Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 09–3275.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Citation81 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1176,33 IER Cases 822,674 F.3d 1187
Docket NumberNo. 09–3275.,09–3275.
PartiesKeith JONES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date05 March 2012

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Thomas B. Weaver of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO (Laurence R. Tucker and Melody L. Nashan of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Kansas City, MO, with him on the briefs), for DefendantAppellant.

George A. Barton, Law Offices of George A. Barton, P.C., Kansas City, MO (Frederick D. Deay, II, Law Offices of Frederick D. Deay, II, Overland Park, KS, with him on the brief), for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Keith Jones's Petition for Rehearing en Banc. We also have before us the response filed by United Parcel Service on February 7, 2012. Although Jones styled his petition as a petition for rehearing en banc, he requests in the alternative that the panel's decision “be modified to include a determination of the adjusted amount of the maximum punitive damages award.” Aplee.'s Pet. For Rehearing En Banc at 3. This request in the alternative appears to be a request for a panel rehearing, and we have treated it as such.

Upon consideration of the request for panel rehearing, the panel has determined that rehearing is appropriate. Consequently, the panel rehearing request is GRANTED, and the clerk is directed to withdraw the Opinion originally filed in this matter on October 24, 2011. An amended opinion is attached to this order. The clerk is directed to file the new decision effective the date of this order.

The request for en banc consideration was transmitted to all judges of the court who are in regular active service. As no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court requested that the court be polled, the request for en banc reconsideration is DENIED.

BRISCOE, Chief Judge.

In this diversity action, Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) appeals following a jury verdict awarding Plaintiff Keith Jones (Jones) over $2.5 million in actual and punitive damages based on UPS's retaliatory discharge in violation of Kansas common law. See Gonzalez–Centeno v. N. Cent. Kan. Reg'l Juvenile Det. Facility, 278 Kan. 427, 101 P.3d 1170, 1173 (2004) (describing common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge). Jones alleged, and the jury found, that UPS terminated Jones in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. UPS alleges on appeal that (1) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Jones's retaliation claim; (2) the district court erred in giving two improper jury instructions; (3) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Jones's claim for punitive damages; (4) the district court erred in allowing the jury to decide the amount of punitive damages; and (5) the jury's award of $2 million in punitive damages violated its federal due process rights.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. The evidence presented supports a reasonable inference in support of Jones's retaliation claim. Therefore, we affirm the district court's conclusion that UPS is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Jones's retaliation claim. We also conclude that the jury instructions in this case, although not a model of clarity, were not improper and that UPS, based on the evidence presented, is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Jones's claim for punitive damages. We ultimately conclude the district court did not err in instructing the jury to determine the proper amount of punitive damages in this case, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and its incorporation of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in federal cases. This reasoning obviates the need for any Erie analysis. Finally, we conclude that the jury's $2 million punitive damage award is excessive and violates UPS's federal due process rights. We reverse and remand on this limited issue for the district court to enter a punitive damage award equal to the compensatory damage award.

IFactual Background

Jones began working at the UPS Kansas City warehouse in 1985. Initially, Jones worked loading UPS delivery trucks, but in 1989 he was promoted to the position of package car driver. A package car driver delivers packages to UPS customers along a prescribed route, and as part of the job, must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. While working as a driver, Jones suffered a series of work-related injuries. In 1991, he injured his left shoulder and underwent surgery to repair the damage. In 1993, he twisted his knee, although this injury did not require surgery. In 1996 and again in 1999, he injured his right shoulder and underwent surgery and extensive rehabilitation in order to fully recover. Jones filed workers' compensation claims for each of these injuries.

On October 6, 2003, Jones suffered his most recent work-related injury, this time to his left shoulder. Within six weeks, Jones filed a workers' compensation claim, and he began receiving workers' compensation benefits by mid-November 2003. Dr. Gary Legler, UPS's company doctor, examined Jones and concluded that he could return to work if he did not lift packages weighing more than 20 pounds and if he did not lift anything above shoulder level. Dr. Legler also referred Jones to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Daniel Stechschulte, for further evaluation.

Dr. Stechschulte examined Jones four times during October and November of 2003. During one of his visits, Jones took a functional capacity exam (“FCE”), which tests the ability of an employee to perform a desired job. A physical therapist interpreted the results of the test and concluded that Jones could not lift 70 pounds from his waist to his shoulder or over his head. Jones took another FCE on December 4 with the same results. Based largely on these test results, Dr. Stechschulte concluded that Jones could return to work, but with the following permanent lifting restrictions: no overhead lifting over 20 pounds and no chest-to-shoulder lifting over 45 pounds.

Jones alleges that Don Lewick, UPS's labor manager, reviewed Dr. Stechschulte's work release and told Jones that he could no longer work as a package car driver because of his permanent lifting restrictions. According to Jones, Lewick also told him that he could not work in any job at UPS with his restrictions. Jones subsequently contacted his union representative, who suggested he see another doctor. On February 4, 2004, Dr. Michael Poppa examined Jones and concluded that, as of the date of his examination, Jones could return to work as a package car driver without restrictions. Dr. Poppa's medical opinion, however, did not enable Jones to return to work. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between UPS and the union, once Jones was cleared to work by his own doctor, he had to be re-examined by Dr. Legler.

Jones returned to Dr. Legler for a second examination on February 9, 2004. During this visit, Jones provided Dr. Legler with a copy of his work release from Dr. Poppa, but he did not disclose the results of his previous FCEs or the fact that Dr. Stechschulte had imposed permanent lifting restrictions. As a part of his examination by Dr. Legler, Jones successfully performed a lift test which required him to demonstrate that he could lift 70 pounds. Following the examination, Dr. Legler released Jones to work without restrictions.

Dr. Legler sent a copy of Jones's work release to Monica Sloan, an occupational health manager in the human resources department at UPS. Her job was to “coordinate care for injured workers and to manage the disabilities of [UPS] employees.” App. Vol. 8, at 1679. In that capacity, she received reports from physicians on “virtually a daily basis.” Id. at 1698.

Sloan contacted Dr. Legler the same day she received Jones's work release and asked him if he was aware that Dr. Stechschulte had imposed a permanent 20–pound overhead lifting restriction on Jones in December 2003. Dr. Legler testified at trial that when he told Sloan he was unaware of Dr. Stechschulte's report, Sloan asked him “if he would ... mind changing [his] return to work evaluation to reflect the 20 pound lift limit that Dr. Stechschulte had given [Jones].” Id. Vol. 4, at 851. Sloan testified, however, that she did not ask Dr. Legler to change his diagnosis; she simply asked him if he would review Dr. Stechschulte's work status report and the FCE evaluations and if he would “be willing to rethink the full duty release.” Id. Vol. 8, at 1686–87. Following his conversation with Sloan, Dr. Legler changed Jones's work restriction to match Dr. Stechschulte's, at which point UPS again refused to permit Jones to return to work.

The following day, Jones filed a grievance with the union, alleging that UPS would not permit him to return to work despite being released by both Dr. Poppa and Dr. Legler. Add., at 209. The grievance panel directed UPS and Jones to follow the CBA's third-doctor procedure. Under the CBA, if the UPS doctor and the employee's doctor disagree, the parties must select a third doctor, “whose decision shall be final and binding.” Id. at 35. The CBA further states that [n]either the [e]mployer nor the Union [may] attempt to circumvent the decision” of the third doctor. Id. Shortly after the grievance panel issued its ruling, the parties selected Dr. Frederick Buck to examine Jones.

In May 2004, Dr. Buck examined Jones, watched him successfully complete basic lifting and strength tests, and concluded that another FCE would help him better evaluate Jones's abilities and limitations. Dr. Buck called Sloan and asked permission to perform another FCE, but Sloan stated that UPS would not pay for an FCE because Jones had received one the previous December.1 Sloan also informed Dr. Buck that his evaluation of Jones was supposed to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Osterhout v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Leflore Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ... ... Nos. 20-7024 & 20-7025 United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. FILED August 24, ... Wyeth, Inc. , 727 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2013), and the Oklahoma ... defendant's conduct and the harm to the plaintiff." Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc , 674 F.3d 1187, 1207 (10th ... ...
  • Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 25 Septiembre 2018
    ... ... ; ALEXANDER HOWELL; DANIELLE IRVIN; ALLEN JACOBS; ALEX JONES; DONALD LUKE KEENAN; DANIEL KUHLER; SIMON LUCERO; RAPHAEL ... No. CIV 14-1044 JB\KBM No. CIV 17-0796 JB\CG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ... Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 2007-NMCA-120, 48, 168 P.3d 129, 144 (quoting ... United Parcel Service, Inc. , a published opinion applying Shady Grove ... v. Humana Military Healthcare Serv., Inc. , 601 F.3d 1159, 1170 (11th Cir. 2010)(emphasis in ... ...
  • Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 28 Septiembre 2017
    ... ... No. 16-6011. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. September 28, 2017 ... Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc. , 518 U.S. 415, 43435, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 ... See Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 212, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 ... UNICCO Serv. Co. , 2005 OK 54, 26, 127 P.3d 572, 579 (Okla. 2005) )) ... ...
  • Lompe v. Sunridge Partners, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 1 Abril 2016
    ... ... Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; American Tort Reform Association; ... Troy L. Booherand Noella A. Sudbury, Zimmerman Jones Booher LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, filed an Amici brief on ... Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1012, 1015, 194 ... United Parcel Serv., Inc., 674 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th Cir.2012)(internal ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT