00-2064 Kohls v. Beverly Enterprises Wisconsin, Inc.

Listen to this article

“Kohls asserts that she would not have been fired had she not taken leave and was thus entitled to reinstatement. Beverly counters by claiming that Kohls would have been terminated regardless of whether or not she took maternity leave, due to the problems with the Resident Council checkbook and the activities program. We find that Beverly has presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that Kohls was terminated for the stated reasons. Kohls admitted that at least one check was not accounted for, that she did not consistently record check numbers or amounts, that she threw out the bank statements, and that she did not balance the checkbook. Kohls has not suggested that Flick was lying when she stated that the checkbook was off by $70.86 nor has Kohls presented any explanation for the difference. With respect to the performance issues, it is clear from the record that numerous parties commented on the deficiencies in the activities department under Kohls. While it is not as clear how much of this had been communicated directly to Flick, it is undisputed that she was aware of the problems, and had even discussed them with Kohls (following the state survey). An employer undoubtedly has the discretion to fire an at-will employee for mishandling and mismanaging funds or for poor performance, or both. See Kariotis v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 131 F.3d 672, 678-79 (7th Cir. 1997) (‘[N]o federal rule requires just cause for discharges.’) (quotation omitted). It is possible, of course, that Flick would have disciplined Kohls less severely – by choosing something other than immediate termination – if there had not been another employee ready to take Kohls’ place. Our role is not, however, to tell employers how to discipline employees; rather, it is to ensure that the process is not discriminatory.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Kanne, J.