Larry L. Rebarchek v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator and Mercantile Association of Dighton, Kansas, and Floyd G. Barber, 272 Kan. 546

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed a retaliatory-discharge claim brought by Larry L. Rebarchek against his former employer and supervisor after he filed a workers compensation claim. The court held that Kansas applies a burden-shifting analysis to such claims and that Rebarchek presented sufficient evidence of causation and pretext to create genuine issues of material fact. The court also addressed the use of pre-limitations-period conduct as evidence of a continuing retaliatory pattern and supervisor liability.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff need not satisfy the clear-and-convincing quality of proof applicable at trial in order to defeat summary judgment on a workers compensation retaliatory-discharge claim.
2. Kansas applies a modified McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to a common-law claim for retaliatory discharge based on filing a workers compensation claim.
3. Rebarchek presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to create genuine issues of material fact concerning causal connection and whether Farmers' stated performance-based reason for termination was pretextual.
4. Events occurring before the limitations period may support recovery when they form part of a continuing pattern of retaliatory conduct, and may be admitted to prove discriminatory or retaliatory intent concerning the ultimate termination.
5. Only the employer, not an individual supervisor, is liable for common-law retaliatory discharge based on an employee's pursuit of workers compensation benefits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers compensation claim must satisfy the clear-and-convincing quality of proof at the summary-judgment stage.
2. Whether Kansas applies a burden-shifting framework to a common-law workers compensation retaliatory-discharge claim.
3. Whether Rebarchek presented sufficient evidence of causation and pretext to create genuine issues of material fact.
4. Whether conduct predating the limitations period may be considered as part of a continuing pattern of retaliatory conduct and as evidence of discriminatory intent.
5. Whether a supervisor may be held individually liable for a common-law retaliatory discharge carried out on behalf of the employer.
6. Whether maintaining both federal and state disability or discrimination claims precluded the separate common-law workers compensation retaliatory-discharge action.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded