FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A pr il 22, 200 8 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
A LB ER T H I N D S , P lain tiff - A p p e llan t , v. S P RI NT /UNI T E D M ANAGE M E NT CO M P ANY a n d S P RI NT CO RP OR AT I ON , D e fe n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 07- 3027

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t h e D i st ri ct ofK an sas ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 2 3 6 2 - KHV )
D enni s E . E gan of The Popham L aw Fi r m , P. C . , K ans as C i ty , M i s s our i , for P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t. J os eph H . K ni t t i g ( Paul D . Sey ferth w i th hi m on the br i ef) of Sey ferth K ni t t i g & B lu m e n th a l, L L C , K a n s a s C ity, M is s o u ri , fo r D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lle e s . B efor e M c CO NN E L L , B AL DO CK , and GOR S UC H , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.
S p r i n t/U n i t e d M a n a g e m e n tC o m p a n y a n d S p r i n tC o rp o r a t i o n ( c o l l e c t i v e l y,

“ S p rin t”) d isc h a rg e d A lb e rt H in d s a s p a rt o f a re d u c tio n in fo rc e in w h ich h is- 2 -

ent i r e depa r t m entw as el i m i nat ed. M r . H i nds s ued, al l egi ng t hatSpr i nt di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m on t he bas i s of age and r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m for compl ai ni ng of age di s cr i m i nat i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent for Spr i nt on both count s . B eca us e M r . H i nds does notpr es entevi dence fr om w h ich a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld d isc re d it S p rin t’s a g e -n e u tra l ex p lan a tio n fo r h is d i s c h a r g e o rc o n c l u d e th a ta r e t a l i a t o rymo t i v e s p u rr e d h i s t e r mi n a t i o n , we a ffi r m. I W hi l e thi s cas e ce nt er s on M r . H i nds ’ s di s char ge i n 2004, i n hi s vi ew t hat eventr epr es ent s onl ythe cul m i nat i on of a s er i es of eve nt s s ugges t i ve of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on and unl aw ful r et al i at i on; acc or di ngl y , w e begi n att he begi nni ng of M r. H in d s’s re latio n sh ip w ith S p rin t. A M r . H i nds j oi ned the companyas a s eni ors upervi s orati t s O ver l and Park, K ans as headqua r t er s i n O ct ober1994, w hen he w as 40 y ear s ol d. D ur i ng the 1 9 9 0 s, S p rin t p ro m o ted M r. H in d s a t lea st tw ice , an d h e re c e iv e d g e n e ra lly pos i t i ve per form ance r evi ew s , a patt ern thatcont i nued i nt o the ea r l ypartof the nextdeca de. So, i n O ct ober2001, M r . H i nds acc ept ed a pos i t i on as a pr oj ect
m a n a g e r o n S p ri n t’ s n e w ly-c re a te d W o rk fo rc e M a n a g e m e n t T e a m (“ W F M ” ), a pos i t i on w i th a Spr i ntpaygr ade of 77, and, s ever al m onths l at er , i n M ay2002, Spr i ntpr om ot ed M r . H i nds t o a pr oj ectm anage rpos i t i on w i th a hi gherpaygr adeN ei therpartydes cr i bes t he exa ctfunct i ons and oper at i ons of the Spr i nt 1 cal l cent er s , s o i ti s notcl ear , forexampl e, w hethert he ca l l cent er s had cont act w i th Spr i ntcus t om er s orw hetherotherdepart m ent s w i thi n Spr i ntw er e the “ c u s to m e rs ” s e rv e d b yth e c a ll c e n te rs . See A p lt. A p p . a t 4 8 4 . - 3 - of 78. A s a pr oj ectm anage ri n the W FM gr oup, M r . H i nds bor e r es pons i bi l i tyfor the o perat i on of sev eral S pri nt cal l center s. 1 S om et i m e aft er this l at estprom oti on , t hings beg an to chan ge fo r M r. H i nd s. Te d S mi th , M r . Hi n d s ’ s i mme d i a t e s u p e r v i s o ri n t h e W F M g r o u p , b e c a me conce rned that , w hi l e verycompet entt echni cal l y , M r . H i nds had deve l oped
cert ai n comm uni cat i on pr obl ems i n deal i ng w i th hi s peer s , cus t om er s , and supervi sors . M r. S m i th als o b el i eved M r. H i nd s w as not adapti ng t o the process of negot i at i ng w i th t he ca l l cent er s forw hi ch he w as r es pons i bl e. I n m i d- 2002, M r. S m i th p rovi ded M r. H i nd s w i th a p erform ance e valuat i on t hat r efl ect ed these
conce rns , gi vi ng M r . H i nds the next
- t o- l ow es tper form ance r at i ng i n t en di ffe r ent
ar eas of as s es s m ent . I n r es pons e, M r . H i nds acknow l edged he had
c o m m u n ic a tio n c h a lle n g e s w ith h is p e e rs a n d s u p e rv is o r. A few m onths l at er , D avi d R ober s on, w ho al s o w or ked i n the W FM gr oup, re p lac e d M r. S m ith a s M r. H in d s’s su p e rv iso r. M r. R o b e rso n h a d b e e n h ire d in to the W FM gr oup ati t s i ncept i on as a l evel 78 empl oy ee, a l evel above M r . H i nds
a tth e t i me , b u ta l e v e l b e l o w h i s o wn p r i o rj o b e l s e wh e r e i n S p r i n t . Att h e t i me h e re p lace d M r. S m ith , M r. R o b erso n w as 4 2 y ea rs old , co m p are d to M r. H ind s’s- 4 -

48, though he had w or ked forSpr i nta y earl ongerthan M r . H i nds . Shor t l yaft er h is p ro m o tio n w ith in W F M , M r. R o b e rso n a n d K ry sta l B a rr, th e d ire c to r w ith resp o n sibil ityfo r W F M , b eg an rec eivin g co m p lai n ts from sev era l of M r. H ind s’s peer s and cl i ent s thathe di d notl i s t en t o them or a cce ptthei ri nputand fe edbac k, and thathe s entcr i t i ci s m s di r ect l yt o s eni orl evel m anage m entw i thoutfi r s ttry i ng to w o rk w ith h is p e e rs a n d fo llo w S p ri n t’ s c h a in o f a u th o ri ty. Jim C u rr a n , a S pri nt vi ce presi den tt o w ho m M r. H i nd s w ou l d d i rect l ybri ng l ow -l evel pr ob l em s, told M s. B arr to m ak e su re M r. H ind s sh are d h is i d ea s an d crit ici sm w ith h is pe ers fir s t a n d w o rk e d th ro u g h is s u e s w ith th e m c o n s tru c tiv e ly as a te a m w h e n p o s s ib le . A l though M s . B arrcomm uni cat ed thi s t o M r . H i nds , appar ent l yhe di d not compl y , expl ai ni ng thathe s i m pl yhad a di ffe r ent“managementpar adi gm ” than hi s s upervi s or s and that , as l ong as he metobj ect i ve goal s , how w el l he gotal ong w i th peer s , m anage m ent , and cl i ent s s houl d notm at t er . A pl t . A pp. at158, 214;
s ee D . C t. O rd e r 1 2 /1 2 /0 6 a t 8 . B I n M ay2003, M r . H i nds w r ot e an e - m ai l t o R i ch J oy ce i n hum an r es our ces compl ai ni ng aboutM r . R ober s on’ s appoi nt m entt o the W FM s upervi s or ypos i t i on, and not i ng thathe had mor e W FM exper i ence t han M r . R ober s on, as w el l as an advanc ed bus i nes s degr ee. I n J une 2003, M r . H i nds fol l ow ed up bym eet i ngT h e o v era ll rati n g sy stem co n sist ed o f th e fo ll o w ing : M (m o st effec ti v e); 2 H (h ig h ly effe c tiv e ); V (v e ry e ffe c tiv e ); L (l e s s e ffe c tiv e ); a n d N (n o t yet ra te d ). - 5 - p e rso n a llyw ith M r. Jo y c e a n d a sk in g M r. Jo y c e , am o n g o th e r th in g s, “ c o u ld th is h a v e b e e n a g e d is c ri m in a tio n ? ” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 3 6 . T he nextday , M r . H i nds s entan e- m ai l t o Spr i nt ’ s C E O , G aryFor s ee, compl ai ni ng aboutSpr i nti nt ernal pol i t i cs , the new per form ance eval uat i on r at i ng sy ste m , an d th e c o m p a n y ’s m a n a g e m e n t p h ilo so p h yin g e n e ra l. H e re fe rre d to h is
a g e i n th e fo l l o wi n g c o n t e x t : “ I a m s i g n i fi c a n t l yo l d e rth a n ma n yo f [ my m anage r s ] , have mor e bus i nes s exper i ence and more educa t i on. I r efus e t o al i gn w i th a bus i nes s deci s i on thatI know i s w r ong, bas ed on myexper i ence and know l edge. ” A pl t . A pp. at173. M r . H i nds l at ert es t i fi ed athi s depos i t i on t hat the p urpose o f t his m essage w as notto c o m p lain o f a g e d isc rim in a tio n b u t to
m ak e M r. F o rsee aw are o f “ the c h all en g es th at [h e] h ad an d that o thers w ere havi ng w i th [as pect s of the company ’ s then new l yi ns t i tut ed per form ance eval uat i on r at i ng] s y s t em. ” A pl t . A pp. at133- 34. A s par tof the new r at i ng sy ste m , em p lo y e e s w e re a ss ig n e d a n o v e ra ll ratin g in a d d iti o n to ra tin g s in part i cular cat ego ri es, as had previ ou sl y been the case. M anyem ploy ees, 2 i ncl udi ng M r . H i nds , appar ent l yw er e notpl eas ed w i th the new per form ance e v a l u a t i o n s y s t e m.- 6 -

