# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 17 30

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ju ne Bro wn

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le ; Pa ul Mu sh ru sh ; Ch eryl Erkel

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 3, 2 01 2 Fil ed : M arch 29 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le
, Ark an sa s (C i ty), te rm in at ed Ju ne Bro wn’s

em pl oym en t fo r “ Fai lu re in Perf or m an ce of Dut ie s” an d “ Fai l ur e in Pers on al
Co nd uc t.” On Nov em

be r 10 , 2 01 0, Bro wn su ed th e Ci ty an d he r su pe rv is o r s , P au l
Mu sh ru sh an d Ch eryl Erke l, cl a i mi n g t he Ci ty’ s reas on s fo r te rm in at in g he r

em pl oym en t were pr et ex tu al

. Bro wn’s su it rai se d se ve n cl ai m s: (1 ) ag edi sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in Em pl oym en t Act (ADEA),
29 U.S.C. § 62 1 et se q.; (2 ) ge nd er di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64 (Tit le VII), 42 U

. S

. C

. §§ 20 00 e-2 00 0e –1 7 ; (3 ) di sa bi li ty 1
di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 1 et se q.; ( 4 ) ret al ia ti on fo r ta ki ng pr ot ect ed le av e in vi ol at io n of th e Fam il y

an d Med ic al Leav e Act (FM LA), 29 U.S.C. § 26 01 et se q.; (5 ) in te rfer en ce wit h

pr ot ect ed rig ht s in vi ol at io n of th e FMLA; (6 ) ret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII; an d (7 ) ret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n of th e Ark an sa s Ci v il Ri gh ts Act of 19 93 (ACRA), Ark

. Co de Ann

. §§ 16 –1 23 –1 01 -1 08

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s’ 2

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t on al l of Bro wn’s cl ai m s. Bro wn, ha vi ng ab an do ne d he r ge nd er di sc riminat io n cl ai m , ap pe al s. Bec au se th ere is no ev id en ce or reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e Ci ty’ s reas on s fo r te rm in at in g Br o wn’s em pl oym en t were
pr et ex tu al , and ha vi ng ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND 3
A. Fac ts The Ci ty hi red Bro wn in 19 98 as a pu rch as in g ag en t an d pr om ot ed he r in 19 99

to pu rch as in g m an ag er. On Ju ne 9, 20 09
, th e Ci ty te rm in at ed Bro wn’s em pl oym en t. Thro ug ho ut Bro wn’s em

pl oym en t, Pau l Mu sh ru sh
, th e Ci ty’ s di rect or of fin an ce, was he r su pe rv is or

. Fro m Decem be r of 20 07 un ti l Bro wn ceas ed w o r k i n g f o r th e Ci ty, Ch eryl Erke l, th e Ci ty’ s as si st an t fin an ce di rect or , al so ha d su pe rv is or y au th or it y ov er Bro wn.

The di st ric t co ur t i nf

erre d t hi s cl ai m

fro m Bro wn’s p le ad in gs

. 1

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

W e reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bro wn beca us e sh e was th e 3

no n- m ov in g pa rty. See, e.g ., You ng v. All st at e In s. Co
., 68 5 F.3 d 78 2, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

-2

-Viewe d in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bro wn, th e fact s are as fo ll ows

. Befo re

Aug us t 9, 20 08
, Br o w n s u f f e r ed fro m hi p pr ob le m s th at cau se d ch ro ni c pa in an d

req ui red he r to walk wit h a can e. Bet ween Octo be r 20 06 an d Mar ch 20 07
, Mu sh ru sh
, who is ol de r th an Bro wn, refe rred to he r as an “ ol d wom an ” on se ve ral oc cas io ns an d

sa id each of th e fo ll owi ng on ce: “ Hey ol d wo m an , we m ov in g sl ow,” “ su ch an ol d

wom an , can ’t ev en st rai gh te n up ,” an d “ Hey
, Cri p [s ic ]. ” Bro wn fil ed a ch arg e of 4
di sc riminat io n with th e Uni te d Stat es Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC) o n M ay

24 , 20 07 , whi ch th e EEOC di sm is se d o n M ay 8, 2 00 8.

On Nov em

be r 11
, 20 07
, Mu sh ru sh in st ru ct ed Bro wn to wor k on ly fro m 8 a.m

. to 5 p.m

. as pa rt of a “ pr oc es s ch an ge ” de si gn ed to so lv e pe rs is te nt de la y s in pa y in g

ve nd or s. Beg in ni ng as earl y as 20 04
, Bro wn ha d rep eat ed ly in fo rm ed Mu sh ru sh th at sh e wor ke d “ at le as t 50 -6 0 ho ur s a we ek .” Bro wn m ai nt ai ns sh e co ul d n ot pe rfo rm he r job wit ho ut wor ki ng la te

. Mu sh ru sh te st ifi ed “ th e job co ul d be do ne in a 40 -h ou r week
, an d [Bro wn] was no t wil li ng to co op erat e or us e th e r e so ur ces of fere d.” On
Ja nu ary 3, 20 08
, Mu sh ru sh ob se rv ed Bro wn in he r of fic e pa st 5: 30 p.m

. He as ke d he r why sh e was st il l in th e of fic e. “ [J ]ust tryin g to do m y job ,” Bro wn sa y s sh e rep li ed

. A c c o r d i n g to Bro wn, sh e was act ua ll y ch at ti ng wit h a co wor ke r an d m ak in g a
pe rs on al ph on e cal l. Sh e le ft at 5: 36 p.m

. aft er Mu sh ru sh in st ru ct ed he r to do so

. On
Ja nu ary 11
, 20 08
, Mu sh ru sh co m pl et ed an “ em

pl oyee co un se li ng fo rm ” reg ard in g the in ci de nt , in whi ch he no te d he r act io ns “ co ns ti tu te [d ] i n s u b o r di na ti on

. . . by fir st de fy in g [h is ] di rect or de rs an d se co nd by no t m ak in g us e of th e d e p a r t men t [ ’] s

res ou rces to co m

pl et e ta sk s.”

The on ly ev id en ce Mu sh ru sh m ad e th es e di sa bi li ty rel at ed st at em en ts is 4 Bro wn’s te st im on y

. Mu sh ru sh co nt es ts Bro wn’s acco un t, te sti fy ing th at th e on ly ti m e he refe rred to he r di sa bi li ty was whe n he sa w Bro wn, wit ho ut he r can e, res t i ng he r ha nd s ag ai ns t a ta bl e in th e ha ll an d sa id
, “ It lo ok s li ke y ou ’re m ov in g sl ow. Do y ou
ne ed he lp ? ” Alt ho ug h B ro wn ca n p oi nt to no te st im on y co rro bo rat in g her acco un t,

an d ot he r Ci ty em

pl oyees te st ifi ed Mu sh ru sh was “ res pe ct fu l to ward s ev eryone ” an d

ne ve r m ad e di sc riminat o r y co m m en ts to Bro wn, we do no t m ak e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns on a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

-3

-On Aug us t 9, 20 08
, Bro wn beg an a pe rio d of FMLA le av e, du rin g whi ch sh e

ha d hi p rep la cem en t su rg ery. Her fin al da y of FMLA le av e was Octo be r 18
, 2 0 0 8. Th e r e i s no ev id en ce in th e reco rd in di cat in g th at Bro wn rem ai ne d ph y si cal l y im pa ire d or th at an y on e pe r c e iv ed he r to be ph y si cal ly im pa ire d aft er sh e ret ur ne d fro m lea ve

.

Befo re he r FMLA le av e, Bro wn ha d us ed a pe cu li a r f il in g syste m whi ch
,
acco rd in g to un di sp ut ed ev id en ce fro m ot he r de pa rtment em pl oyees, m ad e it di ffi cu lt fo r an y on e e x c e p t B ro wn to lo cat e do cu m en ts

. W hi le Bro wn was on le av e, Erke l— who ha d pr ev io us ly ad vi se d Bro wn to reo rg an iz e he r fil es to m ak e th em m or e

acce ss ib le to th e res t of th e o f f i c e

— an d Ang el a Bl ack lo ck
, Bro wn’s su bo rd in at e, ha n d l e d Bro wn’s res po ns ib il it ie s. W he n Bro wn ret ur ne d to wor k, sh e le arn ed th at Erke l ha d reo r g a n i zed
, al ph ab et iz ed
, an d cen tra li zed th e pu rch as in g de pa rtment’s fil es

.

On Apr il 8, 20 09 , Erk el is s u ed Bro wn a fo rm al “ em pl oyee co un se li ng fo rm ” fo r fai lu re to pe rfo rm he r du ti es a s p ur ch as in g m an ag er. On m an y pr io r oc cas io ns , bo th Mu sh ru sh an d Er k e l in fo rm al ly ex pl ai ne d to Bro wn th at he r pe rfo rm an ce was

un sa ti sf act or y

. Bro wn res po nd ed by fil in g an in te rn al EEOC co m pl ai nt wit h th e Ci ty, al le gi ng M u s h r u sh an d Erke l were ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t he r fo r fil in g th e May 20 07
EEOC ch arg e. Two EEOC of fic ers fo r th e Ci ty co nd uc te d an in ve st ig at io n, reco rd ed

an d tra ns cri be d by a co ur t rep or te r, an d in fo rm ed Bro wn th ey “ fo un d no ev id en ce or

w i t n e s s to su pp or t [h er] be li ef th at [s he was ] th e su bjec t of ret al ia ti on du e to [h e r ] fil in g of a pr ev io us co m pl ai nt i n 2 0 0 7 w i th th e [EEOC]. ” On th e co nt rary, th e in ve st ig at io n rev eal ed nu m ero us em pl oyees in th e fin an ce de pa rtment, in cl ud in g Bro wn’s su bo rd in at e Bl ack lo ck
, who co ns id ered Bro wn to be a ne ga ti ve pr es en ce in th e wor kp la ce. Bl ack lo ck sa id du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n th at he r wor kp la ce was “ ve ry
st res sf ul ” be cau se “ [a]nythi ng [Bro wn] [wa]s go in g th ro ug h

. . . affe ct [ed ] th e who le of fic e, es pe ci al ly [Bl ac klo ck ] sin ce [B la cklo ck ] wor k[ ed ]

. . . cl os e[l y ] wit h [Bro wn].”

-4

-Bl ack lo ck al so sa id sh e be li ev ed Bro wn was ha nd li ng o n l y 2 5 % o f th e Ci ty’ s

pu rch as in g wor k wh i l e B l a ck lo ck di d 75 % of th e wor k. Bl ack lo ck su gg es te d th e Ci ty’ s pu rch as in g wor k was pe rfo rm ed well an d wit h “ le ss st res s” whi le Bro wn was

on le av e, al th ou gh th e de pa rtment hi red no on e to co ve r fo r Bro wn. Ano th er fin an ce de pa rtment em

pl oyee, Deb bi e Je rn ig an , rep or te d ev eryone in th ei r wor kp la ce “ ki nd of walk [ed ] on pi ns an d ne ed le s whe n i t c [ a ]m e[] to [Bro wn].” Je rn ig an al so

co m pl ai ne d ab ou t Bro wn’s “ at ti tu de an d

. . . he r no n- res po ns iv en es s to a lo t of th in gs th at sh e sh ou ld be do in g in th e of fic e,” ex pl ai ni ng sh e an d ot he r em pl oyees ha d “ de al t wit h i t fo r qu it e a wh il e.”

On May 21
, 20 09
, ba se d on co nc ern s th at Bro wn’s be ha vi o r was crea ti ng a ho st il e wor kp la ce fo r Bl ack lo ck an d ot he r em pl oyees in th e fin an ce de pa rtment, th e Ci ty’ s hu m an res ou rces di rect or , J i l l Ro ss , an d Erke l la un ch ed an in te rn al in ve st ig at io n. Dur in g th e in te rn al i n v e s t i ga ti on , Bro wn ack no wled ge d as ki ng Bl ack lo ck an d an ot he r em pl oyee, Lin da D u p r e e , to pr ov id e in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e in ve st ig at io n. On May 26
, 20 09
, Bro wn fil ed a se co nd EEOC di sc riminat io n ch arg e

a g a i n st th e Ci ty. On Ju ne 8, 20 09
, Ro ss an d Erke l co m pl et ed th ei r in te r n a l in ve st ig at io n an d is su ed a rep or t. The rep or t co nc lu de d Bro wn ha d crea te d a “ ho st il e

wor k en vi ro nm en t” an d ha d “ act ed in a m an ne r so [as ] to in ti m id at e an d ha ras s he r

em pl oyee [(i .e., Bl ack lo ck )] an d an ot he r

. . . em pl oyee [(i .e., Dup ree) ] reg ard in g [th e] in ve st ig at io n.” O n Ju ne 9, 20 09
, Mu sh ru sh te rm in at ed Bro wn’s em pl oym en t fo r

“ Fai lu re in Perf

or m an ce o f Dut ie s” an d “ Fai lu re in Pers on al Co nd uc t.” On Aug us t 17 , 20 10 , th e EEOC di sm is se d B ro wn’s s eco nd di sc riminat io n c ha rg e.

B. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs Afte r sp en di ng “ m an y ho ur s” rev ie win g Bro w n ’s be wil de rin g br ie f in

op po si ti on to su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s’

m ot io n f o r s u mm ary jud gm en t on al l of Bro wn’s cl ai m s. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Bro wn fai le d to id en ti fy an y ev id en ce th e Ci ty’ s reas on fo r te rm in at in g he r

was a pr et ex t fo r ag e di sc riminat io n. Seco nd
, t h e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d as ti m e

-5

-ba rred Bro wn’s cl ai m th at Erke l’s pr om ot io n to as si st an t fin an ce di rect or rep res en te d

ag e-b as ed di sc riminat io n ag ai ns t Bro wn, be cau se Bro wn fai le d to fil e EEOC ch arg es wit hi n 30 0 da y s of th e pr om ot io n. Thi rd
, th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Bro wn’s ge nd er di sc riminat io n cl ai m be cau se sh e fai le d to m ak e a pr im a faci e c a s e

. Fo ur th
, th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed Bro wn’s di sa bi li ty di sc rimi n at io n cl ai m fo r two al te rn at e

reas on s: (1 ) sh e fai le d to m ak e a pr im a faci e cas e be cau se sh e of fere d no ev id en ce as
to he r di sa bi li ty aft er the su rg ery, an d (2) th ere was n o “ ge nu in e di sp ut e” the Ci ty’ s

reas on s fo r te rm in at in g he r em pl oym en t were pr e t e x t u a l

. Fi fth
, th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d he r F MLA cl ai m s be cau se sh e fai le d to m ak e a pr im a faci e cas e of

ret al ia ti on

. Si xt h, th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d he r Tit le VII an d ACRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s be cau se th e r e w a s no ev id en ce th e Ci ty’ s “ le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat or y

reas on s” for ter m in at in g B ro wn wer e p ret ex tu al . Bro wn ap pe al s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N On th is ap pe al fro m en try of su m m ary jud gm en t, we rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s an d le ga l c o n c l u s io ns , “ gi vi ng Bro wn th e be ne fit of al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Bro wn v. Kan . C it y Frei gh tl in er Sal es , I n c ., 6 17 F.3 d 99 5, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e affi rm a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t o n l y i f “ th ere is no
ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud g men t as a

m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56

.

Bec au se Bro w n’s br ie f, fil le d as it is wit h un su pp or te d le ga l an d fact ua l

as se rti on s, so m et im es bo rd ers on in co m pr eh en si bl e, th e pr eci se is su es sh e is rai si ng in th is ap pe al are un cl ear. Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we st ru gg le to de ci ph er se em in gl y in co ns is te nt cl ai m s, an d we ha ve in te rp ret ed Bro wn’s co un se l’s pa ge s of arg um en ts

as fav or ab ly as th e reco rd al lo ws. Fro m ou r read in g, we in fer Bro wn ha s ab an do ne d 5

W e ech o th e di st ric t co ur t’s no t i c e t o Bro wn’s co un se l th at we are “ no t 5 in cl in ed to un de rta ke th is effo rt ag ai n in hi s cas es .” See Ro dg ers v. Ci ty o f Des Mo in es , 43 5 F.3 d 90 4, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ [W] e wil l no t m in e a su m m ary jud gm en t

reco rd se arch in g fo r nu gg et s of fact ua l di sp ut es to gi ld a pa rty’ s arg um en ts .”); Uni te d

-6

-he r Tit le VII ge nd er di sc riminat io n cl ai m , se e Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v. Ash cro ft, 36 7 F.3 d

75 1, 75 6 (8t h Cir. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng a cl ai m is waiv ed when “ th ere [i]s no m ean in gf ul

arg um en t on th [e] cl ai m in [th e] op en in g br ie f”), an d co nt in ue s to pr es s he r Tit le VII

ret al ia ti on cl ai m an d ADA, ADEA, FMLA, an d ACRA cl ai m s on ap pe al

. W e ad dr es s each st at ut or y

cla im in tu rn

.

A. ADA
A lth ou gh Bro wn’s br ie f co nt ai ns no ci ta ti on to th e rel ev an t st at ut e, we in fer she ba se s he r di sa bi li ty-di sc riminat io n cl ai m on a pu rp or te d vi ol at io n of th e A DA’ s
pr oh ib it io n of em

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n “ ag ai ns t a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a). The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d Bro wn fai le d t o

m ak e a p rima facie cas e fo r a v io la ti on of § 12 11 2( a). Bro wn arg ue s sh e pr es en te d

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe rm it a reas on ab le jury to fin d th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s vi ol at ed th e ADA. W e d is ag ree.

St at es v. Dun ke l, 92 7 F.2 d 95 5, 95 6 (7 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ Ju dg es are no t li ke pi gs , hu nt i n g f

o r t ru ffl es bu rie d in br ie fs .”); cf. Gil be rt v. Des Mo in es Area Co m

. Co ll
., 49 5 F.3 d 90 6, 91 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ A di st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red to sp ecu la te

on whi ch po rti on of th e reco rd th e no nm ov in g pa rty rel ie s, no r is it ob li ga te d to wad e th ro ug h a nd se arch th e en ti re reco rd fo r so m e sp eci fic fact s th at m ig ht su pp or t th e
no nm ov in g pa rty’ s cl ai m .” (in te rn al q u o t a t i o n om it te d) ). Not on ly is th e op en in g ap pe l l a t e br ie f su bm it te d by Bro wn’s co un se l li tt ered wit h irr el ev an t se nt en ces , care le ss pr os e, an d ram

bl in g m ul ti -p ag e pa rag rap hs
, bu t Br o wn’s co un se l di d no t

su bm it a rep ly br ie f—a de ci si on whi ch
, ev en if ta ct ic al
, un de res ti m at ed th e pe rs ua si ve ne ss of t he ap pe ll ees ’ arg um en ts

.
-7

-1. Pos t-Amendm ent ADA Sta nda rd

In or de r to ob ta in rel ie f un de r th e ADA, as am en de d in 20 08
, a pl ai nt iff m us t 6
sh ow (1 ) sh e is a “ qu al ifi ed in di vi du al ” un de r th e ADA, (2 ) sh e su ffe r e d

“ di sc riminat [io n]” as th e te rm is de fin ed by th e ADA, an d (3 ) th e “ di sc riminat [io n]”

w a s “bas [ed ]” on “ di sa bi li ty” as de fin ed by th e ADA. Id

. Co ng res s’s 2 0 0 8

am en dm en ts to th e ADA di d no t fu nd am en ta ll y ch an ge th e qu al ifi cat io n req ui rem en t al th ou gh th ey ex ci se d th e te rm “ wit h a di sa bi li ty” fro m th e su bs ect io n d e f in in g a

“ qu al ifi ed in di vi du al .” See § 5( c)(1 ), 12 2 S ta t. at 35 57 . To qu al ify un de r th e p os tam en dm en t ADA, an in di vi du al m us t st il l be ab le to “ pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s

o f t h e em

pl oym en t po si ti on ” “ wit h or wit ho ut reas on ab le acco m m od at io n.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 1( 8)

. N e i th er di d th e 20 08 am en dm en ts si gn ifi can tl y al te r th e

su bs ect io n de fin in g “ di sc riminat [io n].” See § 5( a)(2 ), 12 2 St at

. at 35 57

. As be fo re,

“ di sc riminat [io n]” un de r th e ADA m ean s an “ ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” See, e.g ., Ben so n v. Nw. Airl in es , In c., 62 F.3 d 11 08
, 11 12 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 5 ) ; s ee 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( b)

. The 20 08 am en dm en ts di d al te r th e ADA de fin it io n of “ di sa bi li ty.” See § 4 , 12 2 S ta t. at 35 55 -5 6.

Rel ev an t to th is cas e, th e 20 08 am en dm en ts m ad e cl ear th e ADA ap pl ie s to a
pe rs on who “ ha s be en su bjec te d to [ad ve rs e em pl oym en t] act io n

. . . un de r [th e ADA] be cau se of an act ua l or pe rc ei ved ph y si cal or m en ta l im pa irment wh et he r or no t th e im pa irment li m it s or is pe rc ei ved t o l i m i t a m ajor li fe act iv it y .” 42 U.S.C. § 12 1 0 2( 3) (A) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y an al y zed Bro wn’s
ADA cl ai m un de r th e m or e res tri ct iv e req ui rem en ts ap pl ic ab le to pr e- a men dm en t

Co ng res s’s 20 08 am en dm en ts to th e ADA, whi ch to ok ef f e ct on Ja nu ary 1, 6 20 09 , d o no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y

. S e e ADA Am en dm en ts Act of 20 08 , P ub . L. No. 11 0– 32 5, § 8, 12 2 St at

. 35 53
, 35 59 (2 00 8) ; Ny ro p v. In de p. Sch

. Dis t. No. 11
, 61 6 F.3 d 72 8, 73 4 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Alt ho ug h Bro wn’s ev id en ce of di sa bi li ty da te s to 20 08
, we ev al ua te he r ADA cl ai m un de r th e m or e ge ne ro us po st -am en dm en t ve rs io n of th e ADA be cau se th e Ci ty’ s al le ge d vi ol at io n of th e ADA—te rm in at io n of Bro wn’s em

pl oym en t— oc cu rred aft er t he 20 08 am en dm en ts to ok effe ct

. -8

-ADA cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on th e pr eci se pr e-am en dm en t reg ul at io ns 7
de fin in g th e te rm “ su bs ta nt ia ll y li m it s” —ci te d by us in a pr e-am en dm en t cas e —t ha t 8
Co ng res s ex p r e s s l y r e

je ct ed in 20 08

. See § 2( a)(8 ), 12 2 St at

. 35 54

. The di st ric t

co ur t, whi ch fo cu se d on whe th e r B r o wn ha d an act ua l im pa irment at th e ti m e he r

em pl oym en t en de d, al so fai le d to co ns id er whe th er Bro wn m ad e a su bm is si bl e cl ai m

un de r th e po st -am en dm en t ADA ’s ex pa nd ed de fin it io ns of pe rcei ve d and hi st or ic al im pa irment. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 1) (B)- (C), 12 10 2( 3)

. In ou r di sc us si on he reaf te r

we as su m e, wit ho ut de ci di ng , Bro wn was a qu al ifi ed in di vi d u a l w it h a di sa bi li ty

un de r th e ADA, as am en de d.

2. Bro w n’s Ev id ence Des pi te th e di st ric t co ur t’s erro r, ou r in de pe nd en t rev ie w le ad s us to up ho ld th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t be c a u s e B r o wn fai le d to m ak e a pr im a faci e cas e ev en if we as su m e sh e was di sa bl ed un de r th e po st -am en dm en t ADA. See, 9

e.g ., Jo hn so n v. Out bo ard Mar in e Co rp ., 17 2 F.3 d 53 1, 53 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ W e m ay
up ho ld a gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r an y reas on su pp or te d by th e reco rd
, ev en if di ffer en t fr om

th e rea so ns gi ve n b y

th e d is tri ct co ur t.”)

.

W e reco gn iz e th at at le as t on e of o u r c a s e s al so di d no t refe ren ce th e 7
ap pr op ria te ve rs io n of th e ADA. See, e.g ., Kall ai l v. All ia nt Ene rg y Co rp or at e Serv s., In c., 69 1 F.3 d 92 5, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng th e po st -am en dm en t ve rs io n of 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a) in a cas e in vo lv in g pr e-2 00 9 ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n)

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on pr e-am en dm en t ADA s ta nd ard s, th ou gh in co rrec t, is

un de rs ta nd ab le

. See Maz ia rk a v. Mi ll s Fl eet Farm
, In c., 24 5 F.3 d 67 5, 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) 8 (ci ti ng 29 C.F.R. § 16 30 .2(j)( 1) (i) -(i i) ( 20 00 )).

