Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Murray v. Kaiser Permanente
Citation: 52 F. App'x 725Docket: No. 02-3633
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; December 9, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Pamelia Y. Murray, representing herself, appeals a district court's summary judgment favoring Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio in her employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII. Murray, a Jehovah’s Witness, claimed wrongful discharge, religious discrimination, breach of implied contract, and blacklisting after her termination on December 15, 2000, due to frequent errors and tardiness. The case was removed to federal court, where the district court found Murray did not present a prima facie case of discrimination and that Kaiser provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination. Murray's claims of wrongful discharge and breach of implied contract were dropped. On appeal, she contends the district court erred by granting summary judgment, citing an Ohio agency's finding of improper termination and her establishment of a prima facie case. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, stating Murray failed to show she was replaced by someone outside her protected class or that Kaiser treated a comparable nonprotected employee more favorably. Even if a prima facie case were established, Kaiser's documented reasons for termination were deemed legitimate and not pretextual. Murray's performance issues, including multiple tardiness and errors, justified her dismissal. Murray's claim that her termination was unjust due to a favorable finding by an administrative agency is invalid, as Ohio law stipulates that such findings do not have collateral estoppel or res judicata effects in subsequent judicial proceedings. Specifically, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services determined that her discharge was not justified and approved her unemployment benefits, but this decision does not influence her case in district court. Furthermore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Kaiser regarding Murray's blacklisting and retaliation claim. Murray alleged she was blacklisted after Kaiser learned of her lawsuit against Target; however, she could not demonstrate a causal link since Kaiser was unaware of the lawsuit until after her termination. Consequently, Murray did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The district court's order is affirmed.