Sidney Knowles v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

Citations: 142 F.3d 1082; 158 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2076; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7782; 1998 WL 191163Docket: 97-3302

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; April 23, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sidney Knowles appealed the district court's summary judgment favoring Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. regarding his claims under the Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act. Knowles was employed at Citibank, F.S.B. in Miami from June 1984 to October 1992, with the title of recovery supervisor, when Citibank's Miami office closed due to downsizing, eliminating his position. During this time, he was called to active duty in the Army National Guard for Hurricane Andrew relief. After the closure, Knowles sought employment at Citicorp's St. Louis office and was offered a collection supervisor position, which would be held for him while he completed his military duties. However, during the interim, Knowles had two confrontational phone conversations with Robert Oleson, who would be his supervisor. Oleson insisted that Knowles come to St. Louis immediately, dismissing his military obligations, and threatened to replace him if he did not comply. Knowles did not report these conversations to anyone at Citicorp. The court ultimately affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Citicorp.

Knowles completed his National Guard duties in mid-October 1992 and started working at Citicorp's St. Louis office on October 19. His employment lasted only two weeks, ending with his resignation, primarily due to dissatisfaction with Citicorp's relocation package, which he deemed inadequate. Despite engaging with Citicorp representatives and human resources to negotiate a better package, Knowles was unsuccessful. Additionally, he faced issues with his supervisor, Oleson, whom he alleges treated him poorly because of his National Guard membership. Knowles cites three incidents illustrating this mistreatment: a co-worker's hostile confrontation, Oleson's refusal to allow him to hold meetings with his team, and a private meeting where Oleson expressed his dislike for the military and stated he did not want Knowles working for him. Although upset, Knowles returned for a second week and sought another position within Citicorp, ultimately meeting with human resources to inform them of his resignation. He provided a handwritten resignation letter attributing his departure to the relocation package, a statement he claims was coerced by Oleson and does not reflect his true reasons, which he asserts were related to an intolerable work environment. Knowles did not formally report his grievances to Citicorp HR but did discuss them with Oleson's supervisor, who was unresponsive. Following his resignation, Knowles filed an action against Citicorp, alleging violations of the Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act (VRRA) for failure to reemploy him and constructive discharge due to his National Guard status. The district court granted summary judgment for Citicorp on both claims, with the standard of review being de novo, assessing whether there were genuine issues of material fact and if Citicorp was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Knowles' claim against Citicorp for violating the Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act (VRRA) by not reemploying him after his Army National Guard service is unfounded. He was employed by Citibank, a subsidiary of Citicorp, at the time he was called to duty, but not by Citicorp itself until after his service had ended. Citibank and Citicorp are separate entities, and therefore, Citicorp had no obligation to reemploy Knowles upon the conclusion of his National Guard duties. Additionally, Knowles acknowledged that Citicorp offered him a position equivalent to his previous job at Citibank, which would fulfill any reemployment obligation, should it exist.

Regarding Knowles' assertion of constructive discharge in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3), he must demonstrate that his National Guard status was the sole cause of his departure and that his working conditions were rendered intolerable by Citicorp's actions. A constructive discharge occurs when an employer intentionally creates unbearable working conditions to compel an employee to resign. However, the evidence presented by Knowles was insufficient to prove constructive discharge. The standard requires employees to act reasonably and not to leap to conclusions without allowing the employer a chance to resolve issues. The court upheld the district court's decision, noting that Knowles prematurely concluded his situation was intolerable without giving Citicorp a reasonable opportunity to address his concerns.

Knowles claimed he exhausted all avenues to address his issues at Citicorp, but the record indicates he took minimal action, only discussing his concerns with Halper. He failed to inform Citicorp's human resources or any co-workers about his problems and did not utilize internal grievance procedures. When resigned, he did not cite issues with Oleson, attributing his departure solely to the relocation package, which contradicts his later claims of coercion by Oleson. This resignation letter exemplifies his choice to bypass potential remedies. Although Knowles frequently pursued better terms for his relocation package, he did not similarly report Oleson's conduct. Consequently, the district court correctly concluded he was not constructively discharged. The judgment was affirmed, aligning with the 'sole cause' standard established by the Supreme Court, which requires that reserve status be the sole motivation for adverse employment actions. The subsequent 'motivating factor' standard under USERRA does not apply retroactively to Knowles' 1992 claims.