I n Sept ember2003, M r . R ober s on pr epar ed a s chedul ed per form ance eval uat i on forM r . H i nds i n w hi ch he r at ed M r . H i nds bel ow aver age i n s ever al cat ego ri es and a ssi gn ed h i m an o veral l rat i ng of “less effecti ve, ” t he low est p o s s ib le ra tin g . M r. R o b e rs o n d e s c ri b e d M r. H in d s a s “ h ig h m a in te n a n c e ,”
r equi r i ng cons i der abl e hi gh- l evel m anage m entand human r es our ces t i m e and att ent i on on i s s ues M r . H i nds w as expec t ed t o handl e w i th hi s cal l cent er s and p e e rs w ith o u t s u c h a s s is ta n c e . A p lt. A p p . a t 3 2 8 . C T ow ar d t he end of

2003, Spr i ntunderw enta company - w i de r eor gani zat i on i n w hi ch s om e empl oy ees i n W FM fac ed di s char ge as partof a r educt i on i n for ce (“R IF ”). A t th e sa m e ti m e, S p ri n t created a n ew g rou p d ed icated to lon g -t erm s tr at egi c pl anni ng and for eca s t i ng cal l ed the C al l C ent erT ool s and Technol ogy E vol ut i on ( “C C T T E ”) gr oup. M ar i an Fi el ds w as t he C C T T E m anage rand J oe M o d ica w as th e d ir ec tor resp o n sible fo r th e g rou p . M s. B arr rec o m m en d ed M r. H in d s to M r. M o d ica b e c a u se sh e b e liev e d a stra teg ic p lan n in g p o sitio n w o u ld
su it h is te c h n ica l stre n g th s a n d p lay aw a yf ro m h is p e rc e iv e d in terp e rso n a l sk ill
w eakne s s es . M r . H i nds acc ept ed the pos i t i on i n C C T T E , a paygr ade 77 pos i t i on, one paygr ade be l ow hi s pr i orW FM pos t . Fourotherempl oy ees al s o j oi ned C C T T E , a ll a t p a yg ra d e 7 7 ; th re e w e re o ld e r a n d o n e y o u n g e r t h a n M r. H in d s .- 7 -

A ro u n d th is s a m e tim e in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , M r. H in d s s e n t an o th e r e -m a il t o M r. Jo y c e in h u m a n re latio n s. T h is tim e , M r. H in d s a ss e rte d th a t h is c o m p lain ts aboutSpr i ntm anage m ent , i ncl udi ng t he pr om ot i on of M r . R ober s on, had “put th e m in th e p o sitio n to h a v e re talia to ryin c lin a tio n s.” A p lt. A p p . at 6 4 3 . H e sa id h e sa w “a clea r pa th o f re tal iat o ryac ti o n ” b yS m ith , R o b erso n , C u rran , an d B arr d u e to th e “ n e g a tiv e fe e d b a c k ” h e h a d p ro v id e d o n th e irp e rfo rm a n c e e v a lu a tio n s . Id
. M r. H in d s a lleg e s h e a lso se n t a P o w e rP o in t p re se n tatio n to se v e ra l o f h is
m a n a g e rs a n d h u m a n re so u rc e s re p re se n tativ e s. T h e p re se n tatio n g e n e ra lly compl ai ned aboutthe company ’ s new per form ance eval uat i on r at i ng s y s t em, but
o n e o f th e t e n s l i d e s d i d s t a t e th a tM r . Hi n d s b e l i e v e d M r . Ro b e r s o n g a v e h i m a l ow r at i ng “i n r et al i at i on fort aki ng i s s ues t o H R and upperm anage m entoras an actof di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. at35 9. T he sl i de w ent on t o st at e t hat M r. H i nd s al so bel i eved he w as “dow ngr aded a band l evel and moved outof W FM vs . bei ng pr om ot ed t o the W FM s eni orm anage rpos i t i on [as ] an ac tof r et al i at i on. ” Id
. In January20 04 , M r. H i nd s agai n e-m ai l ed M r. Joy ce i n h um an rel at i on s, thi s t i m e w i th a copyt o M r . For s ee a nd J ames K i s s i nger , the hea d of hum an relati o n s fo r th e e n ti re c o m p an y . In th is e-m ail , M r. H ind s co m p lai n ed ab o u t M r. R ober s on’ s per form ance r evi ew deemi ng hi m “hi gh m ai nt enanc e” forcons um i ng hi gh- l evel m anage m entand human r es our ces t i m e. I n r es pons e, M r . K i s s i nger w rote M r. Jo y ce to sa yh e re m em b ere d “f req u en t esca lat ed e-m ail s fro m [M r.- 8 -

H i nds ] overthe y ear s – s om e l egi t , s om e not– i n al m os teveryr ol e he ha s hel d. ” A pl t . A pp. at640. H e w enton t o s ay , “I w oul d gues s thatgoi ng t o H R i s notthe i s s ue i n thi s cas e – buts ki ppi ng m ul t i pl e l evel s i n the cha i n of comm and i s not uncomm on forhi m – and notnece s s ar i l yappr opr i at e. ” Id. In a fo llo w -u p e -m a il t o M r . J oy ce, M r . K i s s i ngerr el ay ed a s i m i l arexper i ence w i th anotherempl oy ee w ho had es cal at i on pr obl ems, w as puton w arni ng, and w as ul t i m at el yfi r ed.

D I n M ay2004, Spr i ntundert ook anotherr eor gani zat i on and R I F. T hi s t i m e, the C C T T E group w as el i m i nated. In conn ect i on w i th the R IF, vari ou s m anag ers , i ncludi ng M r. M od i ca, held a full -daym eet i ng t o d et erm i ne, am on g o ther things,
w hetheral t ernat i ve empl oym entoppor tuni t i es w i thi n Spr i ntexi s t ed forthe C C T T E empl oy ees . I n thi s vei n, M r . H i nds w as cons i der ed foran open pos i t i on i n a n o th e rg r o u p , b u tth e j o b was u l t i ma t e l yg i v e n t o a d i ffe r e n tCCTTE empl oy ee, M ark Sm i th. M r . Sm i th had 30 y ear s of expe r i ence w i th Spr i ntand
w as 5 4 y ea rs old ; atthe tim e, M r. H ind s w as 4 9 an d h ad ap p rox im ately1 0 y ea rs w i th the company . I n addi t i on t o M r . Sm i th, tw o ot herC C T T E empl oy ees and the C C T T E m anage r , M s . Fi el ds , s ecur ed otheropen pos i t i ons w i thi n Spr i nt ; al l thr ee wer e a l s o o l d e rt h a n M r . Hi n d s . Ul t i ma t e l y , o n l yM r . Hi n d s a n d a n o th e rCCTTE
e m p lo y e e , th e y o u n g e s t m e m b e r o f th a t g ro u p , w e re d is c h a rg e d .- 9 -

A f ter th e m e e tin g , sp re a d sh e e ts w e re p re p a re d id e n tify in g th e e m p lo y e e s in th e v a ri o u s g ro u p s , in c lu d in g C C T T E , im p a c te d b yth e re o rg a n iz a tio n a n d R IF . U ncont es t ed t es t i m onys ugges t s thatthes e s pr eads heet s w er e compl et ed t o al l ow S p r i n t ’ s h u m a n r e s o u r c e s d e p a r t m e n tt o r e v i e w , a f t e rth e fa c t , th e p o t e n t i a l l yi m pact ed ca ndi dat es and che ck forany“pot ent i al pr obl ems” w i th the dec i s i ons that w ere m ad e in th e m ee ti n g . A p le. S u p p . A p p . at 83 . A ffec ted e m p loy ee s w ere di vi ded i nt o di ffe r ents pr eads heet s bas ed on thei ri ndi vi dual s ki l l s s et s ; M r . H i nds
w as l i s t ed i n the “i nfr as tructur e s uppor t ” s pr eads heet . T hi s s pr eads heetpr ovi ded per form ance r at i ng hi s t or i es , y ear s i n s ervi ce, and managereval uat i ons foreac h l i s t ed empl oy ee. I tal s o i ncl uded ce r t ai n “hi dden” da t a ce l l s thatcont ai ned
v ariou s p erso n al i n fo rm ati o n su ch as th e e m p loy ee ’s ag e, ethn ici ty , m il it ary s t atus , and di s abi l i ty , i f any ; t hes e dat a ce l l s w er e pas s w or d pr ot ect ed, and the i nform at i on i n them appar ent l yw as notavai l abl e t o deci s i onm aker s atthe t i m e of M r . Hi n d s ’ s d i s c h a r g e , th o u g h t h e s e c u r i tyo f th i s i n fo r ma t i o n i s o p e n t o s o me q u e s tio n . See inf

ra n o te 1 0 . E I n February2005, M r . H i nds fi l ed a di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai ntagai ns tSpr i nt
w i th the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on. A ft err ece i vi ng not i ce of h is rig h t to su e f

ro m th e C o m m iss io n , M r. H in d s filed th is la w su it ag a in st S p rin t, al l egi ng thatthe companyvi ol at ed the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ctB e c a u se M r. H in d s filed h is a d m in istra tiv e c laim w ith in 3 0 0 d a y s o f h is 3 ter m in a tio n , h is c laim s in th is s u it are n o t ti m e -b a rre d , as S p rin t ar g u e s, a n d th is c a s e is p ro p e rl yb e fo re u s . See 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 3 (d )(2 ); Mont es v. Vai lC l i ni c, Inc. , 4 9 7 F .3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n t he pr etr i al or der , M r . H i nds ’ s cl ai m w as t hatSpr i ntt r eat ed “y ounger 4 e m p lo y e e s in [ h is] d e p a rtm e n t” m o re fa v o ra b lyin th e R IF b ya llo w in g th e m to r e t a i n th e i rp o s i t i o n s . Ap l t . Ap p . a t2 9 . Th e o r d e rd i d n o tme n t i o n a n yc l a i ms re g a rd in g y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e s o u ts id e M r. H in d s ’s d e p a rt m e n t. - 10 - ( “A D E A ”) , 29 U . S. C . § 621 ets eq ., in tw o w a y s: (1 ) d isc rim in a tin g a g a in st h im beca us e of hi s age; and ( 2) r et al i at i ng agai ns thi m forhi s compl ai nt s of age di s cr i m i nat i on. 3 B efor e the di s tr i ctcourt , M r . H i nds i ni t i al l ypr ocee ded w i th hi s age dis cri m i nati on cl ai m on the theoryt hat Spri nt treat ed y ou ng er em ploy ees w ith in CCT TE mo r e fa v o r a b l yth a n h i m d u r i n g t h e M a y2 0 0 4 RI F . I ts o o n b e c a me appar enti n t he di s coverypr oces s , how ever , t hatSpr i ntactual l yr et ai ned the ol des tm ember s of the C C T T E gr oup and di s char ged onl yt he tw o y ounges t , and Spr i ntm oved fors um m aryj udgm enton thi s bas i s . M r . H i nds r es ponded by
s eeki ng t o r evi s e hi s di s cr i m i nat i on theory , now s ugges t i ng thatage d isc rim in a tio n w a s a p p a re n t f ro m S p rin t’s d e c isio n d u rin g th e R IF to re tain
c e rta in y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re a lso listed in th e “ in f ra stru c tu re su p p o rt”
s pr eads heetand s har ed hi s paygr ade a tt he t i m e ( 77) butw or ked i n pos i t i ons outs i de the C C T T E gr oup. A l though thi s new t heoryar guabl yw entbey ond the
s cope of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s pr etr i al or der , Spr i ntdi d notobj ectt o i tand, i n an 4M r . H i nds ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d nothave c ons i der ed 5 Spr i nt ’ s s uppl ement al s um m aryj udgm entbr i ef a nd the s uppor t i ng aff i davi t s fr om M r . W amsherand M r . Q ui r k, ors houl d have r eopene d di s covery . T he di s tr i ct court , how ever , di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the s uppl ement al br i ef and evi dence and dec l i ni ng t o r eopen di s coverybeca us e ( 1) M r . H i nds i ntr oduced hi s new di s cr i m i nat i on theorycompar i ng hi m s el f t o empl oy ees out s i de the C C T T E g rou p o n lyaf ter th e c lose o f d isco v ery ; ( 2 ) th e d istri ct co u rtall o w ed M r. H in d s to su b m it a s u rre p lyb rie f a n d a d d iti o n a l su p p o rtin g e v id e n c e re sp o n d in g to Spr i nt ’ s s uppl ement al br i ef; and ( 3) M r . H i nds had al r eadydepos ed M r . W amsher and M r . Q ui r k, and thus w as notcompl et el yw i thoutan opportuni tyt o ques t i on th e m a b o u t h is e x p a n d e d th e o ry. See Beai r d v. Seagat e Tech. , Inc. , 145 F. 3d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). - 11 - att empt t o gi ve M r . H i nds everybenef i tof the doubt , the di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed h is ne w theo ry . B ec au se S p ri n t had n o t bee n g iven an o p p o rtu n ityto ad d ress M r. H ind s’s n ew theo ryin it s o p en ing b ri ef at su m m aryjud g m en t, h o w ev er, th e c o u rt ordered supp l em ental bri efi ng and recei ved add i t i on al evidence from bo th p art i es. S pri nt s up po rt ed it s supplem ental bri ef w i th affi dav i t s fr om tw o w i tnesses, D avi d W amsherand K evi n Q ui r k. T he affi davi t s di s cus s ed the var i ous nonC C T T E empl oy ees i n M r . H i nds ’ s s ame paygr ade w ho w er e r et ai ned bythe company . M r . H i nds fi l ed a r es pons e br i ef a nd a mot i on t o s tr i ke the affi davi t s or r eopen di s covery . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on and cons i der ed the affid av it s in it s su m m aryjud g m en t dec isi o n , u lt im atelyg ran ti n g su m m ary j ud gm ent for S pri nt on M r. H i nd s’ s age dis cri m i nati on and ret al i at i on cl ai m s. 5- 12 - II M r. H i nd s now seeks r eversal of the dis tri ctcou rt ’s j ud gm ent. A s al w ay s, w e a ss e ss th is s u m m a ryju d g m e n t ap p e a l de novo , v iew in g th e fa c ts, a n d a ll
r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thos e fa ct s s uppor t , i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M r . H i nds
a s th e n o n -m o v a n t. Young v. D i l l on C os . , Inc. , 4 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 9 (10 th C ir . 2006) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s of cour s e appr opr i at e i f, butonl yi f, the evi dence
r evea l s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m a tte r o f

la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). A T u rn in g first to M r. H in d s’s a g e d isc rim in a tio n c laim , w e b e g in w ith C o n g re ss ’s c h a rg e to u s. C o n g re ss h a s in d ica ted th a t an A D E A c laim p u rsu a b le in fe d e ra l c o u rt a ri s e s w h e n c e rt a in e m p lo y e rs “ d is c h a rg e a n yin d iv id u a l . . . b e c a u se o f

su c h in d iv id u a l’s a g e .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 3 (a )(1 ); id
. § 6 26 (c) (1) . T hu s, pert i nentforourcurr entpurpos e, a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thathi s orherdi s char ge w a s m o tiv a te d , a t le a s t in p a rt , b ya g e . S e e R e e v e s v . Sa n d e rs o n P lu m b in gP r o ds ., Inc. , 5 3 0 U .S . 1 3 3 , 1 4 1 (2 0 0 0 ). T ho ug h M r. H i nd s conce des he lacks di r ectev iden ce o f d iscri m inato ry i nt ent , he s t i l l m aycarr yhi s s t atut or ybur den bypr es ent i ng ci r cum s tant i al
ev iden ce in ac co rd w ith the fam il iar McD on nellD ou glas bur den- s hi ft i ng f ra m e w o rk . See McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802- 04- 13 -

(19 7 3 ). U n d er McD onnel lD ouglas , the pl ai nt i ff f i r s tbear s the bur den of
e sta b lish in g a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f a g e d isc rim in a tio n . If th e p lain tiff

c a rrie s th is bur den, the empl oy erm us tthen come forw ar d w i th s om e l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on. I f the empl oy er s ucce eds i n thi s s how i ng, the bur den s hi ft s back t o the pl ai nt i ff t o s how thatthe
e m p lo y e r’ s p ro ffe re d ju s tific a tio n is p re te x tu a l. See Young , 468 F. 3d at1249. 1 T o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on, ourcas e l aw r equi r es a pl ai nt i ff a ffe ct ed bya R I F t o s how thathe ors he ( i ) w as w i thi n a pr ot ect ed age gr oup, ( i i ) w as doi ng s at i s fac t oryw or k, ( i i i ) w as di s char ged des pi t e the ade quacy of h i s or herw ork, and (i v) has s o me e v id e n c e th e e m p lo y e r in ten d e d to d is c ri m in a te a g a in s t h im o r h e r i n re a c h in g its R IF d e c is io n . B e a irdv . Se a g a te Tech. , Inc. , 145 F. 3d 1159, 1165 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . T he part i es befor e us pr ocee d on the bas i s t hatt he fourth el ementm aybe s at i s fi ed bya s how i ng that , dur i ng t he R I F, the empl oy erdi s char ged the pl ai nt i ff butr et ai ned a y oungerempl oy ee w ho hel d a “s i m i l arpos i t i on. ” Id. a t 1 1 6 7 . Spr i ntconce des thatM r . H i nds has es t abl i s hed the fi r s tthr ee e l ement s of a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, butcont es t s t he fourth bypoi nt i ng t o the fa ctthatthe company di d notr et ai n anyempl oy ees i n the C C T T E gr oup y oungerthan M r . H i nds . O nce these facts becam e app arentt o M r. H i nd s duri ng the d i stri ctcou rtproceed i ng s,- 14 -

a n d w ith o u t an yo bjec tio n b yS p rin t, M r. H in d s c h a n g e d tac k a n d a m e n d e d h is di s cr i m i nat i on theorybys eeki ng t o compar e hi m s el f notonl yt o empl oy ees i ns i de th e C C T T E g ro u p , b u t to e m p lo y e e s o u tsid e th e C C T T E g ro u p w h o sh a re d h is l evel 77 paygr ade a nd w hos e gr oups w er e al s o as s es s ed dur i ng the R I F. U s i ng thi s m eas ur e, M r . H i nds poi nt s t o the fa ctthatSpr i ntr et ai ned s even pa ygr ade 77
e m p lo y e e s y o u n g e r t h a n h im . T w o as pect s of M r . H i nds ’ s amended di s cr i m i nat i on theorys eem t o us si gn i fi cant. F i rs t , i ti s i m po rt ant that, as here, the em ploy er’ s R IF process affect ed notj us tt he pl ai nt i ff’ s gr oup butal s o the bus i nes s uni t s cont ai ni ng the y oungerempl oy ees w ho the pl ai nt i ff a l l eges occupypos i t i ons s i m i l art o hi s or her s . I ti s the fa ctthatthe empl oy ers crut i ni zed b o th d ep artm en ts du ri n g the R IF and dec i ded t o r et ai n s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed y oungerempl oy ees w hi l e di s char gi ng an o ld e r e m p lo y e e th a t g iv e s ri s e to a n in fe re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . See i d. ( “[T] he
e m p lo y e r c o u ld h a v e re tain e d [ th e o ld e r e m p lo y e e ] b u t chos e i ns t eadt o r et ai n a y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )). S u c h a n in fe re n c e d o e s n o t ar ise sim p ly be c a us e a n e mpl oy e re l i mi na t e s a n e nt i r e un de rpe r fo r mi ng bu s i ne s s un i ti n a RI F, fi r i ng, s ay , acc ount ant s al ong w i th al l other s i n thatuni t , butdoes notundert ake a R IF process w i th respectt o o ther busi ness unit s, thu s r et ai ning otherw i se s i m i l ar l yqual i fi ed ac count ant s i n thos e bus i nes s uni t s w hos e pos i t i ons w er e not
u p fo r c o n s id e ra tio n in th e R IF . See, e. g. , P i ppi n v. B ur l i ngt on R es . O i l& G as- 15 -

C o. , 440 F. 3d 1186, 1193 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( four th el ementm aybe es t abl i s hed thr ough “evi dence t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as tr eat ed l es s favor abl ythan y ounger em ploy ees d u ringthe R IF” ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng B eaird , 1 4 5 F . 3 d at 11 6 5 )); St one v. A ut ol i v ASP , Inc. , 210 F. 3d 1132, 1138 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( evi dence that empl oy erfi l l ed s i m i l arpos i t i ons w i th y oungerempl oy ees “dur i ng t he
re o rg a n iza tio n ” sa tisfies fo u rth e lem e n t); Kr aus e v. D r es s erIndus
. , Inc. , 910 F. 2d 674, 677 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( four th el ements at i s fi ed w hen R I F l eave s onl yone acc ount i ng pos i t i on i n depart m entw i th tw o acc ount ant s and empl oy err et ai ns t he y o u n g er a cc o u n tant). S e c o n d , the fa c t th a t em p lo y e e s in b u sin e ss u n its a ffe c ted b ya R IF sim p ly
s har e the s ame paygr ade doe s notes t abl i s h, s t andi ng al one, thatthe empl oy ees occupy“s i m i l arpos i t i ons . ” A ft eral l , a s ecur i tyguar d and a s ecr et ary , a doct or and a l aw y er , m ayw el l s har e paygr ades i n a l ar ge corpor at i on butcannot rea so n ab lyb e sa id to h o ld “s im il ar p o sit ion s. ” A n d M r. W am sh er a n d M r. Q u irk t es t i fi ed i n thei raff

i davi t s t hatt hi s i s exac t l ythe ca s e atSpr i nt : empl oy ees i n t he
sa m e p a yg ra d e a t th e c o m p a n yd o n o t n e c e ss a rilyp e rfo rm su b sta n tiv e ly
com parabl e j ob s. A ccordi ng l y , w e ho l d that , ata m i nim um , a plai nti ff m ust es t abl i s h thata purpor t edl y“s i m i l arpos i t i on” i s one thathe ors he w as qual i fi ed t o as s um e. T he purpos e of the A D E A i s t o addr es s i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on betw een l i ke per s ons on t he bas i s of i nvi di ous cr i t er i a; the fa ctthata company- 16 -

di s char ges s ecur i tyguar ds butnots ecr et ar i es i n the s ame paygr ade doe s nothi ng t o t el l us w hetherdi s cr i m i nat i on, as oppos ed t o l egi t i m at e bus i nes s conce rns , w as atplay . T o g i ve ri se t o an i nference o f un l aw ful di scr i m i nati on , the p l ai nti ff m ust come for w ar d w i th evi dence s ugges t i ng thatthe non- di s char ged empl oy ee occupi ed a pos i t i on the pl ai nt i ff w as qual i fi ed t o as s um e. In this case, M r. H i nd s has com e forw ard w i th ev i den ce t hat the b usi ness uni t s empl oy i ng the s even y oungerempl oy ees he has i dent i fi ed w ere affect ed by th e RI F . Gi v i n g h i m th e b e n e fi to f th e d o u b t , a n d fo rp u rp o s e s o f th i s a p p e a l , we a lso p ro c e e d o n th e a ss u m p tio n th a t M r. H in d s w a s q u a lifie d to a ss u m e th e sp o ts held bythe indi vidual s outs i de the C C T T E group he h as i den t i fi ed. U nd er these condi t i ons , al l fourof B eaird ’s e lem e n ts a re sa tisfied , an d th e b u rd e n sh if ts to S p ri n t t o co m e fo rw ard w ith ev iden ce su g g esti n g a leg it im ate n o n -discrim inato ry reas on for i t s deci si on t o d i scharge M r. H i nd s. 2 M r . H i nds s i m pl i fi es t hi s por t i on of ouranal y s i s byconce di ng t hatSpr i nt has carr i ed i t s bur den. Speci fi cal l y , M r . H i nds acknow l edges Spr i nt ’ s evi dence that h is po sit ion w as e li m inated o n lyas p art of a larg er, no n -discrim inato ry bus i nes s deci s i on t o di s cont i nue the ent i r e C C T T E gr oup. A nd he does not c o n tes t S p rin t’s e v id e n c e , fr o m M r. M o d ica , M r. W a m sh e r, an d M r. Q u irk , tha t,
w hi l e M r . H i nds ’ s ent i r e gr oup w as el i m i nat ed, the pos i t i ons of the s even y ounger- 17 -

non- C C T T E empl oy ees w er e notel i m i nat ed as partof the R I F. T hati s , al though theirgroup s w ere s ubj ect ed to r eview as partof the R IF process, theirgroup s, un l i ke the C C T T E group , w ere nott otal l yel i m i nated and , i nd eed, theirpo si t i on s, a lo n g w ith o th e rs in th e irg ro u p s , w e re re ta in e d in ta c t. T hi s , t hen, i s nota ca s e w her e the pl ai nt i ff a nd y oungerempl oy ees al l had thei rpos i t i ons el i m i nat ed and the companyfound al t ernat i ve empl oym entopt i ons o n ly fo r yo u n g e r e m p lo y e e s . C f
. St one , 21 0 F . 3d at11 35 -36. N ei ther i s i ta case w h ere the c o m p an ych o se to eli m inate o n lyp lai n ti ff ’s po sit ion , b u t r etaine d o ther, y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e s in h is o r h e r b u s in e s s u n it. C f
. B eaird , 1 4 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 8 . Q u ite u n lik e th e se sc e n a rio s, th e o n e n o w b e fo re u s a p p e a rs fa r m o re o b v io u sly
cons onantw i th l egi t i m at e bus i nes s pr act i ces and conc erns – viz. , a company d isc o n tin u in g a b u sin e ss u n it i t h a s d e ter m in e d to b e u n p ro d u c tiv e , w h ile
r et ai ni ng ot herempl oy ees i n ot herpr oduct i ve bus i nes s uni t s i n thei rpr eexi s t i ng job s. Ind ee d , S p ri n t em p loy ee s testi fied u n ifo rm lythat itis th eir co m p an y ’s pol i cyt o keep i n thei rcurr entpos i t i ons thos e empl oy ees w hos e pos i t i ons ar e not eli m inated in a R IF an d to term inate o n lytho se e m p loy ee s w h o se p o sit ion s are e lim in a te d if

th e yc a n n o t b e p la c e d in o p e n p o s itio n s e ls e w h e re in th e c o m p a n y . See A pl t . A pp . a t 3 4 3 , 7 1 3 , a n d 7 2 1 .- 18 - 3 T o r eac h tr i al , i tr emai ns forM r . H i nds t o demonstr at e thata genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac texi s t s on t he ques t i on w hetherSpr i nt ’ s purpor t ed j us t i fi cat i on for hi s t erm i nat i on w as pr et extual . T o acc om pl i s h thi s t as k, M r . H i nds m us tpr es ent fact s suggest i ng t hat Spri nt’ s proffered age-neu tral reas on for hi s di sm i ssal i s “so 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 on[] [i s ] unw or thyof bel i ef. ” Young , 468 F. 3d at1250. I n the typ ica l R IF c a se , a p lain tiff d e m o n stra tes p re tex t b yp re se n tin g e v id e n c e th a t h is
o r he r t erm ination d id n o t acc o rd w ith the c o m p an y ’s R IF crit eria, that the R IF crit eria w ere d eli b era tel yfa lsi fied o r m an ipu lat ed to se cu re the p lai n ti ff ’s d is m is s a l, o r t h a t th e R IF g e n e ra lly w a s p re te x tu a l. P ip p in , 4 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 3 . B e fo re u s, M r. H in d s d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t S p rin t elim in a ted h is p o sitio n in the C C T T E gr oup – i ndeed e l i m i nat ed the ent i r e C C T T E gr oup – as partof the R I F; thatt he R I F di d notel i m i nat e the pos i t i ons of the s even y oungernonC C T T E e m p lo y e e s h e h a s id e n tifie d ; o r th a t S p rin t’s p o licyw a s to re tain in th e ir p re e x is tin g jo b s e m p lo y e e s w h o s e p o s itio n s w e re n o t a ffe c te d b yth e R IF . In ste a d , M r. H in d s c laim s th a t p re tex t ca n b e d isc e rn e d f ro m a sin g le d o cu m en t – the sp rea d sh ee t created af ter th e m ee ti n g o f S p ri n t m an ag ers re g a rd in g th e R IF . See supra Par tI . D . Speci fi cal l y , M r . H i nds i dent i fi es thr ee fea tur es as s oci at ed w i th the s pr eads heetthathe bel i eves t o be “ke yevi dence ” ofM r . H i nds al s o l i s t s addi t i onal “unans w er ed ques t i ons ” r el at ed t o the 6 s pr eads heetthathe as s ert s contr i but e t o r ai s i ng a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas to S p rin t’s tru e m o tiv a tio n fo r firin g h im . S o m e o f th e se e c h o iss u e s ra ise d in h is “k eyev iden ce ” a rgu m en ts. T h e o thers, ho w ev er, are b u t qu esti o n s, an d M r. H i nds does not , as he must , pr es entevi dence of pot ent i al ans w er s s ugges t i ng p re tex t. “T o a v o id su m m a ryju d g m e n t, a p a rtym u st p ro d u c e sp e c ific fa c ts sh o w in g th a t th e re re m a in s a g e n u in e iss u e fo r tria l an d e v id e n c e sig n ifica n tly p rob ati v e a s to a n ym aterial fa ct claim ed to b e d ispu ted. T h u s, p lai n ti ffs’ m ere conj ectur e thatthei rempl oy er ’ s expl anat i on i s a pr et extfori nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on i s [] i ns uffi ci ent . ” B r ans on v. P r i ce Ri verC oalC o. , 853 F. 2d 768, 7 7 1 -72 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). - 19 - p r e t e x t : ( i ) w h i l e S p r i n tc l a i m s th a ti tu s e d th e s p r e a d s h e e to n l y af t ert erm i nat i on deci s i ons , i ns truct i ons acc om pany i ng t he documents ugges ti tw as t o be us ed dur i ngth e d e c isio n m a k in g p ro c e ss ; (ii) the sp re a d sh e e t co n tain s c e rta in “s ubj ect i ve” e val uat i ons bym anage r s and age dat a aboutthe empl oy ees ; and ( i i i ) the s pr eads heetdoes noti ncl ude s om e mem ber s of the C C T T E gr oup Spr i nt ret ai ned i n o ther posi t i on s, even tho ug h thei r or i ginal po si t i on s w ere al so el i m i nat ed i n the R I F. W e addr es s eac h of thes e poi nt s i n tur n. 6 (i) R egar di ng the fi r s t , M r . H i nds cal l s ouratt ent i on t o gener i c i ns truct i ons acc om pany i ng Spr i nt ’ s “Sel ect i on W or ks heetJ ob A i d forM anage r s ” thatdes cr i be the s pr eads heetas a “t ool ” form anage r s t o us e i n i dent i fy i ng “pot ent i al
c a n d id a te s fo r d is p la c e m e n t/s e le c tio n fo r j o b o p p o rt u n itie s .” A p lt. A p p . a t 6 3 6 . In th is p a rticu lar c a se , o f c o u rse , S p rin t m a n a g e rs u n ifo rm lytes tifie d th a t th e yd id notactual l yus e the s pr eads heeti n m aki ng thei rt erm i nat i on deci s i ons , and thatForexampl e, M r . W amsher , a Spr i nthum an r es our ces m anage r , expl ai ned 7 thathum an r es our ces as ked the manager s t o fi l l outt he eva l uat i on s ect i on of the spreadsheetaft er the sel ect i on m eet i ng “t o d et erm i ne if there [w ere] anyi ssues, pot ent i al pr obl ems, w i th r egar ds t o the dat a and thos e thatw er e s el ect ed ornot s el ect ed. I tgave us as an H R funct i on an oppor tuni tyt o do a once
- overt o m ake s u re w e w e re c o m fo rt a b le w ith th e d e c is io n s th a t w e re m a d e .” A p lt. A p p . a t 5 8 2 . M r . Q ui r k, a Spr i ntm anage rt as ked w i th gather i ng eval uat i ons aboutempl oy ees fr om m anage r s forthe s pr eads heet , t es t i fi ed thathe di d notr ead the i ns truct i ons t o the s pr eads heetbuts i m pl yfi l l ed i n the empl oy ee e val uat i on cel l s r eques t ed by h u m a n re s o u rc e s . - 20 - the documentw as i ns t ead c om pl et ed af t erthe fa ctbythe human r es our ces dep artm ent as partof a p rocess t o see i f t here w ere any“po t enti al problem s” ( i ncl udi ng, i ts eems, ques t i ons of di s cr i m i nat i on) as s oci at ed w i th deci s i ons the
re le v a n t m a n a g e rs h a d a lr e a d ym a d e . See sup ra Par t I . D . M r . H i nds ar gues t hat 7 this “co n tr ad ict ion ” b etw ee n the in stru cti o n s in the sp rea d sh ee t t o o l and S p ri n t’ s al l eged us e of the s pr eads heeti n thi s cas e i s enough t o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of
m a te ri a l fa c t o n th e is s u e o f p re te x t fo r t w o re a s o n s . Fi r s t , M r . H i nds can be under s t ood t o s ugges tt hati f, as t he Spr i nt
m anage r s t es t i fi ed, theydi d compl et e the s pr eads heetonl yaft ert he fi r i ng deci s i ons , theydi d s o i n contr avent i on of the s pr eads heeti ns truct i ons and w e may in fe r p re tex t f

ro m th is “ c o n tra d ictio n ” a lo n e . In re sp o n se , S p rin t d o e s n o t d isp u te the exi s t ence of i t s gener i c i ns truct i ons acc om pany i ng the s pr eads heet , butar gues o n lyth a t th e yw e re n o t fo llo w e d in th is p a rticu lar c a se . A n d , sta n d in g a lo n e , itis har dl ys ugges t i ve of di s cr i m i nat or yani m us ( and thus capa bl e of s at i s fy i ng the- 21 -

pr et extr equi r ement ) t hat , i n a part i cul arcas e, a companyus ed a human r es our ces “t ool ” t o eval uat e empl oy ees ata t i m e, ori n a manner , otherthan thatdi r ect ed by i t s gener i c i ns truct i ons . A s w e have r epea t edl yexpl ai ned, w e s i m pl ydo nots i tas a “s uperper s onnel depart m ent ” t o enfor ce a n empl oy er ’ s pol i ci es aboutthe
m a n n e r i n w h ic h its in te rn a l h u m a n re s o u rc e s to o ls a re d e p lo y e d . Young , 468 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 0 ; s ee, e. g. , R iggs v. A i r Tran Ai r w ays , Inc. , 4 9 7 F .3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (em p loy er’s fa il u re to fo ll o w co m p an yp o li cies o f se ek ing em p loy ee ’s
re sp o n se to c u sto m e r c o m p lain t ag a in st h e r a n d h a v in g sta tio n m a n a g e r p e rso n a lly i nform empl oy ee of

t erm i nat i on di d nots ugges tpr et extforunl aw ful d is c ri m in a tio n ). N ow , t o be s ur e, i f M r . H i nds had s o me e v id e n c e th a t S p rin t fa iled to fo llo w its p o licie s in th is p a rticu lar c a se fo r a d isc rim in a to ryre a so n , tha t w o u ld b e a v e ryd iffe re n t m a tter. B u t th e m e re fa ilu re o f a c o m p a n y ’s e m p lo y e e s to fol l ow thei rempl oy er ’ s m anual s and w r i t t en di r ect i ves , w i thoutm or e, does nothi ng t o s ugges tdi s cr i m i nat i on as oppos ed t o perhaps , s ay , l axi tyon the partof companyempl oy ees . I f the ca s e w er e otherw i s e, pot ent i al l yeveryi rr egul ar i tyor devi at i on fr om companypol i cydur i ng a R I F w oul d s uffi ce t o s how pr et ext , even w hen ther e i s no evi dence t hatt he ac t i on w as t aken i n anythi ng butgood fai th,
m u c h les s a s a su b ter f u g e fo r p u rsu in g a d isc rim in a to ryp u rp o se . In d e e d , itw o u ld
a p p e a r th a t S p rin t u se d th e sp re a d sh e e t at iss u e h e re , if a n yth in g , as a to o l to- 22 -

s crut i ni ze hi r i ng and fi r i ng deci s i ons ( al bei taft erthe fa ct ) fors i gns of pot ent i al problem s such as dis cri m i nati on , and i nferri ng dis cri m i natoryanim us un der these ci r cumst ance s w oul d, i f anythi ng, r i s k underm i ni ng, r atherthan further i ng, the A D E A ’s p u rp o s e s . See 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 (b ); Ko lsta dv. A m . D en tal A ss’n , 527 U . S. 526, 545 ( 1999) ( “D i s s uadi ng empl oy er s fr om i m pl ement i ng pr ogr ams or pol i ci es t o pr eventdi s cr i m i nat i on i n the w or kpl ace i s di r ect l ycontr aryt o the p u rp o s e s u n d e rl y in g [ th e A D E A ].” ). Second, i n the fa ce of al l t hi s , M r . H i nds s eems t o s ugges tan al t ernat i ve cour s e exi s t s t o i nferpr et extfr om the s pr eads heet ’ s gener i c i ns truct i ons . N ot i ng thatther e i s a di s put e of factbetw een the gene r i c i ns truct i ons acc om pany i ng Spr i nt ’ s s pr eads heetand the t es t i m onyof i t s empl oy ees abouti t s us e, and vi ew i ng th e fa c t s i n t h e l i g h tmo s tfa v o r a b l e t o th e p l a i n t i ff, M r . Hi n d s s u g g e s t s th a twe m u st in fe r th e sp re a d sh e e t w as cr eat ed befor e t erm i nat i on deci s i ons w er e made and w as u se d b ym a n a g e rs d u rin g th e d e c isio n m a k in g p ro c e ss . W e re a d ily
conce de thi s pos s i bi l i ty . A l though, as w e have al r eadyi ndi cat ed, ther e i s no i nher entcontr adi ct i on betw een the gene r i c i ns truct i ons and Spr i nt ’ s t es t i m ony thati t s m anage r s di d notus e the s pr eads heeti n m aki ng t hei rt erm i nat i on deci s i ons , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d cons i derthe i ns truct i ons t o be evi dence
su g g e stin g th a t th e S p rin t m a n a g e rs, in c o n tra d ictio n to th e ir tes tim o n y , d id in fac tcompl et e the s pr eads heetbefor e t erm i nat i on deci s i ons w er e made. B ut , even- 23 -

if w e w e re to su p p o se th a t S p rin t d idus e the s pr eads heetdur i ng the d e c isio n m a k in g p ro c e ss , w e m u st s til l as k : W h a t ex a c tlyin th e sp re a d sh e e t o r its
us e as par tof the dec i s i onm aki ng s ugges t s di s cr i m i nat oryani m us ? T hi s ques t i on tak e s u s to M r. H in d s’s se c o n d p o in t. (ii) M r. H in d s a ss e rts th a t p re tex t ca n b e in fe rre d f ro m th e sp re a d sh e e t an d its purpor t ed us e i n the dec i s i onm aki ng pr oces s beca us e the documentcont ai ned “s ubj ect i ve” pe r form ance eval uat i ons byhi s m anage rand hi dden ce l l s l i s t i ng t he
e m p lo y e e s ’ a g e s . W i th r es pectt o the per form ance eval uat i ons , M r . H i nds poi nt s t o our pr ece denti ndi cat i ng that“s ubj ect i ve eva l uat i on m ethods ” w i th no expl anat i on or su p p o rtin g b a sis m a yso m e tim e s b e v iew e d w ith “ sk e p ticism ” a n d , u n d e r c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , can be “s us cept i b[l e] t o di s cr i m i nat or yabus e. ” G ar r et tv. Hew l et t - P ackard C o. , 305 F. 3d 1210, 1218 ( 10th C i r . 2002)
. W e h o ld, ho w ev er, thatthe eva l uat i ons ati s s ue her e di ffe ri n ki nd fr om thos e ati s s ue i n G a rr e ttand gi ve r i s e t o no s uch conc ern. T her e, the eva l uat ed empl oy ees w er e s i m pl yr anked f ro m b e st to w o rst, a n d th e re c o rd w a s d e v o id o f a n ye v id e n c e sh o w in g h o w th e ir
or derw as det erm i ned. H er e, bycontr as t , the s pr eads heets etoutcomm on, obj ect i ve cr i t er i a on w hi ch the r el evantm anage ri ndepende nt l yr at ed ea chE ach e m pl oy ee w as eval uat ed ac cor di ng t o four“j ob r equi r ement s ” and 8 fiv e “ b e h a v io ra l d im e n sio n s.” T h e jo b re q u ire m e n ts w e re a s fo llo w s: “U n d erstan d ing o f tec h n o log yan d asso ciated ca p ab il it ies, P rob lem so lver / A nal yt i cal /I m pl ement at i on /I deat i on, A bi l i tyt o under s t and bus i nes s pr oces s and ne e ds a l on g wi th s tr a t e gy , a nd Expe r i e nc e w orki ng on s y s t e ms p r oj e c t s w i th I TS / v e n d o rs.” A p lt. A p p . at 6 2 9 . T h e six b e h a v io ra l d im e n sio n s w e re “ A c t w ith I nt egr i ty , Focus on t he C us t om er , D el i verR es ul t s , B ui l d R el at i ons hi ps , and D emonstr at e Leader s hi p. ” Id
. E ach e m pl oy ee’ s m anage rpr ovi ded eva l uat i ve comm ent s i n everycat egoryas w el l as a numer i cal r at i ng, w hi ch w as bas ed on a s cal e fr om one t o fi ve, one bei ng “gr eat l yexce eds expec t at i ons , ” thr ee be i ng “ful l ym eet s expec t at i ons , ” and f i ve bei ng “unac cept abl e. ” Id
. M r . H i nds re c e iv e d tw o s a n d th re e s o n h is jo b re q u ire m e n ts a n d th re e s a n d fo u rs o n h is b e h a v io ra l d im e n s io n s . Forexampl e, M r . H i nds ’ s m anage rgave hi m a tw o r at i ng for 9 “ Un d e r s t a n d i n g o f

t e c h n o l o g ya n d a s s o c i a t e d c a p a b i l i t i e s , ” e x p l a i n i n g t h a t“ Al under s t ands the W or kfor ce M anage m entSB S r equi r ement s and pr ovi des t he expert i s e t o otherSB S, SC S and I B M r epr es ent at i ves . ” A pl t . A pp. at629. She expl ai ned hi s fourr at i ng i n “Focus on the C us t om er ” bycomm ent i ng, “A l avoi ds e x p re ss in g th e c u sto m e r p e rsp e c tiv e in g ro u p s m e e tin g s; ra th e r h e p rojec ts h is ow n per s pect i ve and w hen other s don’ tagr ee, he s how s di s pl eas ur e. ” Id. - 24 - empl oy ee. I tal s o pr ovi ded r oom forcomm ent s byt he managert o s uppor tt he

8
n u m e ric a l ra tin g s a ss ig n e d . Q u ite u n lik e th e e v a lu a tio n sy ste m a t issu e in 9 G a rr e tt , the o p aq u en ess o f w h ich m ad e itsu sce p ti b le t o u n sp o k en d iscri m inato ry i nput , the eva l uat i on s y s t em her e w as t r ans par entand r efl ect ed thatal l l i s t ed empl oy ees w er e eva l uat ed ac cor di ng t o the s ame cr i t er i a, bas ed on the s ame sc al e, a n d a s s e s s e d in n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry te rm s . W ith resp ec t t o the in fo rm ati o n ab o u t em p loy ee s’ ag es, no n e o f th is ap p ea rs o n th e fa c e o f

th e sp re a d sh e e t; i n ste a d , itis c o n tain e d in p a ss w o rd -p ro tec ted c e lls h id d e n f ro m u n a u th o riz e d v iew e rs. T h e u n c o n tes ted e v id e n c e in th is c a se is th a t aD u rin g M r. Q u irk ’s d e p o sitio n , M r. H in d s’s c o u n se l ele c tro n ica lly 10 copi ed the hi dden dat a ce l l s and pas t ed them i nt o a new s pr eads heet . C ouns el a ss e rts th a t th e re su lti n g sp re a d sh e e t re v e a led th e in fo rm a tio n in th e h id d e n d a ta c e lls, inc lu d in g th e e m p lo y e e s’ a g e s, a n d th e re fo re S p rin t m a n a g e rs w ith a c c e ss to th e s p re a d s h e e t c o u ld e a s ily a c c e s s th e p a s s w o rd p ro te c te d d a ta . See A pl t . A pp. at633- 34. M r . H i nds does notpr es entanyevi dence , how ever , s ugges t i ng that anydeci s i onm akerhad ac ces s t o the pas s w or d, knew aboutt hi s al l eged w o rk a ro u n d , o r o th e rw is e a c c e s s e d th e in fo rm a tio n in th e h id d e n d a ta c e lls . - 25 - Spr i nts uppor tor gani zat i on noti nvol ved i n the dec i s i onm aki ng pr oces s cr eat ed thes e “pa s s w or d pr ot ect ed” c el l s , and thatthe manager s i nvol ved i n m aki ng di s char ge dec i s i ons di d nothave a cce s s t o the pas s w or d nece s s aryt o vi ew the cel l s . M r . H i nds r es ponds thatSpr i nt ’ s pr ot ect i on of the dat a cont ai ned i n the hi dden ce l l s w as notfool pr oof bec aus e one w ho know s the hi dden ce l l s exi s tm ay a c c e ss th e ir in fo rm a tio n b ye lec tro n ica llyc o p y in g th e m in to a n e w sp re a d sh e e t. 10 B utM r . H i nds has notdevel oped anyfac t s s ugges t i ng thatt he manager s i nvol ved i n th e d e c i s i o n t o fi r e h i m actual l y acc es s edt he embedded age dat a i n the
s pr eads heetoreven kne w how t o evade t he pas s w or d r equi r ementi n the manner M r . H i nds i dent i fi es . T hus , even a s s um i ng thatan i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on c o u ld a rise h a d d e c isio n m a k e rs s e e n th e a g e d a ta, th e u n c o n tes ted fa c ts h e re fa il t o s upports uch a theory . A nd w e have l ong expl ai ned thati nform at i on of w hi ch
an em p loy er is un aw are ca n n o t be in fe rred to b e the b asis fo r th e e m p loy er’s d e c is io n to ta k e a c tio n a g a in s t th e e m p lo y e e . See Mont es v. Vai lC l i ni c, Inc. , 497 F . 3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 7 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).- 26 - (iii) A s hi s fi nal evi dence of pr et ext , M r . H i nds poi nt s outthatthe s pr eads heet di d noti ncl ude thr ee CC T T E empl oy ees – tw o w ho w er e r et ai ned i n ot her p o sit ion s an d o n e w h o w as d isch arg ed – ev en tho u g h their C C T T E job s, li k e M r. H in d s’s , w e re e lim in a ted in th e R IF . A lth o u g h h e d o e s n o t ex p a n d o n th is p o in t, as bestw e can tel l M r. H i nd s seem s t o b e i m ply i ng that the ex cl usi on of these
e m p lo y e e s f

ro m th e sp re a d sh e e t w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith S p rin t’s a ss e rtio n th a t it
c re a te d th e s p re a d s h e e t to id e n tif ye m p lo y e e s in g ro u p s im p a c te d b yth e R IF . A g ain, ho w ev er, no m aterial inco n sist en cyis ap p are n t from the re co rd b e fo re u s. S p rin t em p lo y e e s u n ifo rm lytes tifie d th a t th e yc re a ted m u lti p le
s pr eads heet s focus ed on di ffe r ents ki l l s et s ; M r . H i nds , forexampl e, w as i ncl uded on the s pr eads heetl i s t i ng empl oy ees i nvol ved i n “i nfr as tructur e s uppor t , ” as w as M r . Sm i th, the r et ai ned C C T T E empl oy ee w ho ul t i m at el yfi l l ed the open pos i t i on fo r w h ich M r. H in d s w a s c o n sid e re d . M r. H in d s h a s c o m e fo rw a rd w ith n o fa c ts su g g esti n g that the th ree C C T T E em p loy ee s n o t fo u n d o n the “ inf rastruc ture su p p o rt” sp re a d sh e e t co u ld n o t b e fo u n d o n o th e r sp re a d sh e e ts a p p ro p ria te to th e ir jo b f u n c tio n s, o r th a t th e “ in f ra stru c tu re su p p o rt” sp re a d sh e e t w a s in c o m p lete in anyotherw ay . I n fac t , M r . Q ui r k t es t i fi ed thathe w as i nvol ved i n compl et i ng s epar at e s pr eads heet s thatdi d i ncl ude ea ch of the otherC C T T E empl oy ees , and M s . Fi e l d s t e s t i fi e d th a ts h e v e rb a l l yp r o v i d e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f a l l th e CCTTEE v en if o n e c o u ld so m eh o w rea so n ab lyloo k at th e “ inf rastruc ture 11 s uppor t ” s pr eads heeti n i s ol at i on, t he fa ctr emai ns t hatt he otherdi s char ged C C T T E em ploy ee no tl i st ed o n thatpart i cularspreadsheetw as you ng er than M r. H i nds and the tw o r et ai ned C C T T E empl oy ees notl i s t ed on thatpart i cul ar s pr eads heetw er e olderthan M r . H i nds ; acc or di ngl y , t hei rpr es ence orabs ence on th a t s in g le s p re a d s h e e t d o e s n o t s u g g e s t a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . - 27 - empl oy ees w hi l e M r . Q ui r k and J eff L ent z typed the i nform at i on i nt o the var i ous spreadsheet s. 11 * * * A tthe end of

the day , Spr i nt ’ s pr offe r ed nondi s cr i m i nat oryexpl anat i on of it s co n d u ct – n am ely , that itterm inated M r. H ind s b ec au se iteli m inated h is en ti re gr oup i n the R I F and coul d fi nd hi m no s ui t abl e r epl ace m entj ob el s ew her e i n t he
c o mp a n y , b u tr e t a i n e d s e v e n y o u n g e rn o n - CCT TE e mp l o y e e s i n M r . Hi n d s ’ s s a me paygr ade be caus e i tdi d notel i m i nat e thei rpos i t i ons – i s underm i ned byno cr edi bl e evi dence of pr et ext . T hati s , even w hen vi ew ed thr ough t he pr i s m of our
s um m aryj udgm entl ens , M r . H i nds ’ s ar gum ent s aboutt he ca ndi dat e s el ect i on sp re a d sh e e t sim p lyd o n o t ca st s u fficie n t d o u b t o n S p rin t’s e x p lan a tio n o f its
c o n d u c t th a t a ra tio n a l fa c tfin d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e it u n w o rt h yo f b e lie f. B T ur ni ng t o hi s A D E A r et al i at i on cl ai m , M r . H i nds al l eges t hatSpr i nt ter m in a ted h is e m p lo ym e n t b e c a u se h e c o m p lain e d o f a g e d isc rim in a tio n , in vi ol at i on of the A D E A ’ s pr ohi bi t i on on di s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns tan empl oy ee w hoSom e mayques t i on w hetherw e s houl d paus e t o as s es s t he exi s t ence of a 12 pr i m a fa ci e ca s e w hen, ats um m aryj udgm ent , an empl oy erput s for th a n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n fo r i ts a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See, e. g. , Wel ls v. C ol o. D ep’ tof

Trans p. , 3 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( H a rt z , J ., w riting se p a ra tely ); B r a d y v . Of f i c e o f th e S e rg e a n ta tA r ms , - - - F . 3 d - - - , 2 0 0 8 WL 81 99 89 (D . C . C i r. 20 08 ). A l tho ug h w e readi l ycon cede thatt he p ri m a facie cas e re q u ire m e n t m a yso m e tim e s p ro v e a sid e sh o w to th e m a in a c tio n o f p re tex t, th is c o u r th a s i n d i c a t e d th a ti tr e s e r v e s t h e r i g h tt o u n d e r t a k e e a c h s t e p o f t h e S u p r e me C ou rt ’s McD onnel lD ouglas fr amew or k i n anal y zi ng di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai m s on s um m aryj udgm ent , and has noti nfr equent l ydi s m i s s ed s uch c la im s fo r fa ilu re to e s ta b lis h a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e . See H y s te n v . B u r lin g to n N. & Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 296 F. 3d 1177, 1183 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( concl udi ng thatpl ai nt i ff fa iled to m a k e a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f re talia tio n ); Kendr i ck v
. P ens ke Tr ans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1226 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( emphasi zi ng that , al though t he McD onnel lD ouglas “s equent i al anal yt i cal m odel ” dr ops outaft era tr i al on the m eri t s, i tapp l i es on sum m aryj ud gm ent) . A nd , so l on g as McD onnel lD ouglas re m a in s th e law g o v e rn in g o u r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an a ly sis , itse e m s to u s th a t if a n e m p lo y e e fa ils to p re se n t ev e n th e lim ited q u a n tu m o f e v id e n c e n e c e ss a ryto rai se a pri m a facie i nference thathis or her prot ect ed acti vityl ed to an ad verse empl oym entact i on, i tcan be come poi nt l es s t o go thr ough t he mot i ons of the r emai nderof the McD on nellD ou glas fr amew or k t o det erm i ne thatunl aw ful re ta lia tio n w a s n o t a t p la y . - 28 - “ h a s o p p o s e d a n yp ra c tic e m a d e u n la w f u l” b yth e s ta tu te . 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 3 (d ). B eca us e M r . H i nds admi t s he l acks di r ectevi dence of r et al i at i on, the McD o n n e ll D ou glas b u rd e n -sh if

tin g sc h e m e a g a in p e rta in s. T h is tim e , h o w e v e r, o u r a n a ly sis b e g in s a n d e n d s a t th e first McD onnel lD ouglas ste p b e c a u se M r. H in d s fa ils to
es t abl i s h a pr i m a fac i e cas e of r et al i at i on. A pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on 12
re q u ire s th e p lain tiff

to sh o w th a t (1 ) h e o r sh e e n g a g e d in p ro tec ted o p p o sitio n to di s cr i m i nat i on, ( 2) a r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d have c ons i der ed the cha l l enged empl oym entact i on m at er i al l yadver s e, and ( 3) a ca us al connec t i on exi s t ed- 29 -

b e tw e e n th e p ro te c te d a c tiv ity a n d th e m a te ri a lly a d v e rs e a c tio n . See Mont es , 497 F. 3d at1176. B efor e us , onl ythe fi r s tand thi r d el ement s ar e i n di s put e; Spr i nt d o e s n o t, an d c o u ld n o t, co n tes t th e in ter m e d iate q u e stio n w h e th e r a re a so n a b le
e m p lo y e e w o u ld fin d th e ter m in a tio n o f h is o r h e r e m p lo ym e n t to b e m a ter ially
a d v e rs e . 1 W i th r es pectt o the fi r s tel ement , M r . H i nds as s er t s thathe enga ged i n fi ve i ns t ance s of pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on t o di s cr i m i nat i on: ( i ) the J une 2003 meet i ng w ith M r. Jo y ce in h u m an reso u rce s in w h ich M r. H ind s co m p lai n ed ab o u t M r. R o b e rso n ’s p ro m o tio n to W F M m a n a g e r a n d a sk e d , am o n g o th e r th in g s, “ c o u ld this ha v e b ee n ag e d iscri m ination ”; (i i) M r. H ind s’s Ju n e 2 0 0 3 e-m ail to S p ri n t’ s C E O , M r . For s ee, cr i t i ci zi ng Spr i nt ’ s i nt ernal pol i t i cs , new per form ance eval uat i on s y s t em, and managementphi l os ophy , and comm ent i ng t hathe i s ol der than manyof hi s m anage r s ; ( i i i ) the N ovember2003 e- m ai l t o M r . J oy ce i n w hi ch M r . H i nds s t at ed thathi s negat i ve fe edbac k aboutSpr i ntm anage m enthad trig g e re d re talia tio n ; (iv ) th e P o w e rP o in t p re se n tatio n , w h ich M r. H in d s a lleg e d ly
s entt o M r . J oy ce a nd ot her s i n hum an r es our ces and managementi n fal l 2003; and ( v) the J anuary2004 e- m ai l t o M r . J oy ce, M r . For s ee, and M r . K i s s i nger , the head of Spr i nthum an r es our ces , compl ai ni ng aboutM r . H i nds ’ s “hi gh
m a in te n a n c e ” p e rfo rm a n c e re v ie w .- 30 -

I n r es pons e, Spr i ntar gues thatM r . H i nds di d notengage i n pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on beca us e hi s gener al i zed e m pl oym entcompl ai nt s i n the e- m ai l s and Pow er Poi ntdi d notcompl ai n of age di s cr i m i nat i on orr et al i at i on bas ed on pr evi ous compl ai nt s of age di s cr i m i nat i on, and bec aus e hi s ques t i on t o M r . J oy ce w a s n o t su fficie n tlyd e taile d o p p o sitio n to a g e d isc rim in a tio n to c o n stitu te p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. W e agr ee thatthe N ovember2003 and J anuary2004 e- m ai l s ( i t ems i i i and v fr om M r . H i nds ’ s l i s tabove) ar e notexampl es of pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on. I n the N ovember2003 e- m ai l , M r . H i nds s t at es thathe fe el s r et al i at ed aga i ns tforgi vi ng negat i ve eva l uat i ons of m anage r s . I n the J anuary2004 e- m ai l , he i ndi cat es that he i s ups etw i th the eva l uat i on l abel i ng hi m “hi gh m ai nt enanc e” forr equi r i ng hi gh- l evel m anage m entand human r es our ces t i m e cr i t i qui ng Spr i ntm anage m ent par adi gm s and i nt ernal pol i t i cs . N ow her e i n ei there- m ai l does M r . H i nds
m ent i on oreven a l l ude t o age orage di s cr i m i nat i on. I ndeed, athi s depos i t i on, M r . H i nds hi m s el f admi t t ed thathi s N ovember2003 e- m ai l di d notr efe r ence age d isc rim in a tio n o r se e k to c o m p lain a b o u t ag e d isc rim in a tio n . A lth o u g h n o m a g ic
w or ds ar e r equi r ed, t o qual i fyas pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on t he empl oy ee mustconvey t o the empl oy erhi s orherconce rn thatthe empl oy erhas engage d i n a pr act i ceA l l en v. D enve rP ub. Sch. B d. , 9 2 8 F . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), 13 over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Kendr i ck v
. P ens ke Tr ans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F. 3d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s ee ge ner al l y Anders on v. A cad. Sch. D is t . 20 , 122 F. A pp’ x 912, 916 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( “[A ] vague r efe r ence t o di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m entw i thoutanyi ndi cat i on t hatt hi s m i s conductw as m ot i vat ed by[age ] d o es n o t con sti tute p rotec ted a cti v ityan d w il l no t sup p o rta re tal iat ion claim . ”).

See, e. g. , C ou t u v. Mart i n C ou nty Bd
. of C ou nty C om m ’rs , 47 F. 3d 1068, 14 1074 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng thatempl oy ee’ s gr i evanc e aboutper form ance e v a lu a tio n , w h ich w a s n o t b a se d o n u n law f u l d isc rim in a tio n , d id n o t co n stitu te sta tu to rilyp ro tec ted a c tiv ity ); A s hki n v. Ti m e War nerC abl e C or p. , 52 F. 3d 140, 143- 44 ( 7th C i r . 1995) ( concl udi ng thata compl ai ntaboutm anage m ents ty l e, w hi ch does notm ent i on unl aw ful har as s m entordi s cr i m i nat i on, i s notpr ot ect ed o p p o sit ion ). - 31 - m ade unl aw ful by the A D E A . G ener al compl ai nt s aboutcompanym anage m ent 13 and one’ s ow n negat i ve per form ance eval uat i on w i l l nots uffi ce. 14 T he r emai ni ng i ns t ance s of al l eged pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on – the J une 2003
m eet i ng w i th M r . J oy ce, the J une 2003 e- m ai l t o M r . For s ee, and the Pow er Poi nt p rese n tat ion (i tem s i, ii , an d iv f rom ab o v e) – ea ch at l ea st m en ti o n s ag e o r di s cr i m i nat i on. W e nee d notr es ol ve def i ni t i vel yw hethert hes e cons t i tut ed p ro tec ted a c tiv iti e s, h o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e re talia tio n c laim b a se d o n th e m c lea rly fa ils o n th e c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n e le m e n t. 2 T o es t abl i s h t he r equi s i t e ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s pr ot ect ed conduc t
a n d ter m in a tio n , M r. H in d s m u st s h o w th a t S p rin t w a s m o tiv a ted to ter m in a te h is
e m p lo ym e n t b ya d e s ir e to re ta lia te fo r h is p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. See Wel ls v. C ol o. D ep’ tof Trans p. , 3 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 1 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A s a p re re q u isite to th is- 32 -

s how i ng, M r . H i nds m us tfi r s tcome for w ar d w i th evi dence fr om w hi ch a
r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d concl ude thatthos e w ho deci ded t o fi r e hi m had k n o w le d g e o f

h is p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. See Mont es , 497 F. 3d at1176 ( “To sat i s fy [the ca us al connec t i on] el ement , a pl ai nt i ff musts how thatthe i ndi vi dual w ho t ook adver s e ac t i on agai ns t[hi m orher ] knew of the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed
a c tiv ity.” (q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) . R egar di ng hi s Pow er Poi ntpr es ent at i on ( i t em i v) , M r . H i nds has pr es ent ed
n o e v id e n c e th a t an yd e c isio n m a k e r a t S p rin t, or a n y o n e a sid e f ro m M r. Jo y c e in hum an r es our ces , r ece i ved the pr es ent at i on. T o be s ur e, i n hi s compl ai ntt o the E qual E m pl oym entO ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on, M r . H i nds al l eged thathe s entthe Pow er Poi ntpr es ent at i on t o a numberof Spr i ntm anage r s and human r es our ces p erso n n el on so m e u n k n o w n d ate. B u t w e a re n o w o n su m m aryjud g m en t w h ere fac t s m att erand M r . H i nds does notpoi ntt o anyfac t s i n the r ecor d befor e us su p p o rtin g th is a lleg a tio n – n o e -m a il, n o a ffid a v it o r d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yb yh im
o r oth ers, no o ther fo rm o f c o m p eten t evid en ce ind icati n g that an y o n e b esid es M r. J oy ce s aw the Pow er Poi nt . I ndeed, i n hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der , M r . H i nds
re p re se n ted to th e d istric t co u rt o n lyth a t h e se n t th e p re se n tatio n to M r. Jo y c e in N ovember2003. I n turn, M r . J oy ce’ s ( uncont es t ed) t es t i m onynow her e hi nt s that he s har ed the Pow er Poi ntoreven the fa ctof i t s exi s t ence w i th any one el s e at S p ri n t. T h is i s sign ifi ca n t bec au se M r. Jo y ce is no t al lege d to h av e tak en an yp art- 33 -

in th e d e c isio n to d isc h a rg e M r. H in d s, a n d , ev e n a c c e p tin g a s tru e th e o n ly evi dence M r . H i nds devel oped i n and ci t ed t o the di s tr i ctcour tr egar di ng the d iss e m in a tio n o f

th e P o w e rP o in t p re se n tatio n , n o p e rso n in v o lv e d in h is ter m in a tio n d e c isio n re c e iv e d o r k n e w o f it. T he onl yr emai ni ng al l egedl ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi t i es ar e M r . H i nds ’ s J une 2003
conver s at i on w i th M r . J oy ce a nd hi s J une 2003 e- m ai l t o M r . For s ee ( i t ems i and i i ) . M r . H i nds ar gues thatw e s houl d i nferr et al i at or ym ot i ve fr om the t i m i ng of h is disch arg e in re lat ion to the se e v en ts. A n d , to b e su re, w e m ayinfer retali atory
m ot i ve fr om a cl os e t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een a n empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed conduc t
a n d a n e m p lo y e r’ s a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Willia m s v . W.D . S p o r ts , N.M., Inc. , 4 9 7 F . 3 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 9 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B u t un less the term ination is ve ry cl os e i n t i m e i ndeed t o the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty , w e have hel d thata pl ai nt i ff c annot
r el yon t empora l pr oxi m i tyal one and mustcome for w ar d w i th addi t i onal evi dence to e s ta b lis h c a u s a tio n . Id. ; s ee A nders on v. C oors B r ew i ng C o. , 181 F. 3d 1171, 1179 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e have hel d thata one- and- a- hal fm o n th p e rio d m a ysu ffice to e sta b lish c a u sa tio n o n a p rim a fa c ie b a sis , b u t a th re e -m o n th p e ri o d , s ta n d in g a lo n e , w ill n o t s u ffic e . See Anders on , 181 F. 3d at 1 1 7 9 . H e re , S p rin t d isc h a rg e d M r. H in d s e lev e n m o n th s a f ter h is m e e tin g w ith M r. Jo y ce an d e-m ail to M r. F o rsee , a ti m e sp an too ex tend ed to infer retali atory- 34 -

m ot i ve underourpr ece dent . M r . H i nds s eeks t o avoi d thi s concl us i on by
su g g e stin g th a t h e b e g a n e x p e rie n c in g a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n s f ro m h is pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw hen he r ece i ved a ne gat i ve r evi ew i n Sept ember2003, and that
s im ila r a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n s c o n tin u e d th ro u g h h is e v e n tu a l te rm in a tio n . I n ai d of thi s ar gum ent , he poi nt s t o ourdeci s i on i n Marx v. SchnuckMkts . , Inc. , 76 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 10th C i r . 1996) , i n w hi ch w e expl ai ned thata “pa t t ern of
re talia to ryc o n d u c t [ th a t] b e g in s s o o n a f ter th e [ p ro tec ted a c tiv ity ] a n d o n ly
c u lm in a tes late r in a c tu a l d isc h a rg e ” m a yso m e tim e s p ro v id e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity
s uffi ci entt o i nferr et al i at orym ot i ve and pr ecl ude s um m aryj udgm ent . T he di ffi cul tyw i th s uch an a r gum enti n thi s cas e i s thatoverthr ee mont hs el aps ed b etw ee n M r. H ind s’s Ju n e 2 0 0 3 co n v ersa ti o n w ith M r. Jo y ce an d e-m ail to M r. F orsee and the Se ptem ber 200 3 p erform ance rat i ng he cit es as the fir stadv ers e act i on i n hi s al l eged pa t t ern of r et al i at i on. A nd underourcas e l aw , a “thr eem onth per i od of t i m e betw een [ the] pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty ” and thi s fi r s tal l eged i ns t ance of r et al i at i on i s “i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on” as a mat t er o f la w . R i chm ond v. O N E O K, Inc. , 1 2 0 F .3 d 2 0 5 , 2 0 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); s ee P ier cy v . Ma ke ta , 480 F. 3d 1192, 1198 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( acknow l edgi ng thatan a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n o c c u rrin g th re e m o n th s a f ter th e p ro tec ted a c tiv ity
ca n n o t, stan d ing alon e, de m o n str ate c au sati o n ); H y ste n v . B u rlin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe Ry. C o. , 296 F. 3d 1177, 1183- 84 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( concl udi ng thata per i od ofN ei therdoes M r . H i nds pr es entus w i th anys peci al ci r cumst ance s orany 15 a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g w h yth is p a rticu lar g a p in tim e m ig h t b e su fficie n t w h e n it o th e rw is e w o u ld n o t. See, e. g. , We lls , 3 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 6 -1 7 (h o ld in g th a t, al though a fi ve- m onth gap gene r al l ydoes notes t abl i s h caus at i on, beca us e the plai nti ff w ent on l eave tw o d ay s aft er hercom plai nt and suffe red the ad verse a c tio n se v e n d a y s a f

ter re tu rn in g to w o rk

— fiv e m o n th s a f ter th e c o m p lain t— a ju ryc o u ld in fe r re talia tio n f ro m th e tim in g o f

th e e v e n ts). T o b e su re , se e k in g to i dent i fyaddi t i onal evi dence of ca us at i on bey ond t empora l pr oxi m i ty , M r . H i nds agai n poi nt s us t o t he ca ndi dat e s el ect i on s pr eads heet , r epea t i ng hi s t hr ee ar gum ent s abouti t s m eani ng. B ut , as w e have al r eadyexpl ai ned i n the cour s e of exam i ning M r. H i nd s’ s age dis cri m i nati on cl ai m , t hese argum ents do no tcast doubton Spr i nt ’ s pr offe r ed age
- neutr al r eas on forhi s t erm i nat i on, namel yt he e lim in a tio n o f

th e C C T T E g ro u p in th e R IF . See sup ra P a rt II.A .3 . B yn e c e ss ity itfo ll o w s tha t th eyd o n o t sug g est a c au sal co n n ec ti o n b etw ee n M r. H ind s’s c o m p la in t o f

a g e d is c ri m in a tio n a n d h is te rm in a tio n . - 35 - “[ a]lm o st th ree m o n ths” b etw ee n the p rotec ted a cti v ityan d the a ll eg ed retali atory ac t do es n o t perm itan infere n ce o f c au sati o n ). 15 * * * A s d id th e d istric t co u rt b e fo re u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. H in d s h a s fa iled to es t abl i s h a tr i abl e ques t i on of pr et extaboutt he r eas ons forhi s di s char ge, and that h e h as fail ed to p rese n t evid en ce fro m w h ich a rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld infer a re ta lia to ry m o tiv e fo r h is te rm in a tio n . A f f i r m ed.