal Express, I agree to bring that complaint within the time prescribed by law or 6 months from the date of the event forming the basis of my lawsuit, whichever expires first.” (Emphasis added.) There is no dispute the plain language of this provision obligated Pfeifer to bring her lawsuit for retaliatory discharge within 6 months of her termination—the shorter period between the 2–year statute of limitations allowed by K.S.A. 60–513(a)(4) and the contract.
We are certainly not the first forum to consider disputes regarding the FedEx 6–month limitation in its employment contracts. And there is a split of authority on whether to uphold the provision. See, e.g., Boaz v. Federal Exp. Corp., 742 F.Supp.2d 925, 932–33 (W.D.Tenn.2010) ( ); Ray v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 668 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1067–68 (W.D.Tenn.2009) ( ); Grosso v. Federal Exp. Corp., 467 F.Supp.2d 449, 455–57 (E.D.Pa.2006) ( ); Badgett v. Federal Express Corp., 378 F.Supp.2d 613, 622–26 (M.D.N.C.2005) ( ); Reynolds v. Federal Exp. Corp., No. 09–2692–STA–cgc, 2012 WL 1107834, at *12 (W.D.Tenn.2012) (unpublished opinion) ( ); Plitsas v. Federal Exp., Inc., No. 07–5439, 2010 WL 1644056, at *3–6 (D.N.J.2010) (unpublished opinion) ( ); Allen v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:09 cv 17, 2009 WL 3234699, at *4–5 (M.D.N.C.2009) (unpublished opinion) ( ).
Pfeifer argues she should not be held to the shorter 6–month contractual period because it violates public policy. This is an issue of first impression in Kansas implicating both the statute setting the ground rules for statutes of limitations, as well as the public policy underlying our caselaw recognizing a common-law cause of action for retaliatory discharge when exercising workers compensation rights. It also rests temptingly alongside our caselaw extolling the paramount importance of the freedom to contract—a freedom not to be interfered with lightly. Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755, 770, 112 P.3d 81 (2005). We address the statute first.
K.S.A. 60–501 states: “The provisions of this article govern the limitation of time for commencing civil actions, except where a different limitation is specifically provided by statute.” (Emphasis added.) The remainder of Article 5 sets various statutes of limitations for actions brought under Chapter 60. See, e.g.,K.S.A. 60–506 (actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bouton v. Byers
...should be given their common meaning unless the parties clearly manifest some other intended meaning. Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation, 297 Kan. 547, 550, 304 P.3d 1226 (2013). The language of the settlement agreement did not include claims outside those related to the distribution of......
-
Simpson v. City of Topeka
...829 P.2d 884. Typically, the words used in a contract should be given their common or customary meaning. Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation , 297 Kan. 547, 550, 304 P.3d 1226 (2013) ; Gold Mine Investments v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. , 48 Kan.App.2d 818, 824, 300 P.3d 1113 (2013). Amb......
-
Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc.
...Words not otherwise specifically defined in a contract should be given their ordinary meaning. See Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation , 297 Kan. 547, 550, 304 P.3d 1226 (2013). Thus, "basic" describes something "serving as the basis or starting point" as in "a [basic] set of tools." Mer......
-
Hill v. State
...(6) invoking rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act or Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law. Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation , 297 Kan. 547, 554-56, 304 P.3d 1226 (2013) (listing 1-5); Husky Hogs , 292 Kan. at 225, 228, 237, 255 P.3d 1 (listing 1-4 and, for the first time, re......
-
Freedom of Contract and the Kansas Supreme Court
...Kansas Marketable-Product Rule, 64 Kan. L. Rev. 63 (2015). [72] 272 Kan. 58, 75-76, 31 P3d 255, 268 (2001). [73] 297 Kan. 547, 304 P3d 1226 (2013). [74] Justice Biles, writing for a unanimous court, observed in the opening sentences of his opinion: "The issue presented is lodged squarely be......
-
Freedom of Contract and the Kansas Supreme Court
...Kansas Marketable-Product Rule, 64 Kan. L.Rev. 63 (2015). [72] 272 Kan. 58, 75-76, 31 P.3d 255, 268 (2001). [73] 297 Kan. 547, 304 R3d 1226 (2013). [74] Justice Biles, writing for a unanimous court, observed in the opening sentences of his opinion: "The issue presented is lodged squarely be......