Our in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd al so le ad s us to reject B r o wn’s 9

c o n t e n t i o n th at th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s di d no t pr op erl y rai se —i n th e di st ric t

co ur t— he r fai lu re to st at e a pr im a faci e cas e. The Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s’ br i e f in

su pp or t of th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary ju d g men t pl ai nl y arg ue d Bro wn “ fai l[e d] to

es ta bl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sa bi li ty dis cri m in at io n.”

-9

-B r o w n ’s ADA cl ai m can no t su rv iv e su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se th ere is n o

ev id en ce th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s te r m in at ed he r em pl oym en t “ on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty.” Id

. § 12 11 2( a). Co ng res s’s 20 08 am en dm en t to th e ADA di d no t rel ie ve Bro wn of th e ne ed to pr es en t di rect or in di rect ev id en ce sh owi ng a cau sa l li nk be twee n th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n an d he r di sa bi li ty. Cf. Grif fit h v. Ci ty of Des
Mo in es , 38 7 F .3d 73 3, 7 36 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

As di rect ev id en ce, Bro wn ap pa ren tl y po in ts to th e de ro ga t o r y co m m en ts Mu sh ru sh al le ge dl y m ad e be twee n fal l 20 06 an d sp rin g 20 07

. Tha t ev id en ce is st al e vi s- à-v is th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n, whi ch oc cu rred m or e th an two y ears la te r. The ti m e la g al so pr ev en ts Mu sh ru sh ’s co m m en ts fro m se rv in g as in di rect ev id en ce. I n a n an al og ou s co nt ex t, we he ld a two -m on th la g “ di lu te [d ] an y in fere nc e o f

cau sa ti on .” Kip p v. Mo . Hig hwa y & Tran sp . Com m ’n, 28 0 F .3d 89 3, 8 97 (8t h C ir.
20 02 ); se e al so McB ur ne y v

. S t e w Han se n’s Dod ge Ci ty, In c., 39 8 F.3 d 99 8, 10 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( d e t e r mini ng th e si x m on th ga p di lu te d th e cau sa l li nk ). W ha te ve r

m ax im um am ou nt of ti m e can pa ss wit ho ut de st ro y in g an in fere nc e of cau sa ti on , two
y ears is far t oo lo ng un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of B ro wn’s ca se

.

Alt ho ug h we as su m e Brow n es ta bli she d “ dis ab ili ty ” unde r the post- am en dm en t ADA, th e reco rd do es no t con ta in ev id en ce s uf fic ie nt to pe rm it a reas on ab le jury to fin d th e Ci ty te rm in at ed Bro wn ba s e d o n an y di sa bi li ty. Su m m ary jud gm en t was
ap pr op ria te on Bro wn’s ADA cla im

.

B. ADEA The ADEA m ak es it “ un la wfu l fo r an em pl oyer

. . . to di sc ha rg e an y in di vi du al

. . . be cau se of su ch in di vi du al ’s ag e.” 29 U.S

. C

. § 6 2 3

. To su pp or t he r ag e d i s c r im in at io n cl ai m un de r th e ADEA, Bro wn ap pa ren tl y rel ie s on th e s a me

co m m en ts by Mu sh ru sh on whi ch sh e ba se d he r ADA cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d

no ge nu in e di sp u t e o f f

a c t be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce Bro wn lo st he r job fo r
pr et ex tu al reas on s. We agre e.

-1 0-The re is no ev id en ce th e Ci ty’ s s t at ed reas on s fo r te rm in at in g Bro wn’s

em pl oym en t were pr et ex ts fo r ag e di sc riminat io n. See Rah lf v. Mo -Tech Co rp ., 64 2
F.3 d 63 3, 63 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ At al l ti mes , th e pl ai nt iff ret ai ns th e bu rd en of

p ers ua si on to pr ov e th at ag e was th e ‘but -fo r’ cau se of te rm in at io n.” ). A t o r a l

arg um ent, Bro wn’s co un se l ag reed Mu sh ru sh ’s ag e-re la te d co m m en ts were no t di rect

ev id en ce of ag e-re la te d di sc riminat io n. It is eq ua ll y un di sp ut ed th e Ci ty hi red Bro wn whe n sh e was ov er fo rty y ears ol d. See Fi tz ge ral d v. Acti on , In c., 52 1 F.3 d 86 7, 87 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ W e ha ve no te d it is un li ke ly a su pe rv is or wou ld hi re a n ol de r

em pl o ye e an d th en di sc riminat e on th e ba si s of ag e, an d su ch ev id en ce crea te s a
pr es um pt io n ag ai ns t di sc riminat io n.” ). Afte r Bro wn’s te rm in at io n, sh e al so was no t
rep la ced wit h a y ou ng er wo rk er— sh e was no t re pl aced at a ll

.

Bro wn rep eat ed ly in fo rm ed Mu sh ru sh (wh o was ol de r th an sh e) th at sh e co ul d

no t pe rfo rm he r job wit hi n a for ty-ho ur work week as ex pe ct ed by t he Ci ty, an d sh e al so in ap pr op ria te ly pr es su red he r su bo rd in at e an d a cowor ke r to di vu lg e co nf id en ti al de ta il s ab ou t th e Apr il 20 09 EEOC in ve st ig at io n

. The un di sp ut ed fact is Bro wn’s

wor k, wh ic h s he in si st ed req ui red m or e th an fo rty ho ur s p er week to co m pl et e, was
pe rfo rm ed

—n ot jus t a d e qu at el y , bu t mor e effe ct iv el y an d qu ic kl y —b y th e fin an ce de pa rtment du rin g Bro wn’s ab se nc e, w i t h o ut hi rin g a rep la cem en t. Onc e Bro wn’s du pl ic at iv e, no n- al ph ab et ic al fil in g syste m was or ga ni zed an d al ph ab e t i z e d
, th e fin an ce de pa rtment di sc ov ered pa y in g b i l ls was no t th e m on um en ta l ta sk Bro wn
po rtr ay ed it to be

. In su ch ci r c u ms t a n c es , no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th e Ci ty’ s
st at ed reas on s wer e p ret ex tu al

.

The di st ric t co ur t c o rrec tl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t on Bro wn’s ADEA cl ai m

.

-1 1-C. FMLA

W e ha ve reco gn iz ed th ree types of cl ai m s ari si ng un de r two su bs ect io ns of th e FMLA d eal in g wi th pro hi bi te d a ct s, 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a)( 1) , (a)(2 ):

(1 ) “ en ti t l em en t” cl ai m s, se e Pu lc zi ns ki v. Trin it y St ru ct ur al
Tower s, In c., 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), or “i n t e r f eren ce” cl ai m s, ar is in g u nd er § 26 15 (a)( 1) ;

(2 ) “ ret al ia ti on ” cl ai ms , a r is in g un de r § 26 15 (a)( 2)
, se e Pu lc zi ns ki
, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 05 -0 6; Lov la nd v. Em p’rs Mu t. Cas

. Co
., 67 4
F.3 d 8 06 , 81 1 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ); a nd

(3 ) “ di sc rimin a t io n” cl ai m s, ari si ng un de r § 26 15 (a)( 1)
, se e Pu lc zi ns ki , 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 6; cf. Lov la nd , 67 4 F .3d at 8 11

.

Bro wn do es no t arg ue th e Ci ty pr ev en te d he r fro m ta ki ng FMLA le av e. Thu s, sh e ha s

no “ en ti tl em en t” cl ai m

. See Pu lc zi ns ki
, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 05

. Her br ie f, in st ead
, st y le s he r FMLA cl ai m as on e fo r “ ret al ia ti on .” Bro wn arg ue s th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s to ok ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t he r be cau se sh e ex erci se d he r rig ht to ta ke FMLA le av e. W he th er ch arac te riz ed as a “ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m un de r § 26 15 (a)( 1)
, se e id

. at 10 06 (d es cri bi ng a di sc riminat io n cl ai m as on e “ ari s[ in g] whe n an em pl oyer ta ke s ad ve rs e act io n aga in st an em pl oyee be cau se th e em

pl oyee ex erci se s rig ht s to whi ch he is en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA”)
, or as a “ ret al ia ti on ” cl ai m un de r § 2 61 5( a)(2 ), se e Lov la nd
, 67 4 F.3 d at 81 1 (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ ret al ia ti on ” cl ai m s ari se un de r th e

“ ‘dis cri m in at io n’ p ro hi bi ti on of § 26 15 (a)( 2) ”), we req ui re pr oo f of th e em pl oyer’s di sc rimina t o r y in te nt

. See Pu lc zi ns ki , 6 91 F.3 d at 10 07 ; acco rd Lov la nd , 6 74 F.3 d

at 81 1- 13

. Thi s pr oo f m ay co m e fro m di rect ev id en ce or in di rect ev id en ce us in g th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rk . See McDon ne ll Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Green
, 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 80 2 -0 6 (1 97 3)

. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ha ve th e be ne fit of ou r de ci si on s in Pu lc zi ns ki an d Lov la nd whe n it gr an te d su m m ary

-1 2-ju dg m en t on Bro wn’s FMLA cl ai m , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s un de rlyin g

an al y si s.

The reco rd do es no t co nt ai n ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e fo r di sc riminat io n i n vi ol at io n of th e FMLA, se e 29 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.2 20 (c), un de r ei th er th e di rect e v i d en ce or McDo nn el l Dou gl as in di rect

ev id en ce st an da rd s. Bro wn ha s no di rect ev id en ce th e Ci ty “ was m ot iv at ed by [h er]

e x erci se of FMLA rig ht s whe n it to ok [an y ] ad ve rs e act io ns ,” Pu lc zi ns ki , 6 91 F

. 3 d

at 10 07 (ci ti ng Hit e v. Verm eer Mfg

. Co
., 44 6 F.3 d 85 8, 86 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). In th e

a b s e n c e of di rect ev id en ce, we ap pl y th e Tit le VII “ McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en

sh ift in g fram ewo rk
, ” P h i l l ip s v. Mat he ws, 54 7 F.3 d 90 5, 91 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), to FMLA dis cri m in at io n clai m s. See Pul czi ns ki
, 69 1 F.3d at 10 07 (ci ti ng W ie rm an v. Cas ey ’s Gen. St or es , 63 8 F .3d 98 4, 9 99 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

Bro wn ha s fai le d to st at e a pr im a faci e cas e fo r FMLA di sc riminat io n un de r th e M c D o n n e l l Dou gl as st an da rd be cau se th ere is no ev id en ce “ a cau sa l co nn ect io n

ex is te d be twee n th e em

pl oyee’s act io n an d th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n,” id

. (ci ti ng Qui nn v. St

. Lou is Cn ty., 65 3 F.3 d 74 5, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). On th e co nt rary, al l th e ev id en ce ind ic at es Bro wn’s use of FMLA le av e di d no t “ pl ay [] a pa rt” in th e Ci ty’ s term in at io n dec is io n. Hit e, 44 6 F.3d at 86 5 (q uo ti ng Kip p, 28 0 F.3 d at 89 7)

. Fi rs t, th e si gn ifi can t le ng th of ti m e—e ig ht m on th s— be twee n Bro wn’s ret ur n fro m FMLA le av e an d he r em pl oym en t te rm in at io n “ di lu te d a n y i n f eren ce of cau sa ti on

su ch th at th e te m

po ral co nn ect io n co ul d no t jus ti fy a cau sa l li nk as a m at te r of la w.”
McB ur ne y , 39 8 F.3 d at 10 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Sm it h v. All en Heal th Sy s., 30 2
F.3 d 8 27 , 83 3 (8 th Cir . 20 02 )) (co nc lu di ng si x m on th s i s t oo lo ng ); s ee al so Si sk v. Pi ct ur e Peo pl e, In c., 66 9 F.3 d 89 6, 90 0- 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d eci di ng “ [m ]ore th an two

m on th s i s to o lo ng

. . . wit ho ut so m et hi ng m or e”); Sm it h v . Fai rv ie w Rid ge s Ho sp ., 62 5 F .3d 10 76
, 10 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d et erm in in g “ ap pr ox im at el y on e m on th ,” wit ho ut m or e e v i d e n c e of cau sa ti on , is to o lo ng ) ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Torg ers on v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F .3d 10 31 , 10 43 , 10 58 ap p. (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

-1 3-Se co nd, th e un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh ow s the Ci ty an d supe rv iso rs co m m uni ca te d wit h Bro wn ab ou t he r un sa ti sf act or y job pe rfo rm an ce be fo re sh e to ok FMLA le av e. An d ot he r em

pl oyees, in cl ud in g Bl ack lo ck
, co ns id ered Bro wn to be a ne ga ti ve
pr es en ce i n t he ir wor kp la ce be fo re Bro wn to ok FMLA le av e. Thi s reco rd do es no t

su pp or t a pr im a faci e cas e of FMLA di sc riminat io n. See, e.g ., Si sk
, 66 9 F.3 d at 90 0-
01

. Eve n if it di d, su m

m ary jud gm en t wou ld rem ai n ap pr op ria te be cau se —as we

ex pl ai ne d in ou r an al y si s of Bro wn’s ADEA cl ai m —Br own can no t sh ow th e Ci ty’ s
st at ed reas on s fo r te rm in at in g he r em pl oym en t were pr et ex ts fo r FMLA di sc riminat io n. Se e, e.g ., Pul czi ns ki , 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 7.

The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t on Bro wn’s FMLA cl ai m

.

D. Reta li at io n Under Tit le VII an d the ACRA Fi na ll y , Bro wn pr es se s in ex act “ r e ta li at io n” cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d

su pe rv is or s. At or al arg um en t, we rem in de d Bro wn’s c ou ns el th at em pl oym en t
ret al ia ti on cl ai m s are no t free -fl oa ti ng cau se s of act io n ari si ng fro m th e et he r, an d we
pr es se d hi m to gr ou nd Bro wn’s ret al ia ti on cl ai m s in a pr ov is io n of th e Uni te d St at es Co de

. Bro wn’s co un se l po in te d to th e ADA an d ADEA. Tha t was pl ai nl y in co rrec t. Bro wn cl ai m s th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s ret al ia te d ag ai ns t he r be cau se sh e fil ed an EEOC co m

pl ai nt in Apr il 20 09

. Her ret al ia ti on cl ai m s, th eref or e, are ba se d on Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-2 00 0e –1 7, an d th e ACRA, Ark

. Co de Ann

. §§ 16 –1 23 –1 01

- 10 8, no t on wha te ve r st at ut e m ig ht ap pl y to th e un de rlyin g co nd uc t o f w h i c h sh e 1 0

co m pl ai ne d. See Bu rli ng to n N. & San ta Fe Ry

. Co

. v. W hi te , 54 8 U.S. 53
, 69 (2 00 6) (“ [T]he st an da rd is ti ed to th e ch al le ng ed ret al ia to ry act , no t th e un de rlyin g co nd uc t

Brow n’ s se co nd am en de d co m

pla int lis ts thr ee “ re ta li at io n” co un ts —o ne each 1 0

a g a i ns t th e Ci ty, Mu sh ru sh
, an d Erke l. In th os e co un ts , Bro wn al le ge s th e Ci ty te rm in at ed he r em

pl oym en t in ret al ia ti on fo r he r fil in g o f EEOC ch arg es , whi ch

wou ld be a vi ol at io n of Tit le VII, an d Bro wn de m an ds co m pe ns at or y da m ag es un de r th e ACRA.

-1 4-th at fo rm s th e ba si s of th e Tit le VII co m pl ai nt .”). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y tre at ed
Bro wn’s no n- FMLA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s as ari si ng un de r Tit le VII an d th e ACRA, an d

we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct co ur t’s co nc lu si on

.

W e ev al ua te Tit le VII an d ACRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s un de r th e sa m e le ga l fram ewo rk

. See Barb er v. C1 Truc k Driv er Trai ni ng , LLC, 65 6 F

. 3 d 7 8 2
, 79 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e al so Hil l v. Ci ty o f Pi ne Bl uf f, Ark ., 6 96 F.3 d 70 9, 71 5- 16 (8t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ W e se e no ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th at th e Ark an sa s Co ur t wou ld no w ho ld th at W hi te pro vi de s an in ad eq ua te st an da rd fo r an al y zi ng cla im s u nd er b ot h s ub pa rts of Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 –1 23 –1 08 .”). Tit le VII m ak es it “ un la wfu l

. . . fo r an em pl oyer
to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y of hi s em pl oyees

. . . be cau se h e ha s m ad e a ch arg e,
te st ifi ed
, a s s i s t ed , o r pa rti ci pa te d in an y m an ne r in an in ve st ig at io n, pr oc eed in g, or he ari ng un de r [Tit le VII].” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e– 3( a). To m ak e a su bm is si bl e cas e th at th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s vi ol at ed th is st at ut e, Br o w n m us t ei th er pr es en t “ di rect

ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n or crea te an in fere nc e of it un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk .” You ng -Los ee v. Grap hi c Pack ag ing In t’ l, In c., 63 1 F.3 d
90 9, 91 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Bro wn ha s pr es en te d no di rect ev id en ce be cau se no th in g in th e reco rd sh ows “ a sp eci fic li nk

. . . su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng by a reas on ab le fact fin de r th at th e ha rm fu l adv ers e act io n was i n re ta li at io n fo r th e
pr ot ect ed co nd uc t.” Id

. (ci ti ng W hi te , 54 8 U.S. a t 5 7
, 68 ). Thu s, we tu rn to th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s an al y si s.

To m ak e a pr im a faci e cas e th at th e Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s vi ol at ed Tit le VII,
Bro wn m us t pr es en t en ou gh ev i d e nc e to pe rm it a reas on ab le jury to fin d “ (1 ) sh e

en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed co nd uc t; (2 ) sh e suf fe re d m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n,
act io n th at wou ld de te r a reas on ab le em pl oyee fro m m ak in g a ch arg e of em pl oym en t d i sc riminat io n or ha ras sm en t; an d (3 ) th e m at eri al ly ad ve rs e act io n was cau s a l l y li nk ed to th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t.” Ferc el lo v. Cn ty. of Ram se y , 61 2 F.3 d 10 69
, 10 77

- 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )

. I f B r o w n m eet s th is req ui rem en t, sh e wou ld st il l la ck a

su bm is si bl e cas e if th e Ci ty an d s up erv is or s “ art ic ul at e a leg it im at e, no n- ret al ia to ry

-1 5-reas on fo r th e ad ve rs e act io n” a n d s he can no t sh ow th at “ reas on is a pr et ex t fo r

ret al ia ti on .” Mac ia s So to v. Co re-M ark In t’l, In c., 52 1 F.3 d 83 7, 84 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Bro wn ha s m ad e a p r i m a faci e cas e. Fi rs t, Bro wn en ga ge d in two act s
pr ot ect ed by Tit le VII. In earl y Apr il 20 09
, Bro wn m ad e an in te rn al EEOC co m pl ai nt wit h th e Ci ty’ s EEOC of fic ers , in fo rm in g th em of he r in te nt i o n to fil e an EEOC ch arg e of di sc riminat io n. The n, on May 26
, 20 09
, sh e fil ed a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC.
Seco nd
, Bro wn’s em

pl oyme n t te rm in at io n on Ju ne 9, 20 09
, wou ld ha ve be en

su ffi ci en tl y

ad ve rs e u nd er o ur st ric t pre- W hi te st an da rd
, se e, e.g ., Cro ss v. Cl eav er, 14 2 F.3 d 10 59
, 10 73 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ), an d is m or e t h an su ffi ci en tl y ad ve rs e un de r W hi te ’s rel ax ed te st

. See W hi te , 54 8 U.S. at 68

. Thi rd
, th e reco rd co nt ai ns su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of a cau sa l li nk be twe e n Bro wn’s pr ot ect ed act iv it y an d he r m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Erkel ad m it te d i n her de po si ti on th at th e in ve st ig at io n whi ch re s u l t ed fro m Bro wn’s Apr il 20 09 EEOC co m pl ai nt ab ou t “ a ho st il e wor k

en vi ro nm en t

. . . le d to th e in ve st ig at io n of whe th er or no t Ju ne Bro wn was th e act ua l

cau se of th at ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t.” The Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s ad m it Bro wn lo st he r job as a res ul t of th at se co nd in ve st ig at io n. Alt ho ug h th es e two fact s co nt ai n no
sp eci fic ev id en ce of m ot iv at io n, a reas on ab le jury co ul d in fer di sc riminat io n from 1 1
th is seq ue nc e o f ev en ts

.

Non et he le ss , Bro wn’s Tit le VII an d ACRA cl ai m s do no t pa ss m us te r un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 56 (a). The Ci ty an d su pe rv is or s c o ns is te nt ly h av e

ex pl ai ne d th ey te rm in at ed Bro wn’s em pl oym en t fo r two “ le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry

reas on [s ], ” Mac ia s So to , 52 1 F.3 d at 84 1: (1 ) he r wor k pe rfo rm a n c e w as

F o r th is reas on , th es e two fact s are no t— co nt rary to Bro wn’ s 1 1

co nt en ti on

— di r e c t ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n. See, e.g ., Krat zer v. Ro ck well Co ll in s, In c

. , 39 8 F.3 d 10 40
, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (req ui rin g “ di rect ev id en ce of

co nd uc t or st at em en ts by pe rs on s in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on

- mak i n g pr oc es s, whi ch in di cat e a di sc riminat or y at ti tu de was m or e li ke ly th an no t a mot iv at in g fact or in th e
em pl oyer’s dec is io n” (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

-1 6-un acce pt ab le
, an d (2 ) he r be ha vi or to ward ot he r em pl oyees crea te d a ho st il e wor k

en vi ro nm en t. The ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e Ci ty’ s ex pl an at io n is st ro ng , an d Bro wn ha s p res en te d n o e vi de nc e th at th es e le gi ti m at e rea so ns were p ret ex tu al

.

Afte r Bro wn fil ed he r in te rn al EEOC co m pl ai nt in earl y Apr il 20 09
, two Ci ty EEOC of fic ers co nd uc te d an in ve st ig at io n. The y fo un d no ev id en ce Bro wn ha d be en

s u b je ct ed to a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t, an d th ey co m m un ic at ed th is fin di n g t o B r o w n on Apr il 27
, 20 09

. Dur in g th at in ve st ig at io n, th ey rece iv e d

co m pl ai nt s— no ta bl y fro m Bl ack lo ck —t ha t Bro wn’s vo la t i l e be ha vi or to ward Bl ac klo ck an d oth er fin an ce de pa rtment st aff was crea ti ng a ho st il e wor k en viron m en t fo r th os e em

pl oyees. The two EEOC of fic ers co m

m un ic at ed th os e co m

pl ai nt s to th e Ci ty’ s hu m an res ou rces di rect or , Ji ll Ro ss

. App ro xi m at el y a m on th la te r, ba se d on th e EEOC of

fic ers ’ rep or t of co m

pl ai nt s ag ai ns t Bro wn, Ro ss an d Erke l be ga n an in te rn al in ve st ig at io n. B r own in ap pr op ria te ly pr es su red Bl ack lo ck an d an ot he r

em pl oyee to pr ov id e co nf

id en ti al in fo r mat i on ab ou t th is in ve st ig at io n. At th e

co nc lu si on of th ei r in ve st ig at io n, Ro ss an d Erke l rep or te d to Mu sh ru s h th at Bro wn

“ ha ras s[ ed ]” Bl ack lo ck
, rep eat ed ly pr es su rin g he r fo r co nf ide nti al inf

or m at ion, whi ch

cau se d Bl ack lo ck to “ feel pr es su re an d

. . . di st res s [i]n he r wor ki ng co nd it io ns .” The in ve st ig at io n al so rev eal ed m os t of Bro wn’s co ll eag ue s were st res se d by he r pe rs on al

c o nd uc t an d fru st rat ed by he r in effi ci en t wor k pe rfo rm an ce. Mu sh ru sh te rm in at e d
Bro wn’s em

pl oym en t on ly aft er rec e i v i n g R os s an d Erke l’s rep or t. The re is no

ev id en ce sh owi ng th e le gi t i mat e , no n- di sc riminat or y reas on s ou tl in ed in th e
te rm in at io n no ti ce an d Ro ss an d Erke l’s rep or t were pr et ex tu al

. Cf., e.g ., Pu lc zi ns ki
, 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 7.

Tit le VII is a sh ie ld to pr ot ect em pl oyees from

ret al ia ti on for ex erci si ng th ei r rig ht to ch al le ng e di sc riminat or y tre at m en t by fil in g EEOC co m pl ai nt s an d ch arg es

. It is no t a cu dg el to be wiel de d by un de rp erfo rm in g an d un pr of es si on al em

pl oyees to
pr ev en t jus ti fie d, no n- d i s c r i m in at or y em pl oym en t te rm in at io n. Pres en te d wit h th e

ev id en ce co nt ai ne d in th e reco rd
, no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d Bro wn ne ed s Tit le VII

-1 7-to sh ie ld he r ag ai ns t ret al ia ti on fo r en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. The di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t on Bro wn’s Tit le VII an d ACRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s.

II I. CONCLUSI ON Afte r an in de pe nd en t re vi ew of th e en ti re re co rd , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-