## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t14,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT A N A PA TR I CI A M O N TES, NELY DA VI LA, M AR GA RI TA E RA Z O, E VA E S CO BE DO, E RN E S T O GAR CI A, WI L L I E M AE HO PKI NS, ELI ZAB ETH J AR AM I L L O, a n d M E RV YN D. V A R G A S, on behal f of themsel ves a n d a ll o th e r in ter e ste d a n d sim ilarly si tuated part i es, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , and J OSE F A C. DI AZ, a n d ANG EL I CA N U N E Z , on behal f of themsel ves and a ll o th e r in ter e ste d a n d sim ilarly si tuated part i es, P l ai nti ffs, v. V A IL C L IN IC , IN C ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee, and S E RV I CE M AS T E R MANAGE M E NT SERVI CES LI M I TED PA RT N ER SH I P, D e fe n d a n t. N o. 05- 1385T w o otheri ndi vi dual s w ho w er e pl ai nt i ffs i n the di s tr i ctcourtar e not 1 befor e us i n t hi s appea l – J os efa C . D i az e l ect ed nott o appea l and A ngel i ca (c o n tin u e d ...) - 2 - A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D . C . N o. 01 - C V - 12 50 - R PM - C BS) D avid San do val, S and ov al L aw F i rm , S anta Fe, N ew M exico, for Plai nti ffsA pp el l ants . A ndr ew M . L ow ( J anetA . Savage a nd C ather i ne L. G uzel i an, w i th hi m on the br i ef) , D avi s G r aham & Stubbs L L P, D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efor e LU CE RO, M URP HY, and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge. E ig h t fo rm e r e m p lo y e e s o f th e V a il C lin ic, In c ., a h o sp ital in V a il, C ol or ado, appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o the C l i ni c on th e irT itle V II c la im s . See T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, as amended, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq. ( “Ti t l e V I I ” ort he “A ct ”) . W i th r es pectt o fi ve of the appea l i ng pl ai nt i ffs , w e conc l ude thatt heyfai l t o es t abl i s h, as t heym us t , t he ti m eli n ess o f th eir clai m s. W ith resp ec t t o the re m ainin g three p lai n ti ffs, w e a re abl e t o addr es s the s ubs t ance of thei rappea l but , l i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , concl ude thattheyhave notadduce d fac t s fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd a v i o l a t i o n o f

Ti t l e VI I . On th e s e b a s e s , we a ffi r m. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 N unez w as di s m i s s ed fr om t hi s l i t i gat i on pr i ort o ourdeci s i on. - 3 - I Sum m aryj udgm entfol l ow s w hen a movi ng partypoi nt s t o the abs ence of fac tual s uppor ton an el ementes s ent i al t o the non- m ovant ’ s cas e, and on w hi ch th e n o n -m o v a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f a t trial. S e e C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 47 7 U . S . 31 7, 32 2-24 (19 86 ). T he C l i nic ar gu es that the p l ai nti ffs i n thi s case h a v e fa iled to p re se n t re c o rd e v id e n c e su fficie n t to su g g e st th a t th e yfiled tim e ly T i t l e V I I char ges w i th the fe der al E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on (“ E E O C ” ), an d th a t p ro o f o f su c h a tim e lyc h a rg e is a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to br i ngi ng s ui t . V i ew i ng t he fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs and the part i es’ l egal ar gu m ents de novo , Young v. D i l l on C os . , Inc. , 468 F. 3d 1243, 1249 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o agr ee w i th r es pectt o fi ve of the ei ght plai nti ffs befo re us. A A n em p loy ee w ishing to ch all en g e a n em p loym en t prac ti ce u n d er T it le V II mu s tfi r s t“ fi l e ” a “ c h a r g e ” o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n wi th th e EE OC. 4 2 U. S . C. § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e )(1 ); Ledbet t erv. G oodyearTi r e & R ubberC o. , _
_ U .S . _
_ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 1 6 2 , 2 1 6 6 -6 7 (2 0 0 7 ). B e c a u se T itl e V II s e e k s to a v o id “ th e p re ss in g o f sta le c laim s,” it req u ire s a g g rie v e d p e rso n s to file a n ysu c h c h a rg e w ith in c e rta in s p e c ifie d p e ri o d s a f

te r t h e a lle g e d ly u n la w f u l c o n d u c t o c c u rr e d . Zi pes v. TransN one of the pl ai nt i ffs has al l eged a nyT i t l e V I I vi ol at i on aft erhi s orher 2 ter m in a tio n in th e fo rm , sa y , o f u n law f u l re talia to ryc o n d u c t. - 4 - Wor ld A i r l i nes , Inc. , 455 U . S. 385, 394 ( 1982) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I f the e m p lo y e e d o e s n o t su b m it a tim e lyE E O C c h a rg e , h e o r sh e m a yn o t p ro c e e d to c o u rt . Ledbet t er , 127 S. C t . at2166- 67. W hi l e the appl i cabl e dea dl i ne forfi l i ng a c h a rg e w ith th e E E O C d e p e n d s o n a v a rie tyo f c irc u m sta n c e s, th e late st p o ss ib le filin g d a te is 3 0 0 d a y s a f te r t h e la s t a lle g e d ly u n la w f u l a c t. See 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (e)(1). H e re , the las t alle g e d v io latio n o f T itl e V II fo r e a c h p lain tiff c o in c id e d w ith hi s or her t erm i nat i on dat e. A nd the undi s put ed fa ct s r evea l t hatfi ve of the ei ght 2 p lain tiffs b e fo re u s (N e lyD a v ila, M a rg a rita E ra z o , W ill ie M a e H o p k in s, E liza b e th J ar ami l l o, and M ervyn V ar gas ) , fi l ed thei rchar ges w i th the EE O C m or e than 300 day s aft erthei rr es pect i ve t erm i nat i ons . U nderourpr ece dent s and thos e of the Supr eme C our t , thi s combi nat i on of fa ct s w oul d s eem t o r equi r e di s m i s s al of the c la im s o f

th e s e p a rt ic u la r p la in tiffs . See Holm es v. Utah, D ep’ tof Workf or ce Servs. , 4 8 3 F .3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 1 -6 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (d ism iss in g a lleg a tio n s w h ich d id n o t o c c u r w ith in th e 3 0 0 d a yfili n g p e rio d ); s ee als o Ledbet t er , 127 S. C t . at 2 1 6 6 -6 8 . Speci fi cal l y , the r ecor d befor e us r efl ect s t hatm os tof the pl ai nt i ffs depart ed the C l i ni c betw een N ovember1998 and M ay1999; begi nni ng appr oxi m at el ys i x m onths l at er , on N ovember3, 1999, and pr ocee di ng atvar i ousT he r ecor d ci t at i ons i dent i fy i ng the r el evantdat es foreac h pl ai nt i ff a r e as 3 fo llo w s : M s . D a v ila , A p p e lla n ts ’ A p p . a t 6 8 , 7 1 -7 2 ; M s . E ra z o , i d. at132, 136; M s . E s c o b e d o , i d. a t 1 7 4 , 4 6 5 ; M r. G a rc ia , i d. a t 1 9 6 , 2 0 6 ; M s . H o p k in s , i d. at 2 3 8 ; M s . J a ra m illo , i d. a t 2 4 7 -4 8 , 2 7 4 ; M s . M o n te s , i d. at30 8, 31 2; M r. V argas, i d. a t 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 . U n les s o th e rw ise in d ica ted , all re c o rd c itatio n s to th e a p p e n d ix a re to th e a p p e lla n ts ’ a p p e n d ix (“ A p p .” ). T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatM s . H opki ns ’ s char ge w as fi l ed on 4 M ar ch 3, 1999, beca us e the defendant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entbr i ef i dent i fi ed M ar ch 3, 1999, as the fi l i ng dat e aga i ns ti t s i nt er es t . T he ac tual fi l i ng dat e as i dent i fi ed on the cha r ge i t s el f i s N ovember3, 1999. B eca us e pl ai nt i ffs di d noti ncl ude any of the s um m aryj udgm entpaper s i n the appe l l at e r ecor d and di d notadvoca t e our acc ept ance of the fi l i ng dat e dee m ed byt he di s tr i ctcourton appea l , w e conc l ude thatM s . H opki ns ’ s char ge w as fi l ed on N ovember3, 1999, as i ndi cat ed byt he “r ece i ved” s t amp on t he cha r ge. M s . J ar ami l l o w as tr ans ferr ed t o a di ffe r entdepart m enton thi s dat e, not 5 t erm i nat ed. H ow ever , forourpurpos es , t hatfac ti s i ncons equent i al beca us e s he s t at ed thats he w as nots ubj ectt o anyhar as s m entaft ert he tr ans fer . A pp. at247- 4 8 , 2 7 1 . - 5 - dat es thr ough A pr i l 2000, theyfi l ed s w orn char ges w i th the EE O C . T he fol l ow i ng charts um m ar i zes t he exa ctdat es on w hi ch ea ch pl ai nt i ff w as t e r mi n a t e d a n d fi l e d h i s o rh e rc h a r g e wi th th e EE OC: 3 Pl ai nt i ff D at e of Term i nat i on D at e of EE O C C har ge N el yD avi l a A pr i l 28, 1999 A pr i l 4, 2000 M ar gar i t a Era zo A pr i l 16, 1999 A pr i l 10, 2000 E va Escobe do N ov. 11, 1999 M ar ch 17, 2000 E rnes t o G ar ci a M ay30, 1999 M ar ch 17, 2000 W i l l i e M ae H opki ns N ov. 6, 1998 N ov. 3, 1999 4 E l i zabe th J ar ami l l o A pr i l 19, 1999 A pr i l 4, 2000 5 A na Patr i ci a M ont es A ug. 2, 1999 M ar ch 20, 2000- 6 -

M ervyn V ar gas M ay11, 1999 M ar ch 20, 2000 A s the cha r tr efl ect s , al l butM s . E s cobedo, M r . G ar ci a and M s . M ont es , fi l ed char ges w i th the EE O C m or e than thr ee hundr ed day s aft erthei rt erm i nat i on – a d elaythat w o u ld se em ing lyp rov e fatal t o their effo rtto ch all en g e the C li n ic’s c o n d u c t in c o u rt. B Pl ai nt i ffs s ugges tthatthi s cas e i s m or e compl i cat ed bec aus e they“fi l ed c h a rg e s ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f T itle V II e v e n b e fo re th e d a te s re fle c te d a b o v e . I n s uppor tof thi s cont ent i on, pl ai nt i ffs s ubm i tthat , l ong befor e theypr es ent ed form al char ges t o the EE O C , t heycont act ed the C ol or ado C i vi l R i ght s D i vi s i on ( “C C R D ”) – fi r s tbyl ett erfr om thei rcouns el on A ugus t17, 1999, and then, sh o rtlyth e re a f

ter , b yc o m p letin g “ in tak e fo rm s” w ith th e d iv isio n . T h e se c o n tac ts w ith th e C C R D , the yc o n ten d , su ffice to q u a lifya s th e “ fili n g ” o f “ c h a rg e s” w ith the EE O C underT i t l e V I I . D efe ndant s , m eanw hi l e, emphasi ze thatno evi dence reflecti n g o r reg ard ing thes e c o n tacts w ith the C C R D ex ist s in the rec o rd b efo re us and ur ge thatt hi s defi ci encyi s di s pos i t i ve. W e mustagr ee. T he vi abi l i tyof p lain tiffs’ a rg u m e n t ca n b e a ss e ss e d o n lyw ith a re v iew o f th e c o n ten t o f

th e ir su b m iss io n s to th e C C R D ; w ith o u t co u n se l’s le tter o r th e in tak e fo rm s (a ll m aterial s tha t are u n iqu elyw ith in p lai n ti ffs’ co n tr o l) , w e a re u n ab le t o d o m o re than s pecul at e w hethertheyqual i fi ed as “cha r ges ” orw hethertheyw er e “f i l ed” w ith in th e tim e p e ri o d p re s c ri b e d b yla w . A n d s p e c u la te w e m a yn o t d o . SeeT hi s debat e i s notconfi ned t o the Ti t l e V I I cont extbutext ends t o the 6 A g e D is c ri m in a tio n in E m p lo ym e n t A c t, 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 , ets eq. ( “A D E A ”) cont extas w el l . N ei theri s the comm onal i tyof thi s pr obl em a surpr i s e gi ven that “ th e fi l i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f th e A D E A a n d T i t l e V I I a r e v i r tu a l l y i n haec v er ba , t he form erhavi ng been pa t t erned af t ert he l at t er . ” E . E . O . C . v. C om m er ci alO f f i ce P r ods . C o. , 4 8 6 U .S . 1 0 7 , 1 2 3 -1 2 4 (1 9 8 8 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); compa re 2 9 U. S . C. § 6 2 6 (d ), w ith 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e )(1 ). F o r th is re a so n , w e o c c a sio n a llyc ite and fi nd i ns truct i ve the ca s es cons trui ng the A D E A ’ s fi l i ng r equi r ement s t ogether w i th thos e cons trui ng T i t l e V I I ’ s fi l i ng r egi m e. R efl ect i ng C ongr es s ’ s w i s h thatcl ai m s be r es ol ved l ocal l yand 7 v o lun tari lyw h en p o ssible, st ate a g en cies tha t sat isfystatu toryan d reg u lat o ry cr i t er i a or di nar i l ym us tbe affor ded the opportuni tyt o fi r s tpr oces s cl ai m s of d is c ri m in a tio n . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (c ); s ee als o 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 0 1 .7 0 ; i d. § 1601. 80 ( i dent i fy i ng the C C R D as s uch a s t at e age ncy ) . T i t l e V I I ’ s char ge fi l i n g p r o v i s i o n a c c o mmo d a t e s th i s d e fe rr a l r e q u i r e me n tb ye x t e n d i n g t h e t i me per i od r equi r ed t o fi l e a c har ge w i th the EE O C fr om 180 t o 300 day s w her e the a g g ri e v e d p e rs o n in itia lly in s titu te d p ro c e e d in g s w ith s u c h a s ta te a g e n c y . See 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e )( 1 ). - 7 - B ones v. Honeywel lInt er n. , Inc. , 3 6 6 F .3 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ T o d e fe a t a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , evi dence , i ncl udi ng t es t i m ony , m us tbe bas ed on m o re th a n m e re s p e c u la tio n , c o nje c tu re , o r s u rm is e .” ). I ndeed, t o as cert ai n w hetherpl ai nt i ffs ’ m at er i al s m i ghtorm i ghtnotqual i fy as “fi l ed ch arges” w i th the E E O C i s not the st rai gh t forw ard t ask i tm i gh tatfi rs t blush seem . T he q uest i on w hat s ortof d ocu m ents suffice t o q uali fyas “charges” u n d e r T itle V II is s u rp ri s in g ly u n re s o lv e d , s ee, e. g. , Ledbet t er , 127 S. C t . at2166 n .1 ; E delm an v. Lynchburg C ol l ege , 535 U . S. 106, 118- 19 ( 2002) , and has gener at ed a ci r cui t s pl i t . Som e court s s ugges tt hatan i nform al i nt ake 6 q u e s t i o n n a i r e fi l e d w i th a s t a t e e n t i ty l i k e t h e C C R D o rt h e E E O C a l m o s ta l w a ys 7 cons t i tut es an EE O C char ge; ot her s hol d thati tw i l l r ar el ydo s o; t hes e compet i ngC o mp a re C a sa v a n tes v . C a l. Sta te Un iv., Sa c ra m e n to , 732 F. 2d 1441, 8 1 4 4 3 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) (co n clud ing that u n d er T it le V II an intak e q u esti o n n aire cons t i tut ed a c har ge bec aus e i tm ett he EE O C r egul at i ons governi ng the su b sta n tiv e c o n ten t o f a c h a rg e ); w i th D orn v. G en. Motors , 131 Fed. A ppx. 462, 470 n. 7 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( unpub. ) ( rul i ng thatt he A D E A r equi r es “a for m al char ge, n o t a n in q u ir yo r c o m p la in t” ).

C ompar e Hol ow eckiv. Fed. Expr es s C or p. , 4 4 0 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 -69 (2d C ir . 9 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g a n i n t a k e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o c o n s t i tu t e a c h a r g e u n d e rt h e AD EA upon appl i cat i on of the “mani fes t at i on of i nt ent ” t es tal though the EE O C di d not c o n sid e r th e q u e stio n n a ire to b e a c h a rg e a n d th e a g g rie v e d p e rso n su b se q u e n tly filed a fo rm a l ch a rg e ); w ith B os tv. Fed. Expr es s C or p. , 372 F. 3d 1233, 1240- 41 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( appl y i ng the “mani fes t at i on of i nt ent ” t es ti n the A D E A cont ext and al s o cons i der i ng the EE O C ’ s per cept i on of the document , t he s ubj ect i ve in ten t o f th e a g g rie v e d p e rso n , an d th e c o n ten t o f th e q u e stio n n a ire fo rm ); D i ezv. Mi nn. Mi ni ng & M

f g. C o. , 8 8 F . 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 6 -77 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (sam e); St ef f en v. Mer i di an Li

f e Ins . C o. , 8 5 9 F . 2 d 5 3 4 , 5 4 2 -44 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (sam e). B uts ee E d e lm a n v . Ly n c h b u rgC o ll. , 300 F. 3d 400, 404- 05 ( 4th C i r . 2004) ( notappl y i ng th e “ m a n ife sta tio n o f

in ten t” te st a n d h o ld in g a lette r to b e a c h a rg e u n d e r T itl e V II b e c a u se it m e t th e E E O C ’s c h a rg e -c o n ten t re g u latio n s a n d th e a g g rie v e d p a rty (c o n tin u e d ...) - 8 - pos i t i ons ar e anchor ed by the N i nth and Si xth C i r cui t s , r es pect i vel y . M any 8 c irc u its a p p e a r to p o p u late so m e fo rm o f m id d le g ro u n d ; w h ile th e se c irc u its agr ee thata compl et ed ques t i onnai r e mustm eett he EE O C ’ s r egul at i ons p re s c ri b in g th e m in im u m c o n te n ts o f a c h a rg e , s ee 29 C . F. R . § 1601. 12 ( m i ni m um c o n ten ts o f

a T itl e V II c h a rg e ); i d. § 1 6 2 6 . 8 ( mi n i mum c o n t e n t s o f a n AD EA char ge) , theydi ffe ron w hatm or e i s r equi r ed. M os tappl ys om e var i antof the “mani fes t at i on of i nt ent ” t es t– as ki ng w hethera r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have k n o w n th a tth e a g g r i e v e d p e r s o n “ i n t e n d e d t o a c t i v a t e t h e A c t ’ s m a c h i n e ry” thr ough hi s orhers ubm i s s i on of a que s t i onnai r e – buts om e cons i deraddi t i onal fa c to rs . T o d a te , a t le a s t, o u r c ir c u it h a s n o t b e e n c a lle d to v o ic e a v ie w .

9( . . . cont i nued) 9 s u bje c tiv e ly b e lie v e d it to b e a c h a rg e , a lth o u g h th e E E O C d id n o t) . T o b e su re , the C o u rt re c e n tlyg ra n ted c e rtio ra ri to re so lv e a c irc u it sp lit r egar di ng w hetherand underw hatci r cumst ance s an “i nt ake que s t i onnai r e” c an q u a l i f ya s a c h a r g e u n d e rt h e AD EA . See Fed. Expr es s C or p. v. Hol ow ecki , 127 S . C t. 2 9 1 4 (20 0 7 ). A lth o u g h the s tatu toryreg im e is d iffe ren t, the C o u rt ’s reso luti o n o f th at qu esti o n p rom ises to o ffer a t l ea st som e h elp in the T it le V II c o n te x t a s w e ll, g iv e n th e p a ra lle l filin g re q u ir e m e n ts . See Com m er ci alO f f i ce P rods. , 4 8 6 U . S . at 12 3 -12 4 . F o r no w , h o w ev er, l eg all ysp ea k ing w e a re w h ere w e a re . - 9 - P lain tiffs’ a rg u m e n t w o u ld , o f c o u rse , ch a n g e a ll th a t an d re q u ire u s to deci de w hetherand w hen the compl et i on of an i nform al i nt ake for m w i th the C C R D m ayqu al i fyas a “charge” w i th the E E O C . B ut w i tho ut the p l ai nti ffs’ a c tu a l C C R D fili n g s, o r e v e n so m e m e a n in g f u l re c o rd e v id e n c e a b o u t th e ir c o n ten ts, w e w o u ld b e m a rc h in g in to a n in ter c irc u it sp litu n a b le to c o n trib u te thought ful l yt o the di s cus s i on oreven fai r l yr es ol ve thi s appea l , forw e coul d not begi n t o s ayw hetherpl ai nt i ffs ’ fi l i ngs m eeteven the mi ni m um r equi r ed t o be co n side red a “ ch arg e” u n d er any o f th e te s ts a d v a n c e d b yth e c ir c u it c o u rt s . T aki ng the mostperm i s s i ve s t andar d appl i ed bycourt s fordet erm i ni ng w hether s ubm i s s i on of a que s t i onnai r e w i th a s t at e ent i tycons t i tut es a “c har ge” unde r T i t l e V I I , a pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e fi l i ng m us ts at i s fythe cha r ge “c ont ent ” r egul at i ons p ro m u lg a te d b yth e E E O C . See , e. g. , C as avant es , 732 F. 2d at1443. T he a p p lica b le E E O C re g u latio n s, in tu rn , req u ire “ a w ritten sta tem e n t su fficie n tly pr eci s e t o i dent i fythe part i es , and t o des cr i be gene r al l ythe ac t i on orpr act i ces compl ai ned of. ” See 29 C . F. R . § 1601. 12( b) . A l though thi s s t andar d i s not- 10 -

demandi ng, w e s i m pl ycannotknow w hetheri ti s s at i s fi ed i n thi s cas e w i thoutan ex am ination o f p lai n ti ffs’ su b m issi o n to the C C R D . T h u s, fo r ex am p le, T it le V II re q u ire s e a c h d isc re te a c t o f d isc rim in a tio n (su c h a s te rm in a tio n , fa ilu re to pr om ot e, deni al of tr ans fer , orr efus al t o hi r e) t o be des cr i bed i n and the s ubj ect o f a tim e ly f

ile d c h a rg e . See Nat ’ lR . R . P as s engerC or p. v. Morgan , 53 6 U. S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 3 (2 0 0 2 ); s ee als o D avi ds on v. A m . O nl i ne, Inc. , 337 F. 3d 1179, 1184 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( “a c l ai m antm us tfi l e a c har ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i thi n the appr opr i at e l i m i t at i ons per i od as t o eac h s uch di s cr et e ac tof di s cr i m i nat i on that occurr ed”) . T hati s , a pl ai nt i ff c an br i ng a l aw s ui tforonl yt hos e “unl aw ful e mp l o yme n tp r a c t i c e s ” d e s c r i b e d i n h i s o rh e ra d mi n i s tr a t i v e c h a r g e . Be c a u s e we h a v e n o id e a w h a t ac ts o f d isc rim in a tio n th e p lain tiffs in q u e stio n in c lu d e d w ith in thei rC C R D s ubm i s s i on, w e ar e i n no pos i t i on t o as s es s w hatcl ai m s t heym ay h a v e p re s e rv e d fo r l itig a tio n . W e fi nd our s el ves i n an equa l l ypr obl emat i c pos i t i on w i th r es pectt o the ques t i on w hetherthe al l eged s ubm i s s i on t o the C C R D w as ever“fi l ed” w i th the E E O C in th e re q u is ite 3 0 0 d a yp e ri o d . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e )(1 ); see also Ledbet t er , 1 2 7 S . C t. at 2 1 7 7 . E v e n a ss u m in g th a t p lain tiffs’ u n p ro d u c e d sta te su b m iss io n s q u a lifya s “ c h a rg e s,” w e d o n o t k n o w w h e n th e yw e re “ filed ” w ith th e EE OC. I f

p l a i n t i ffs a s k e d th e CCRD t o fo rwa r d t h e i r“ c h a r g e s ” t o t h e EE OC, a fil ing w o u ld h av e b ee n effe cted u n d er E E O C reg u lat ion s at m o st 60 d ay s lat er, o n O c to b e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 . See 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 0 1 .1 3 (b )(1 ). H o w e v e r, if p lain tiffs d id- 11 -

n o ts o r e q u e s t , t h e CC RD d o c u me n t s wo u l d n o th a v e b e e n fi l e d wi th th e E E OC unl es s ( i ) pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed them w i th the EE O C themsel ves , or( i i ) pl ai nt i ffs al l eged and pr ovi ded evi dence of the exi s t ence of a w or ks har i ng agr eementw her ebythe C C R D a c ted a s th e a g e n t o f th e E E O C fo r p u rp o se s o f a c c e p tin g a c h a rg e e v e n in th e a b s e n c e o f

a fo rw a rd in g re q u e s t. See, e. g. , Johns on v. J. B . HuntTrans p. , Inc. , 280 F. 3d 1125, 1129- 30 ( 7th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng that , i n l i ghtof a w or ks har i ng agr eementbetw een the s t at e age ncyand the EE O C , a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on fi l ed w i th the s t at e age ncyw as “pr oper l yfi l ed w i th the EE O C ” on the s ame dat e) . B eca us e the r ecor d befor e us does noti ncl ude pl ai nt i ffs ’ C C R D s ubm i s s i on, and b ec au se th ere is no o ther e v iden ce in the rec o rd su g g esti n g that eith er a fo rw a rd in g re q u e st w a s m a d e o r th a t a w o rk sh a rin g a g re e m e n t ex iste d , w e sim p ly c a n n o t k n o w w h e th e r p la in tiffs “ file d ” w ith in th e re q u is ite s ta tu to ry tim e p e ri o d . C R ecogni zi ng t he l i m i t s of the r ecor d befor e us , pl ai nt i ffs offe rtw o fal l back argum ents . Fi r s t , theyas s ertthatthe EE O C ’ s “r el at i on- back” doctr i ne di s s i pat es any c a u s e fo r c o n c e rn a b o u t th e tim e lin e s s o f th e irc h a rg e s . See R e p ly B r. 6 -7 . Pur s uantt o thatdoctr i ne, a defect i ve cha r ge fi l ed dur i ng the appl i cabl e 300- day per i od m aybe amended out s i de the l i m i t at i ons per i od t o cur e t echni cal defe ct s or om i s s i ons i f the amendm ent s ar e di r ect l y“r el at ed t o orgr ow i ng outof the s ubj ect m a tter o f

th e o rig in a l ch a rg e .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 0 1 .1 2 (b ); s ee als o E delm an , 535T he C l i ni c ar gues i n pas s i ng thatpl ai nt i ffs m aynotr el yon E delm an ’s 10 r el at i on- back doc tr i ne bec aus e i tappl i es onl yt o the “ lay compl ai nant , ” not pl ai nt i ffs r epr es ent ed bycouns el . A ppel l ee’ s B r . 23. B eca us e appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne w oul d notcouns el fora di ffe r entr es ul t , w e as s um e ( w i thoutdeci di ng) thatthe doctr i ne appl i es i n t hi s cas e. - 12 - U . S. at 118. B utthe r el at i on- back pr i nci pl e appl i es , and a pr i ordefe ct i ve cha r ge

10 m a yb e su b se q u e n tlya m e n d e d , o n lyw h e n th e e a rlier fili n g c a n itse lf b e fa irly cons trued t o oper at e as a “c har ge. ” See P e terso n v . C ity o f Wich ita , 888 F. 2d 1307, 1308- 09 ( 10th C i r . 1989) ( perm i t t i ng r el at i on back w her e pl ai nt i ff su b m itt e d to th e E E O C a tim e lyth o u g h u n v e rified c h a rg e ); see also E delm an v. Ly n c h b u rgC o ll. , 3 0 0 F .3 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 -0 4 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); P i j nenburg v. W. G a. Heal th Sys . , Inc. , 255 F. 3d 1304, 1306- 07 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent thus under s cor es r atherthan r es ol ves ourquandary , turni ng as i tnece s s ar i l ydoes on an as s um pt i on thatthei ri ni t i al l et t erand i nt ake for m s t o the C C R D qual i fi ed as “cha r ges ” t o t he EE O C , a ques t i on w e s i m pl yar e unabl e t o ans w eron the recor d b efore us. Second, pl ai nt i ffs r es pond thati tw as t he C l i ni c, nott hem, w ho bor e the bur den of pr oduci ng the C C R D corr es pondence and i nt ake for m s beca us e w hether p lain tiffs “ filed ” a “ c h a rg e ” w ith in th e 3 0 0 -d a yfili n g d e a d lin e is p ro p e rly u n d e rsto o d o n lya s a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se a n d th u s a m a tter o n w h ich th e C lin ic b o re th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f. T h is , h o w e v e r, i s a n a rg u m e n t o u r p re c e d e n ts fo re c lo s e . W h ile T itl e V II’s m a n d a to rytim e lim it fo r fili n g c h a rg e s w ith th e E E O C is n o t a j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e ( and i s t hus s ubj ectt o w ai ver , es t oppel , and t ol l i ngSee als o M oor e’ s Feder al Pr act i ce § 9. 04[5] ( 3d ed. 2006) ( “Pl eadi ng 11 condi t i ons pr ece denti s nota r equi r ementof s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, and ther efor e the defens e [of nonper form ance ornonoccurr ence of a c ondi t i on p rec ed en t] m ayb e w aive d . ”). O n fir s t b lu s h , th e D .C . C ir c u it a p p e a rs to a b id e b yth e c o n tr a ry ru le . 12 See Sm ith -Hay n ie v . D istric t o f C o lu m b ia , 155 F. 3d 575, 577 ( D . C . C i r . 1998) ( “I n G or don v. Nat i onalYouth Work Al l i ance , 6 7 5 F . 2 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 0 (D . C . C ir . (c o n tin u e d ...) - 13 - w h e n e q u ity re q u ir e s ), s ee Zi pes , 4 5 5 U .S . at 3 9 3 , the o b lig a tio n to d e m o n stra te t i m el i nes s i n fi l i ng a cha r ge i s a condi t i on pr ece dentt o s ui tand thus a bur den for p la in tiffs to c a rr y , s ee Mi l l i on v. Fr ank , 47 F. 3d 385, 389 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . T he 11 S u p rem e C o u rth as re p ea tedlyd esc ri b ed co m p li an ce w ith S ec ti o n 2 0 0 0 e-5 (e)(1)’s fi l i ng r equi r ement s as “pr er equi s i t es t hata pl ai nt i ff musts at i s fybefor e fi l i ng s ui t , ” Morgan , 53 6 U . S . at10 9, no t i ng as w el l t hat “[t ]i m el yfi l i ng i s a pr er equi s i t e t o t he mai nt enanc e of a T i t l e V I I act i on, ” Uni t ed Ai rLi nes , Inc. v. E vans , 431 U . S. 553, 555 n. 4 ( 1977) . I n cons onance w i th thes e di r ect i ves , w e and everyci r cui tcourtt o addr es s the ques t i on di r ect l yt her efor e have deemed compl i ance w i th T i t l e V I I ’ s fi l i ng deadl i ne as a condi t i on pr ece dentr athert han an a ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . See Mi l l i on , 47 F. 3d at389 ( “[t ] he fi l i ng r equi r ement s of T itl e V II” a re “ c o n d iti o n [ s] p re c e d e n t”) ; A lexa n d er v . L o ca l 49 6, L a b o rers ’ Int’l Un i o n o f N. A m. , 1 7 7 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 7 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); L a w r e n c e v . C o op e rC m ty s ., Inc. , 1 3 2 F .3 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); P e rk in s v . S ilve rs tein , 939 F. 2d 463, 469- 7 0 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); J

a c ks o n v . S e a b o a r dCoa s tLi n e R. R. , 678 F. 2d 992, 1010- 11 (11 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). 12( . . . cont i nued) 12 1982) , w e s ai d thata s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons defe ns e underT i t l e V I I i s an a ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . . . .” ). H o w e v e r, G or don d id n o t ho ld tha t th e T it le V II l i m i t at i ons per i od is an affi r m at i ve defens e; r ather , i tr efe rr ed t o the fi l i ng per i od as s om ethi ng “l i ke a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ” w hi ch “ge ner al l ycr eat e affi r m at i ve defe ns es . ” See G or don , 6 7 5 F .2 d a t 3 6 0 . F u rt h e rm o re , G or don ’ s d i s c u s s i o n c a me i n r es pons e t o the defendant ’ s ( r ej ect ed) cl ai m thatthe fi l i ng per i od w as j ur i s di ct i onal and di d notpurpor tt o addr es s , l etal one dec i de, w hethercompl i ance w ith th e filin g d e a d lin e w a s a c o n d itio n p re c e d e n t o r a n a ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . - 14 - T he s tructur e of the A cts uppor t s thi s concl us i on. T he fi l i ng deadl i nes as s oci at ed w i th a Ti t l e V I I char ge ar e i nt egr at ed i nt o the s t atut or ys ect i on that del i neat es t he var i ous others t eps a pr os pect i ve pl ai nt i ff musts at i s fybefor e bei ng g iv e n th e k e y s to th e c o u rt h o u s e d o o r t o file a c o m p la in t. S e e g e n e ra lly 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) ( r equi r i ng not i fi cat i on of the C om m i s s i on’ s di s m i s s al of, o r fa ilu re to a c t u p o n , a c h a rg e filed p u rsu a n t to th e sta tu to rysc h e m e p rio r to b rin g in g a c iv il ac tio n ); s ee als o Ledbet t er , 1 2 7 S . C t. at 2 1 6 6 -6 7 . T h is is in contr as tt o t r adi t i onal aff i r m at i ve defens es w hi ch ar e s epar at e bar s t o s ui tand o f te n n o t s o in te g ra te d in to th e p la in tiffs ’ c a u s e o f a c tio n . C

f. Jones v. B ock , __ U . S. __, 127 S. C t . 910, 919 ( 2007) ( i n hol di ng thatthe exha us t i on r equi r ement cont ai ned i n the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 1997e ets eq . ( “PL R A ”) , w as an affi r m at i ve defens e t o act i on br oughtunder42 U . S. C . § 1983, the c o u rtfo u n d sign ifi ca n t th at th e “ P L R A it self is n o t a so u rce o f a p ri so n er’s cl ai m [r ather , Sect i on 1983 w as and i tdoes notr equi r e exha us t i on] ”) . Pl aci ng t he bur den upon pl ai nt i ffs m akes s ens e, t oo, of the pr act i cal r eal i t i es athand, forthey e njo ysu p e rio r a c c e ss to th e e v id e n c e n e c e ss a ryto p ro v e th e ir c o m p lian c e w ithPl ai nt i ffs have notar gued w ai ver , es t oppel , ort hatt he doctr i ne of 13 e q u itab le to lli n g sh o u ld a p p lyto c u re th e ir tar d yfili n g s, a n d b a se d o n th e fa c ts b e fo re u s , w e s e e n o th in g d e m a n d in g th e ira p p lic a tio n . See, e. g. , B i es t erv. Mi dw es tHeal th Ser vs . , Inc. , 77 F. 3d 1264, 1267 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( r ecogni zi ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng i n t he Ti t l e V I I cont extw her e the pl ai nt i ff ha s been de cei ved, “l ul l ed i nt o i nact i on, ” “a ct i vel ym i s l ed, ” or“has i n s om e extr aor di naryw aybeen p re v e n te d f

ro m a s s e rt in g h is o r h e r r ig h ts ” (q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d )) . - 15 - th e s ta tu to ry filin g d e a d lin e , h e re th e iro w n le tte r a n d c o m p le te d s ta te fo rm s . See W r i ght& G r aham, Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e: E vi dence 2d § 5122 at403 (2 0 0 5 ); acco rd Uni t ed Stat es v. C ont . Ins . C o. , 7 7 6 F . 2 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 4 (11 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ); O ld B en C oalC or p. v. Int er i orB d. of

Mi ne O p. App. , 5 2 3 F .2 d 2 5 , 3 6 (7 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). 13 II U naffect ed byouranal y s i s and di s pos i t i on s o farar e the t i m el ycl ai m s of M s . E s cobedo, M r . G ar ci a, and M s . M ont es . W i th r es pectt o eac h, and bytur n, w e ou t l i ne the r el evan tt i m el yfactual al l egati on s and p ert i nen tl egal anal y si s. A M s. E scobed o, a H i spanic w om an o f M exican descen t , w orked a s a h o u se k e e p e r in th e C lin ic’ s o p e ra tin g ro o m d e p a rtm e n t f ro m a p p ro x im a tely D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 7 th ro u g h N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 9 . See A pp . at14 0, 14 2-43, 465. M s. E s cobedo’ s cl ai m s r evol ve pr i m ar i l yar ound tw o fac t s : an i ns truct i on s he r ece i ved t o s peak onl yE ngl i s h i n the C l i ni c’ s oper at i ng r oom s , and addi t i onal w or k s he r ece i ved fr om hers upervi s ort hatpr om pt ed hert o qui t . C om bi ned, s he- 16 -

c o n ten d s, th e se c irc u m sta n c e s s u ffice to g iv e rise to T itl e V II c laim s fo r h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t an d d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t. 1 B e c a u s e s h e h a d d iffic u lty sp e a k in g E n g lis h , s ee A pp. at140, w hen s he began w or ki ng atthe C l i ni c M s . E s cobedo pr i m ar i l ycomm uni cat ed w i th the E n g lis h s p e a k in g o p e ra tin g ro o m n u rs e s th ro u g h th e a id o f a n in te rp re te r. See A pp. a t 1 4 6 ; s ee als o i d. at159. O nce, al bei ti n w hats he des cr i bes as a “ni ce w ay , ” an o perat i ng room nu rs e asked M s. E scobed o to speak in E ng l i sh; the n urse expl ai ned thats he w oul d l i ke M s . E s cobedo t o pr act i ce he rE ngl i s h beca us e bei ng m o re p ro fic ie n t w o u ld a id h e r j o b p e rfo rm a n c e . See i d. at159. M s . E s cobedo t es t i fi ed thats he di d i ndeed ha ve di ffi cul tyr ece i vi ng l engthyi ns truct i on fr om t he nur s es and thatherj ob dut i es r equi r ed “qui ckl y ” and c ar eful l ycl eani ng the o p e ra tin g ro o m s in c o m p lia n c e w ith d ir e c tio n s f ro m th e o p e ra tin g ro o m n u rs e s . See i d. ; s ee als o i d. a t 8 0 -8 1 . A few m onths l at er , O nes i m a M ej i a, the hous ekee pi ng depart m ent s upervi s or , act i ng upon the r eques tof the s ame oper at i ng r oom nur s e, r ei t er at ed the nur s e’ s i ns truct i on t hatM s . E s cobedo a nd the otheroper at i ng r oom hous ekee pers peak Engl i s h r atherthan Spani s h w hi l e w or ki ng i n the oper at i ng ro o m s . Id. a t 1 5 9 , 1 7 6 . H o w e v e r, M s. E sc o b e d o w a s e x p re ss lyp e rm itt e d to s p e a k S p a n is h d u ri n g h e r b re a k s . Id. at176. N ei therdoes M s . E s cobedo a l l ege thats he, oranyotherhous ekee per , w as as ked t o s peak Engl i s h out s i de of theR ather , eac h hous ekee perw ho w as t ol d t o s peak Engl i s h w as i ns truct ed 14 t o do s o onl yw hi l e w or ki ng i n t he oper at i ng r oom depart m entand w as advi s ed th a t th e p o lic yd id n o t a p p ly d u ri n g b re a k s . See A p p . 1 0 9 , 1 3 5 , 1 5 9 , 1 7 6 , 2 5 9 . - 17 - oper at i ng r oom depart m entorforbi dden fr om engagi ng i n non-j ob r el at ed conver s at i ons w i th other Spani s h s peake r s i n her nat i ve t ongue. M s . E s cobedo 14 a ls o te s tifie d th a t s h e n e v e r c o m p la in e d a b o u t th e n u rs e s ’ i n s tru c tio n , s e e id . at 1 5 9 , alth o u g h sh e re p o rt ed o ther g ri ev an ce s, inclu d ing the in cre ase d w o rk a s s ig n m e n ts s h e re c e iv e d f ro m M s . M ejia , s e e , e .g ., id . at157. M s . E s cobedo c om pl ai ns that , fr om s hor t l yaft ers he j oi ned the C l i ni c t o t he dayof herr es i gnat i on, herdut i es w er e r epea t edl yenl ar ged t o i ncl ude chor es t he n u rse s h a d p re v io u slyb e e n re sp o n sib le fo r, su c h a s s to c k in g m e d ica l su p p lies in th e o p e ra tin g ro o m s a n d m o v in g s tr e tc h e rs f ro m o n e ro o m to a n o th e r. See i d. at 143- 44. T he nur s es expl ai ned thatotherhos pi t al s t aff “had t oo m uch w or k” and th a t th e h o u s e k e e p e rs e s s e n tia lly h a d to fill th e g a p . Id. at144. M s . E s cobedo r es i gned bec aus e of thi s addi t i onal w or k – i teventual l ybeca m e “t oo m uch. ” Id. at144. H ow ever , s he does notal l ege thatt he nur s es as s i gned herw or k outof any i l l w i l l . T o t he contr ary , s he r epea t edl yt es t i fi ed thats he gotal ong w el l w i th t he nur s es ; thei rpos i t i ve fe edbac k t o D ougl as G r i nnel l , t he hous ekee pi ng depart m ent m anage r , and M s . M ej i a w as the r eas on s he r ece i ved r ai s es ; and on atl eas tone o c c a s io n th e ytr ie d to in te rv e n e o n h e r b e h a lf w ith M s . M ejia . S e e , e .g ., i d. at 149, 157. N ei therdoes M s . E s cobedo a l l ege thats he w as s i ngl ed outfor- 18 -

addi t i onal w or k; r ather , s he t es t i fi ed thats he neve rbel i eved s he w as as s i gned any m o re w o rk th a n a n y o n e e ls e . S e e id . a t 1 5 8 . M s. E sc o b e d o in fo rm e d M s. M ejia a n d M r. G rin n e ll o f th e d ifficu lt w or kl oad and r eques t ed theyhi r e an a ddi t i onal hous ekee per , s om ethi ng w hi ch th e yd e c lin e d to d o . See i d. at148. St an A nder s on, M r . G r i nnel l ’ s s uper i orand th e C lin ic’ s D ire c to r o f F a c ili ties , tes tifie d th a t M r. G rin n e ll w a s ta sk e d w ith “[b] udget arycontr ol ” of the hous ekee pi ng depart m entand thatthe “mar chi ng o rd e rs ” w e re to “ m a in ta in ” th e e x is tin g b u d g e t. Id. at2, 6. T he mess age s ent fr om M r . A nder s on w as thatthe s t aff i ng w as al r eady“very , verygener ous ” and nott o enl ar ge the s t aff, t hough M r . G r i nnel l w as notexpr es s l yforbi dden fr om d o in g s o . Id. 2 M s . E s cobedo c l ai m s t hatthe for egoi ng fac t s – t he Engl i s h- onl yi ns truct i on pl us the addi t i onal w or k as s i gnm ent s s he r ece i ved – gi ve r i s e i n the fi r s ti ns t ance to a c laim fo r h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n a c tio n a b le hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entexi s t ed, “w e l ook t o al l the ci r cumst ance s , ” Morgan , 5 3 6 U .S . at 1 1 6 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ), to se e if th e w o rk p lac e w a s “ p e rm e a ted w ith di s cr i m i nat oryi nt i m i dat i on, r i di cul e, and i ns ul t. . . s uffi ci ent l ys ever e or pervas i ve t o al t ert he condi t i ons of the [pl ai nt i ff’ s ] empl oym ent , ” and i f the p la in tiff w a s s u bje c te d to th is a b u s iv e e n v ir o n m e n t b e c a u s e o f h e r n a tio n a l o ri g in .- 19 -

Her r er a v. Luf

ki n Indus . , Inc. , 474 F. 3d 675, 680 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on o m itte d ). I n thi s undert aki ng, w e cons i deral l the ci r cumst ance s notfr om the p lain tiff ’s s u bjec tiv e p o in t o f v iew b u t f

ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f a re a so n a b le p e rs o n in th e p la in tiff ’s p o s itio n . Id. S til l, th e v ictim m u st a lso “ su bjec tiv e ly per cei ve the envi r onm entt o be abus i ve” be caus e w i thouts uch a be l i ef, “the c o n d u c th a s n o ta c tu a l l y al t er edthe condi t i ons of the vi ct i m ’ s empl oym ent . ” Har r is v. Forkl i

f tSys . , Inc. , 5 1 0 U .S . 1 7 , 2 1 -2 2 (1 9 9 3 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also i d. at25 ( G i ns bur g, J . , concurr i ng) ( “I ts uffi ces t o pr ove thata r eas onabl e per s on s ubj ect ed t o the di s cr i m i nat oryconductw oul d fi nd, as the pl ai nt i ff di d, thatthe har as s m ents o al t er ed w or ki ng condi t i ons as t o m ake i tm or e di ffi cul tt o do the jo b .” (q u o tatio n a n d a ltera tio n o m itt e d )). T h e q u e stio n o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t, then, i s w hethera j ury , i n vi ew of al l of the evi dence , coul d r eas onabl yconcl ude the di s cr i m i nat oryhar as s m entt o be s uffi ci ent l ys ever e orpervas i ve as “t o al t er the condi t i ons of [the vi ct i m ’ s ] empl oym entand cr eat e an a bus i ve w or ki ng envi r onm ent , ” Mer i t orSav. B ank v. Vi ns on , 477 U . S. 57, 67 ( 1986) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) , and thatthe vi ct i m s ubj ect i vel yper cei ved the envi r onm entt o be a b u s iv e , Ha rr is , 5 1 0 U .S . a t 2 1 -2 2 . a W e b e g in b yre c o g n izin g th a t E n g lish -o n lyin stru c tio n s in d e e d c a n , in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s, “ c re a te[ ] a h o stile a tm o sp h e re fo r H isp a n ics in th e irC our t s have pr i m ar i l yaddr es s ed the effec tof an Engl i s h- onl ypol i cy 15 u n d e r a d is p a ra te im p a c t th e o ry. See, e. g. , Maldonado , 433 F. 3d at1303- 07; G ar ci a v. Spun St eak Co. , 9 9 8 F .2 d 1 4 8 0 , 1 4 8 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); G l oor , 618 F. 2d a t 2 7 0 ; E . E . O . C . v. Synchr o- Star tP r ods . , Inc. , 2 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 2 (N .D . Ill . 1999) . I n t hos e ca s es , the court s w er e ca l l ed t o deci de i s s ues notr ai s ed befor e us – s peci fi cal l y , w hetheran Engl i s h- onl ypol i cyeffect ed a di s par at e i m pacton H i s pani c w or ker s . C onver s el y , of cour s e, a di s par at e i m pactt heorydoes not req u ir e p roo f o f d iscri m inato ryan im u s li k e the h o sti le w o rk e n v ir o n m en t th eo ry u n d e r w h ich M s. E sc o b e d o c h o se to p ro c e e d in th is c a se . B e c a u se o u r a n a ly sis is c o n fi n e d t o a h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m i n wh i c h a n i mu s i s r e q u i r e d , we o ffe r n o v iew s re g a rd in g w h a t m ig h t h a v e b e e n th e a p p ro p ria te o u tco m e o f th is c a s e u n d e r a d is p a ra te im p a c t th e o ry. - 20 - w o rk p la c e ” a n d th u s v io la te T itle V II . Maldonado v. C i t y of A l t us , 433 F. 3d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), abr ogat ed i n par ton othergr ounds , B u r lin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe Ry . C o . v. Wh ite , 1 2 6 S . C t. 24 0 5 , 2 4 1 4 -1 5 (2 0 0 6 ); s ee als o G ar ci a v. G l oor , 6 1 8 F .2 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (n o tin g th a t w h ile “ [ n ]e ith e r th e sta tu te norcomm on under s t andi ng equat es nat i onal or i gi n w i th the l anguage thatone c h o o se s to sp e a k [ , l]an g u a g e m a yb e u se d a s a c o v e rt b a sis fo r n a tio n a l o rig in di s cr i m i nat i on”) ; 29 C . F. R . § 1606. 7( a) ( obs ervi ng thatE ngl i s h- onl ypol i ci es m ay fost er a s ense of

“i nferi ori ty , i sol at i on and i nti m i dati on based o n [an em ploy ee’s ] n ati o n al o ri g in”). 15 T o dat e, how ever , w e have addr es s ed onl ya s w eepi ng E ngl i s h- onl ypol i cy m e c h a n ica llye n fo rc e d b ya n e m p lo y e r in a ll circ u m sta n c e s a n d a t all tim e s w ith in the w or k envi r onm ent ; w e have nothad occ as i on t o r evi ew a more t ai l or ed pol i cy l i m i t ed, l i ke the one now befor e us , t o s peci fi c pl ace s ort i m es w i thi n the w o rk p la c e . See Maldonado , 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 7 -0 8 (h o ld in g th a t an E n g lish -o n ly- 21 -

pol i cy , w hi ch appl i ed atal l t i m es t o al l empl oy ees r egar dl es s of occ upat i on or a c tiv ity, m a yh a v e c re a te d a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t) . Fori t s part , how ever , t he EE O C , expr es s l ydi s t i ngui s hes betw een Engl i s ho n ly p o lic ie s o n ju s t th is b a s is . See 29 C . F. R . § 1606. 7. W i th r es pectt o pol i ci es b l i th e l ye n fo r c e d a ta l l t i me s a n d p l a c e s i n th e wo r k e n v i r o n me n t , th e E E OC p re s u m e s , s u bje c t to re b u tta l, th a t th e yv io la te T itle V II . S e e id . § 1 6 0 6 .7 (a ). W i th r es pectt o t ai l or ed pol i ci es appl i cabl e onl yat“ce r t ai n t i m es ” orpl ace s , the E E O C endor s es no s uch pr es um pt i on, s ugges t i ng thats uch rul es m aym or e oft en be l i nked t o l egi t i m at e “bus i nes s nece s s i t [i es ] . ” Id. § 1 6 0 6 . 7 (b). W h ile th e E E O C ’s g u id e lin e s a re n o t c o n tr o llin g , Maldonado , 433 F. 3d at 1305, w e have i nt i m at ed thattheyar e nonethel es s “ent i t l ed t o r es pect , notas i nt erpr et at i ons of the governi ng l aw , butas an i ndi cat i on of w hata r eas onabl e, i nform ed per s on m ayt hi nk aboutthe i m pactof an Engl i s h- onl yw or k rul e on m i nor i tyempl oy ees , even i f w e mi ghtnotdr aw the s ame i nfer ence . ” Id. a t 1 3 0 6 . Itis w ith this st an d ard in m ind that w e turn to a c o n side rati o n o f th e p o li cyb efo re us. T he Engl i s h- onl yrul e compl ai ned of he r e pr ohi bi t ed M s . E s cobedo a nd otherhous ekee per s fr om s peaki ng Spani s h s ol el yw hi l e w or ki ng i n the oper at i ng r oom depart m ent , and appa r ent l yonl yforj ob- r el at ed di s cus s i ons , and ca rr i ed w i th i ta conc eded bus i nes s nece s s i ty . T he pol i cybor e no appa r enteffecti n any otherpl ace w i thi n the C l i ni c ordur i ng M s . E s cobedo’ s br eaks ort o di s cus s i onsT o be s ur e, one mi ghtques t i on the as s er t ed “bus i nes s nece s s i ty ” of a n 16 E ng l i sh-onl ypo l i cyi f t he em ploy er know i ng l yhir es em ploy ees w ho l ack E ng l i sh s ki l l s . T he r ecor d befor e us , how ever , i ndi cat es t hatt he C l i ni c bec ame aw ar e of comm uni cat i on pr obl ems i n t he oper at i ng r oom onl yaft erM s . E s cobedo w as hi r ed and, i n fac t , s ubs equent l yi ns t i tut ed a r equi r ementt hatanyhous ekee per seeki ng placem ent i n the ope rat i ng room dep artm ent fi rs tdem on strat e E ng l i sh p ro fic ie n c y . See A pp. at135. - 22 - u n re late d to h e r jo b , an d th u s, a c c o rd in g to th e E E O C , is a p o licya p p lica b le o n ly a t “ c e rt a in tim e s ” o r p la c e s ju s tifia b le o n a s h o w in g o f b u s in e s s n e c e s s ity. See, e.g., E . E . O . C . D ec isi o n No . 8 3 -7 , 3 1 F a i rE m p l . P r a c . C a s . ( B N A ) 1 8 6 1 , 1 9 8 3 WL 22488, at*2 ( E . E . O . C . A pr . 20, 1983) . L i kew i s e, i ti s undi s put ed thatcl earand pr eci s e comm uni cat i on betw een the cl eani ng s t aff and the medi cal s t aff w as es s ent i al i n the oper at i ng r oom s ; thatthe s ani t ar i nes s of the oper at i ng r oom s w as of par amount i m por t ance t o the hos pi t al ( nott o m ent i on the hea l th and s afe tyof i t s pat i ents ); and t hat m ostof the op erat i ng room nu rs es di d n ot s peak S pan i sh and thus coul d notcomm uni cat e w i th M s . E s cobedo w i thoutr es or tt o an E n g lis h -o n ly p o lic y . See A p p e llee ’s B r. 3 9 ; A p p . at 2 2 8 . M s. E sc o b e d o h e rse lf admi t s thatm ai nt ai ni ng the s ani t ar i nes s of the oper at i ng r oom s nece s s i t at ed the “qui ck” a nd car eful per form ance of herdut i es and thatcomm uni cat i on w i th the n u rses w as e ssen ti al. N eith er d o w e h av e a n yev iden ce b efo re u s tha t th e C li n ic’s po l i cy w as the produ ct of, or res ult ed i n, any sort of dis cri m i natory anim us. 16 A ll o f th is ta k e n to g e th e r – th e n a rro w n e ss o f th e C lin ic’ s p o licy , it s o rig in i n the C l i ni c’ s undi s put ed bus i nes s nece s s i ty , and the abs ence of anyevi dence sugg est i ng that the p oli cyw as the p roduct of i m proper m oti ve o r that i tgav e ri se- 23 -

to a n yd isc rim in a to rye ffe c t – d istin g u ish th is c a se f ro m th e p o licyw e fa c e d in Maldonado a n d th e s o rt s o f c a s e s th e E E O C h a s fo u n d to v io la te T itle V II . See Maldonado , 433 F. 3d at1304- 06 ( obs ervi ng thatthe bus i nes s nece s s i typr offe r ed b yth e d e fe n d a n t w a s “ sc a n t” a n d th a t th e b lan k e t p o licyg a v e rise to e th n ic tau n tin g ); s ee als o, e. g. , C hr is t i na C hi ldr es s v. U. S. A i rFor ce , E E OC DOC 0 1 8 4 2 8 1 4 , 1 9 8 6 W L 6 3 5 3 0 6 , at *4 -5 (E . E . O . C . Ju ly7 , 1 9 8 6 ). O n the re co rd befor e us , and i n cons onance w i th the EE O C ’ s vi ew s , w e ther efor e ca nnots ee a ny r eas onabl e bas i s forconcl udi ng the C l i ni c’ s pol i cys uffi ci entt o gi ve r i s e t o a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t c la im . b W i th r es pectt o hercl ai m s of addi t i onal w or k as s i gnm ent s , M s . E s cobedo m a k e s n o a lleg a tio n th a t sh e o r a n yo th e r e m p lo y e e w a s s in g led o u t o n th e b a sis o f ra ce o r na ti o n al origin . In fac t, sh e testi fied that sh e b eli ev ed h er w o rk as s i gnm ent s w er e exc es s i ve bec aus e ther e w as a s hor t age of hous ekee pi ng s t aff. O f cour s e, even w hen an i ncr eas e i n as s i gnm ent s i s noton i t s fac e d iscri m inato ry , if th ere ex ist s o ther e v iden ce o f d iscri m inato ryco n d u ct, a jury m a yre a so n a b lyin fe r th a t ev e n se e m in g lyn o n -d isc rim in a to ryw o rk a ss ig n m e n ts w e re in fa c t m o tiv a te d b yd is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s . See C havez v. New Mexi co , 397 F . 3 d 8 2 6 , 8 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B u t i n o rde r fo r fa ciall yn o n -discrim inato ry co n d u ct t o b e so tai n ted, th e “ o ther” co n d u ct at i ssu e m u st be “‘o v ertl y ’” d is c ri m in a to ry. Id. ( quot i ng O ’ Shea v. Yel l ow Tech. Ser vs . , Inc. , 185 F. 3d 1093,M s. E sco b ed o m igh t st il l be a ffo rde d red ress u n d er a h o sti le w o rk 17 env i ronm ent theo ryi f un t i m el yi ncident s, i n co njunct i on w i th ti m el yi ncident s, (c o n tin u e d ...) - 24 - 1097 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ) . H er e, how ever , the onl yconductbythe nur s es w hi ch e v e n tan g e n tiallyre late s to M s. E sc o b e d o ’s n a tio n a l o rig in is th e E n g lish -o n ly i ns truct i on r el at ed t o the oper at i ng r oom s . B ut , as w e have not ed, M s . E s cobedo has notal l eged thati tw as a vehi cl e t o effectanydi s cr i m i nat or yani m us harbor ed b y th e n u r s e s , l e ta l o n e p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f s u c h i n t e n to re ffe c t ; t o th e c o n tr a r y, M s . E s cobedo t es t i fi ed thats he gotal ong w el l w i th the nur s es and theys uppor t ed heri n di s put es w i th hers upervi s or s . T hi s evi dence befor e us thus s i m pl ydoes notperm i tan i nfer ence of “ove r t ” di s cr i m i nat i on as r equi r ed byourpr ece dentand w e ca nnots aythatthe combi nat i on of the tw o i nci dent s coul d r eas onabl ybe fo u n d to h a v e c re a te d a h o s tile a tm o s p h e re . See B olden v. PR CInc. , 43 F. 3d 545, 551 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng thatpl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o pr es enta tr i abl e i s s ue as t o a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entw her e the “de r i s i ve envi r onm enti n the w or ks hop w as uni ver s al ” – he w as not“s i ngl ed out ” forabus e – and he fai l ed t o s how t he d e risiv e a tm o sp h e re “ ste m m e d f ro m ra c ial a n im u s” ); cf . O ’ Shea , 185 F. 3d at 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 0 2 ( h o l d i n g th a tth e “ o b v i o u s l y s e x a n d g e n d e r - m o t i v a t e d c o n d u c t ” b y a s u p e rv is o r – in c lu d in g , in tera lia , h is st ated b eli ef “tha t w o m en in g en era l w ere i ncompet ent , s tupi d and s catt erbr ai ned” – “ s o poi s oned the ent i r e bodyof conduc t t o wa r d P l a i n t i ff

th a ta j u r yr e a s o n a b l yc o u l d v i e w a llof the al l egedl yhar as s i ng co n d u ct . . . as th e p rod u ct of sex an d g en d er h o sti li ty ”). 17( . . . cont i nued) 17 c re a te d a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t. See D u n c a n v . Ma n a g e r, D e p ’t o f Sa fety , 397 F. 3d 1300, 1309 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T o do s o, how ever , M s . E s cobedo w oul d have t o demonstr at e thatthe unt i m el yi nci dent s w er e s o r el at ed bytype, fr equenc y , and perpetr at ort o the Engl i s h- onl yi ns truct i on ori ncr eas ed w or k as s i gnm ent s that theyfai r l ycoul d be cons trued t o be partof the s ame unl aw ful empl oym ent p ra c tic e . See Morgan , 536 U . S. at116- 17, 120. T hi s M s . E s cobedo ha s noteven a tte m p te d to d o , a n d s o w e d e e m a n ya rg u m e n t a lo n g th e s e lin e s w a iv e d . See Mu rr e ll v. Sh a la la , 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). E v e n if w e w e re a b le to o v e rc o m e th is h u rd le, a f ter in d e p e n d e n tlyre v iew in g th e u n tim e lyin c id e n ts i dent i fi ed byM s . E s cobedo, w e s ee no c om m on thr ead be tw een them and t he t i m el yi nci dent s al l eged byM s . E s cobedo s uffi ci entt o perm i tthei rus e her e. - 25 - 3 B ey ond herhos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m , M s . E s cobedo a l s o s eeks r el i ef undera di s par at e tr eatm entt heory , r el y i ng her e s ol el yon heral l egat i ons of excessi ve w ork. T o succe ed in a di sparat e t reatm ent cl ai m , M s. E scobed o m ust s how that , thr ough herw or k as s i gnm ent s , the C l i ni c i nt ent i onal l ydi s cr i m i nat ed a g a in s t h e r. See Ledbe t t er , 1 2 7 S . C t. at 2 1 6 7 . B e c a u se M s. E sc o b e d o se e k s to pr ove s uch ani m us s ol el ythr ough i ndi r ectorci r cumst ant i al evi dence , w e exa m i ne hercl ai m thr ough the pr i s m of the fa m i l i arbur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k es t abl i s hed b y McD onnel lD ouglas C or por at i on v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -0 4 (1 9 7 3 ). Pur s uantt o McD onnel lD ouglas , a pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e case o f d is c ri m in a tio n . See Young , 468 F. 3d at1249. O nce he ors he does s o, the bur den s hi ft s t o the defendantt o art i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fo r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Id. I f the defendants at i s fi es i t s bur den, the- 26 -

p lain tiff m u st th e n sh o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s p ro ffe re d ju stifica tio n w a s s im p ly p re te x t fo r u n la w f

u l d is c ri m in a tio n . Id. F or our pu rposes, even shou l d w e assum e t hat the ad dit i on al du t i es M s. E s cobedo r ece i ved qual i fyas a mat er i al l yadver s e empl oym entact i on for purpos es of McD onnel lD ouglas ’s first ste p , h e r c laim w o u ld still fa lter. T h e re is no ques t i on i n thi s cas e butt hatthe C l i ni c has “art i cul at e[d] s om e l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on. ” Young , 468 F. 3d at 12 4 9 . M s. E sco b ed o h erse lf t esti fied that the n u rses a ssign ed ad d it ion al w o rk t o herand otherhous ekee per s beca us e ther e w as a s hor t age of s t aff, and thats he w as a ssign ed n o m o re w o rk th an an yo ther h o u sek ee p er. T h ere is r ec o rd evi dence , as w el l , t hatt he hous ekee pi ng depart m entw as di s cour aged f r om e n l a r g i n g i t s s t a ff

b e c a u s e o f

b u d g e t a ryc o n s tr a i n t s . I n l i g h to f th e s e fa c t s , we m us tacknow l edge thatt he C l i ni c has m eti t s “exc eedi ngl yl i ght ” bur den of es t abl i s hi ng a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fori t s chal l enged a ct i ons u n d er McD onnel lD ouglas ’s s e c o n d s te p , Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , Inc. , 478 F. 3d 11 60 , 11 65 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( en b anc), byprodu ci ng evidence thatM s. E s cobedo’ s cl eani ng dut i es w er e i ncr eas ed i n par i tyw i th otherhous ekee per s and b e c a u se o f

th e su rp lu s o f

w o rk in th e d e p a rtm e n t; th e lac k o f a d d iti o n a l sta ff

to c o m p le te it; a n d th e n e e d to k e e p c o s ts d o w n . T o r eac h tr i al , M s . E s cobedo mustther efor e s how thatther e i s a genui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t r e g a rd in g w h e th e r t h e C lin ic ’s ju s tific a tio n w a s p re te x tu a l.B uts how i ng thatthe empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons 18 ar e fa l s e w i l l not“‘ alw ays be ade quat e t o s us t ai n . . . l i abi l i ty . ” Young , 468 F. 3d at1250 ( quot i ng R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods . , Inc. , 530 U . S. 133, 148 ( 2000) ) . R ather , “the fa ct fi nderm us tbe abl e t o concl ude, bas ed on a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , tha t dis cri m i na t i on w as a d et erm i na t i ve f actor in the empl oy er ’ s act i ons – s i m pl ydi s bel i evi ng the empl oy eri s i ns uffi ci ent . ” Id. (qu o tat ion o m itted). M s . E s c o b e d o a ls o s e e k s re lie f u n d e r a c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e th e o ry. 19 Suppor t i ng hercl ai m , s he as s ert s t hatt he hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ents he endur ed w as s o abus i ve thati tl eftherno choi ce butt o r es i gn. T he Supr eme C our thas i ns truct ed that“[a ] pl ai nt i ff w ho advanc es s uch a c om pound cl ai m [– a (c o n tin u e d ...) - 27 - Young , 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 9 . T o a c c o m p lish th is, M s. E sc o b e d o m u st p re se n t fa c ts sugg est i ng t hat the C l i nic’ s “proffered [n at i on al ori gin neutr al ] r easons w ere s o in c o h e re n t, w e a k , inc o n sis ten t, or c o n tra d icto ryth a t a r a tio n a l fa c tfin d e r c o u ld concl ude the r eas ons w er e unw or thyof bel i ef. ” Id. at 1250. T hi s M s . E s cobedo 18 fa il s to d o . M s. E sco b ed o h erse lf rep ea tedlytest ifi ed to the ex ce ss w o rk th ro u g h o u t th e e n tir e h o u s e k e e p in g d e p a rt m e n t a n d its e v e n -h a n d e d d is tr ib u tio n . S he d oes no tal l ege thatthe C l i nic had an excess of f un ds or i n an yw aycon t est i t s as s ert i ons of ec onom y . N ei therdoes s he cont end thats he r ece i ved hernew as s i gnm ent s beca us e s he w as H i s pani c. R ather , herow n t es t i m onyes t abl i s hes thats he had a tl eas ta cor di al r el at i ons hi p w i th the nur s i ng s t aff and thatt hey r epea t edl ycomm ended the qual i tyof herw or k t o M r . G r i nnel l and M s . M ej i a, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n herr ece i ptof a r ai s e. B as ed on thes e fa ct s , w e ar e w i thout c h o ice b u t to a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e C lin ic as t o M s. E scobed o’s cl ai m s. 19( . . . cont i nued) 19 con struct i ve d i scharge cl ai m prem i sed on a ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent –] m ust sh o w w o rk in g c o n d iti o n s s o in to ler a b le th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e fe lt compel l ed t o r es i gn. ” P enn . Stat e P oli ce v. Su ders , 5 4 2 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 4 7 (2 0 0 4 ); s ee als o E. E. O. C. v . PV

NF, L . L . C. , 4 8 7 F . 3 d 7 9 0 , 8 0 5 - 0 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( s a me ) . As p rese n ted to u s, h o w ev er, th is cl aim is i n ex o rab lyli n k ed to h er h o sti le w o rk e n v iro n m e n t cla im ; fo r th e sa m e re a so n s th a t cla im h a s fa llen , so to o m u st th is o n e . - 28 - B M r . G ar ci a, a H i s pani c man, w or ked i n the C l i ni c’ s hous ekee pi ng d e p a rt m e n t f

ro m 1 9 9 5 u n til 1 9 9 9 . See A pp. 190, 206. M r . G ar ci a cl ai m s thatt he confl uence of bei ng as s i gned an e xces s i ve amountof w or k and the C l i ni c’ s pol i cy of forbi ddi ng fami l ym ember s fr om vi s i t i ng empl oy ees dur i ng w or k hour s atthe h o s p i t a l g i v e s r i s e t o a h o s t i l e wo r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. 1 M uch l i ke M s . E s cobedo, M r . G ar ci a cl ai m s thathe w as for ced t o r es i gn beca us e M s . M ej i a as s i gned hi m “a w hol e l otof [a ddi t i onal ] w ork, and [he ] coul dn’ tdo thats or tof w or k. ” Id. a t 1 8 4 -8 5 , 1 9 5 . H e c o n ten d s th a t h e q u it befor e att empt i ng t o t ake on M s . M ej i a’ s new w or k as s i gnm ent s beca us e “[ he] w as bar el yabl e t o fi ni s h w i th the as s i gnm ent s that[he] had befor e. ” Id. at196- 97. Pr i ort o the enl ar gementof hi s j ob r es pons i bi l i t i es , M r . G ar ci a’ s dut i es i ncl uded cl eani ng offi ces , and partof a ha l l w ay , as w el l as di s pos i ng of the g a rb a g e in th e in fe c tio u s d is e a s e s w in g o f th e h o s p ita l. See i d. at185. T he- 29 -

a d d i t i o n a l wo rk M s . M ej i a s o u g h tt o a d d i n c l u d e d c l e a n i n g e l e v a t o r s , we l c o me m a ts , a n d s w e e p in g a n d m o p p in g s ta ir w a y s . See i d. M r . G ar ci a pr es ent ed var i ous r eas ons forM s . M ej i a’ s per cei ved m istrea tm en t of

h im . Init ial ly , h e testi fied that h e d id n o t kn o w if d iscri m inato ry a n im u s m o tiv a te d M s . M ejia ’s a s s ig n m e n t o f a d d itio n a l w o rk , s e e id . a t 1 8 5 (“ Q . D o y o u th in k y o u w e re g e ttin g th is e x tr a w o rk b e c a u s e y o u w e re H is p a n ic ? A . W el l , thatI don’ tknow . ”) . L at er , he adde d hi s opi ni on thathe w as gi ven t oo m uch w or k beca us e he w as H i s pani c, al though he ca ndi dl yadmi t t ed he ha d no fa c ts to s u p p o rt th is b e lie f. See i d. at20 0. E l sew here st i l l , he st at ed thatM s. M ej i a tr eat ed hi m m or e poor l yw hen s he w as “mad” buthe bel i eved he ranger w as not“per s onal ” t o hi m and thathe w as notthe ca us e of i t ; r ather , heranger s te m m e d “ f

ro m h o m e ” is s u e s . Id. at198. A nd, fi nal l y , M r . G ar ci a expr es s ed the b e lief th a t th e C lin ic a ss ig n e d h im e x c e ss iv e w o rk in th e h o p e s th a t h e w o u ld re s ig n s o th a t it c o u ld h ir e a re p la c e m e n t a t a lo w e r w a g e . See i d. a t 2 0 8 -0 9 . M r. G a rc ia c o m p lain s a s w e ll th a t M s. M ejia a n d M r. G rin n e ll rep e a ted ly expr es s ed i n hous ekee pi ng depart m entm eet i ngs the C l i ni c’ s pol i cyforbi ddi ng t he h o u s e k e e p in g s ta ff ’s fa m ily m e m b e rs f ro m w a itin g in th e C lin ic lo b b y , s ee i d. at 1 9 4 , 2 0 8 , an d h e ind icates tha t he w as re p ri m an d ed so m eti m e d u ri n g Jan u ary 1 9 9 9 fo r fa ilin g to c o m p ly w ith th is p o lic y , se e id . at209 ( “[I ] n J anuary1999, O n e sim a sa w m yw ife in th e lo b b ya n d to ld m e a g a in th a t m yw ife c o u ld n o t w a it ther e. ”) . I n r es pons e, M r . A nder s on t es t i fi ed forthe C l i ni c thatthi s pol i cy- 30 -

a p p lie d to a ll d e p a rt m e n ts , a n d h is a s s e rt io n h a s n o t b e e n c o n tr a d ic te d o n a p p e a l. See i d. a t 9 ; see also i d. a t 1 8 4 . 2 W e ar e unabl e t o di s cern fr om thes e l i m i t ed fa ct s a bas i s on w hi ch a re a s o n a b le ju ry m ig h t in fe r a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t in v io la tio n o f T itle V II . N o n e o f th e tra d iti o n a l “h a llm a rk s” o f su c h a c laim , su c h a s e v id e n c e o f rid icu le o r m is tr e a tm e n t b a s e d o n ra c e o r n a tio n a l o ri g in , a re p re s e n t. Truj i l l o v. Uni v. of C olo. Health S ci ences C tr. , 1 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); see also Herrer a , 4 7 4 F .3 d a t 6 8 1 -8 2 ; s e e a ls o PV NF , 487 F. 3d at798- 99. T o be s ur e, at o n e p o int M r. G arc ia ex p resse d the v iew that h e re ce ived ad d it ion al w o rk as s i gnm ent s beca us e he i s H i s pani c. B utM r . G ar ci a then pr ocee ded t o w al k aw ay fr om thatt es t i m ony , admi t t i ng t hathe had no factual bas i s forhi s opi ni on, and s ugges t i ng thatM s . M ej i a’ s behavi orw as i ns t ead the pr oductof per s onal “home” i s s ues . A tno poi nt , m or eover , has M r . G ar ci a cont es t ed thatthe C l i ni c fa ced pur el yeconomi c pr es s ur es t hatcompel l ed i t s as s i gnm entof addi t i onal re s p o n s ib iliti e s to h o u s e k e e p in g s ta ff. S im ilarly , a ju ryc o u ld n o t re a so n a b lyd iv in e th a t M s. M ejia’s d e c isio n to d isc ip lin e h im fo r fa ili n g to c o m p lyw ith th e C lin ic p o licyfo rb id d in g fa m ily m ember s fr om ent er i ng the C l i ni c had a nythi ng t o do w i th M r . G ar ci a’ s nat i onal or i gi n. Farfr om s ugges t i ng an i nfer ence thatM s . M ej i a orthe C l i ni c appl i ed the pol i cyonl yt o H i s pani cs ors ol el yr epr i m anded H i s pani cs orotherm i nor i t i es forM r. G a rc ia c laim s th a t th e a b u siv e w o rk e n v iro n m e n t led to h is 20 con struct i ve d i scharge. B ut M r. G arci a’s con struct i ve d i scharge cl ai m , l i ke M s. E sc o b e d o ’s, re lies e n tirelyo n th e m e rits o f h is h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t cla im a n d fa ils w ith it. See s upr a p. 27 n. 19 . S im il arly , M r. G arc ia see k s reli ef u n d er a di s par at e tr eatm enttheoryal l egi ng t hatt he C l i ni c di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m by as s i gni ng exce s s i ve w or k. B utthi s cl ai m pr es ent s t he s ame l egal ques t i on r ai s ed b yM s . E s c o b e d o a n d it fa ils fo r t h e s a m e re a s o n s . See sup ra p p . 2 5 -2 7 . - 31 - vi ol at i ng the rul e, t he r ecor d befor e us cont ai ns uncontr overt ed evi dence thatthe pol i cyw as appl i ed t o al l C l i ni c s t aff. 20 C M s. M o n tes, a H ispa n ic w o m an , w as e m p loy ed in the C li n ic’s hous ekee pi ng depart m entfr om 1992 unt i l s he w as fi r ed i n 1999, a fi r i ng s he cont ends w as the r es ul tof unl aw ful r et al i at i on. 1 D ur i ng hert i m e atthe C l i ni c, M s . M ont es m etw i th a l aw y err egar di ng t he p o te n tia l o f

b ri n g in g th is la w s u it a g a in s t th e C lin ic . See A pp . at29 2. M s. M ont es as s ert s thatone of he rco- w or ker s , Fel i pe M ar t i nez, knew of herm eet i ng w ith c o u n s e l a n d to ld M s . M ejia . See i d. at291- 92. Fi r ed tw o m onths l at erby M r. G ri n n ell , M s. M o n tes claim s h er d isch arg e w as th e p rod u ct of retali atory a n im u s a n d d e s ig n e d to p u n is h h e r d e c is io n to s e e k le g a l c o n s u lta tio n . See i d. at 293. M eanw hi l e, the C l i ni c as s er t s t hatM r . G r i nnel l di s char ged M s . M ont es for in s u b o rd in a tio n a f

te r s h e fa ile d to fo llo w a s u p e rv is o r’ s h o u s e k e e p in g d ir e c tiv e . S e e id . at291. M s . M ont es candi dl yadmi t s t hat , s hor t l ybefor e bei ng fi r ed, s he di d di s r egar d an or derfr om the C l i ni c’ s l ead hous ekee per , M er cede s A gur ci a, butB eca us e M s . M ont es ’ s onl yt i m el yal l egat i ons r el at e t o herr et al i at i on 21 c laim , w e in c lu d e th e fa c ts re lev a n t to th a t cla im o n ly ; as th e C o u rt n o ted in Morgan , unt i m el ydi s cr et e ac t s of di s cr i m i nat i on m aynotbe cons i der ed, and unt i m el yact s cons t i tut i ng partof a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m m aybe c o n s id e re d o n ly if

th e c la im in c lu d e s a t le a s t o n e tim e ly ac t. See Morgan , 536 U . S. at114, 118. - 32 - ur ges thatheri ns ubor di nat i on w as j us t i fi ed bec aus e the dutyM s . A gur ci a s ought to a s s ig n to h e r p ro p e rl yb e lo n g e d to a d iffe re n t e m p lo y e e . See i d. 21 2 T i t l e V I I forbi ds r et al i at i on agai ns templ oy ees w ho voi ce oppos i t i on t o, or part i ci pat e i n an i nves t i gat i on orpr ocee di ng al l egi ng, an unl aw ful empl oym ent p ra c tic e b yh is o r h e r e m p lo y e r. See 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-3(a) . B ecause M s. M ont es s eeks t o pr ove herr et al i at i on cl ai m s ol el yt hr ough i ndi r ector ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of di s cr i m i nat or yani m us , w e tur n agai n t o McD o n n e ll D ouglas in a n a lyzi n g h e r c la im . See Mei ners v. Uni v. of Kan. , 359 F. 3d 1222, 1 2 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n or dert o s t at e a p rim a fa c ie ca se fo r retal iat ion u n d er McD o n n e ll D ouglas ’s first ste p , M s. M o n tes m u st d e m o n stra te th a t (1 ) sh e e n g a g e d in p ro tec ted o p p o sitio n to d isc rim in a tio n ; (2 ) sh e su ffe re d a n a d v e rse a c tio n th a t a re a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e fo u n d m a ter ial; a n d (3 ) a c a u sa l n e x u s e x ists b e tw e e n h e r o p p o s itio n a n d th e e m p lo y e r’ s a d v e rs e a c tio n . S e e PV NF , 487 F. 3d a t 8 0 3 ; se e a lso Wh ite , 1 2 6 S . C t. at 2 4 1 4 -1 5 . T h e o n lye lem e n t in d isp u te h e re is the l as t– thati s , w hetherM s . M ont es has es t abl i s hed the r equi r ed ca us al nexus- 33 -

b e tw e e n h e r d isc h a rg e a n d h e r c o n su ltatio n w ith c o u n se l. T o sa tisf yth is e lem e n t, a “ p lai n ti ff

m u st sho w that the in d ividu al w h o too k ad v erse ac ti o n ag ains t [h er] knew of the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty , ” Wi l l i am s v. R i ce , 983 F. 2d 177, 181 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), o r th at M s. M eji a, th e p erso n all eg ed lyh arb o ri n g d iscri m inato ry ani m us , knew and us ed M r . G r i nnel l , the per s on w ho effect ed the adve r s e ac t i on, “as a ca t ’ s paw t o effect. . . herow n bi as ed des i gns . ” Young , 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 . M s. M on t es run s i nto an i nsup erabl e ob st acl e i n seeking to sat i sfythese sta n d a rd s, fo r h e r e v id e n c e th a t any s uper i oratthe C l i ni c w as even a w ar e of he r m eet i ng w i th couns el der i ves fr om a s i ngl e hea r s ays t at ement . M s . M ont es as s ert s thatM s . M ej i a bec ame aw ar e thats he metw i th couns el r egar di ng her cl ai m s of dis cri m i nati on byw ayof a c o-w orker – M r. M art i nez. M s. M on t es, how ever , s ubm i t s onl yherow n s econd- hand, hear s ayacc ountof the enc ount er b e tw e e n M r . M a r t i n e z a n d M s . M ej i a a s r e l a ye d b y M r . M a r t i n e z ; u n fo r tu n a t e l y, w e have befor e us no t es t i m onyfr om M r . M art i nez hi m s el f. U nderour pr ece dent s , w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o di s r egar d s uch hea r s ayon s um m aryj udgm ent w hen, as her e, ther e i s a pr operobj ect i on t o i t s us e and the pr oponentof the te s tim o n yc a n d ir e c t u s to n o a p p lic a b le e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a yru le . See A p p e llee ’s B r. 6 0 -6 1 ; Young , 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 2 . E ven i f M s . M ont es had pr es ent ed a p rim a fa c ie cas e of r et al i at i on, how ever , hercl ai m w oul d nonethel es s fai l ata l at ers t age i n the McD o n n e ll D ouglas an aly sis be ca u se sh e h as n o t r eb u tt ed the C li n ic’s no n -discrim inato ry- 34 -

re a s o n fo r h e r t e rm in a tio n . See Mei ners , 359 F. 3d at1229. I ndeed, M s . M ont es r eadi l yadmi t t ed thats he w as i ns ubor di nat e, j us tas the C l i ni c cl ai m s . O f cour s e, M s . M ont es s eeks t o s how t hatt he C l i ni c’ s pr offe r ed r eas on forfi r i ng herw as r eal l y“s ubt er fuge for[r et al i at i on] . ” Young , 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 0 . B u t th e o n ly rea so n sh e a d v an ce s su g g esti n g that h er term ination w as tainted w ith retali atory ani m us w as M s . M ej i a’ s purpor t ed aw ar enes s of herm eet i ng w i th couns el . E ven ov erl oo king t he h ears ayi ssue and assum i ng such aw areness, ho w ever, M s. M o n tes p re se n ts n o c o m p e ten t ev id e n c e f ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld in fe r th a t th is i nform at i on w as everr el ay ed fr om M s . M ej i a t o M r . G r i nnel l , the s upervi s orw ho fired h er; ne ith er d o es sh e a ll eg e tha t M s. M eji a influen ce d M r. G ri n n ell ’s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e heri n anyw ays o as t o m ake hi m her“ca t ’ s paw . ” Id. at 1253. W i thouts om e fa ct s al ong one of thes e l i nes , one mi ghtconcl ude thats he w a s re ta lia te d a g a in s t o n ly b yin d u lg in g in im p e rm is s ib le s p e c u la tio n . See Tr uck Ins. Exch. v. MagneTek, Inc. , 3 6 0 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). t t t W e d o n o t q u e stio n th a t th e C lin ic m a yh a v e b e e n a n u n p lea sa n t p lac e to w or k forthe pl ai nt i ffs , butt her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d befor e us fr om w hi ch a j urym i ghtr eas onabl yconcl ude thatthe C l i ni c’ s conductw as the r es ul tof unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on r atherthan har d- nos ed bus i nes s deci s i ons nece s s i t at ed i n s om e i ns t ance s byeconomi c pr es s ur es . N ei thercan w e over l ook- 35 -

the abs ence of evi dence i n thi s r ecor d es t abl i s hi ng the t i m el i nes s of m any plai nti ffs’ cl ai m s. F or these reasons, the d i stri ctcou rt ’s j ud gm ent i s A f f i r m ed.