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

### S e p t e m b e r6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
C H R IS T IE M C W IL L IA M S , P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 1081 J E F F E RS ON C OUNT Y, D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO (D . C . N o . 0 3 -B -22 0 1 (C B S )) L e e T . Ju d d o f

A n d re w T . B ra k e , P .C ., E n g lew o o d , C o lo ra d o , fo r A p p e llan t. Pat r i ci a W . G i l ber t , A s s i s t antC ountyA t t or ney( Fr ank J . H ut fl es s , J effer s on C ount yA t t or ney , w i t h heron t he br i ef) , J effer s on C ountyA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce, G ol den, C ol or ado, forA ppel l ee. B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and O ’B R I E N , C i rcui tJudg es. M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge.

P l a i n t i ff, fo r m e r l y a c o m p u t e r - s u p p o r ts p e c i a l i s tw i th J e ffe r s o n C o u n ty, su ffe rs f ro m in ter m itt e n t d e p re ss iv e e p iso d e s w h ich m a k e it d ifficu lt fo r h e r to s l eep, “dea l w i t h peopl e, ” and “ cope w i th w or k s i tuat i ons . ” O r der , 3 ( D . C ol o.- 2-

J an. 13, 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . She cl ai m s thats he l ether s upervi s or s know aboutherdepr es s i on and thats he as ked forthei rhel p i n the fo rm o f e n c o u ra g e m e n t– “ju st p a t m e o n th e b a c k a n d tell m e th a t it ’ll b e b e tter in a fe w day s . ” Id . a t 4 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). P lain tiff w a s e m p lo y e d b yJe ffe rso n C o u n tyf ro m S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 5 to O ct ober16, 2002. D ur i ng t hi s s even- y earper i od, s he r ece i ved s ever al negat i ve per form ance eval uat i ons conce r ni ng heri nt er act i ons w i th other s . She w as cr i t i ci zed for“rude and i nappr opr i at e” be havi orand fornotbei ng abl e “t o keep hercool . ” Id . at2 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . M os tr ece nt l y , i n 2002, Pl ai nt i ff’ s s upervi s oradmoni s hed herboth verbal l yand i n w r i t i ng forher di s r es pect ful conductand i nappr opr i at e beha vi or . E vi dent l y , Pl ai nt i ff ha d m ade per s onal char ges on a C ount ycr edi tcar d ( w hi ch s he eve ntual l yr epai d) , had negl ect ed t o not i fyhers upervi s or s i n advanc e of numer ous abs ence s , and had b e e n in c o n s id e ra te to c o -w o rk e rs o n s e v e ra l o c c a s io n s . Pl ai nt i ff r ece i ved an unfavor abl e eva l uat i on i n 2002, al though s he di s put es t he nega t i ve cha r act er i zat i on of herj ob per form ance . Pl ai nt i ff “ at tr i but es her per s onal s hor t comi ngs t o herdepr es s i on, w hi ch s he cons i der s a di s abi l i ty . ” Id . She has t aken medi cat i on t o combatherdepr es s i on s i nce 1992 a nd at t ended
w e e k lyc o u n se lin g se ss io n s f ro m 1 9 9 2 to 1 9 9 4 (p rio r to h e r e m p lo ym e n t w ith Jeffe rson C o u n ty ). D ur i ng hery ear s w i t h t he C ounty , Pl ai nt i ff w as gr ant ed s ever al FM L A and- 3-

ot herl eave s of abs ence . I n 1998, s he t ook a fa m i l yl eave of abs ence . I n 1999, s he w as gr ant ed a s even- w eek medi cal l eave due t o a ca racc i dent . She appl i ed fo r an d w as g ran ted a d d it ion al l ea v e f rom the C o u n tysick leav e b an k in 1 9 9 9 . In 2000, s he t ook a fi ve- w eek l eave of abs ence fol l ow i ng s ur gery . I n 2002, s he t ook a six -w ee k leav e fo ll o w ing h er fathe r’s de ath. P lai n ti ff also too k o ff

w o rk
w i t houtadvanc e not i ce on thr ee oc cas i ons i n 2002. T he onl yi ns t ance i n w hi ch th e C o u n tyd e n ied P lain tiff lea v e fo llo w e d h e r re q u e st fo r a c c o m m o d a tio n to sett le he r de ce ase d fa ther’s e stat e. P lai n ti ff w as in fo rm ed that the C o u n ty ’s empl oym entpol i cydoes notgr ants i ck l eave forthatpurpos e. O n O ct ober16, 2002, t he di r ect orof the C ountycomput erdepart m ent in fo rm e d P lain tiff

o f h is in ten tio n to ter m in a te h e r e m p lo ym e n t. D u rin g th is
m eet i ng, t he C ount ym ai nt ai ns t hatPl ai nt i ff w as gi ven tw o opt i ons : ( 1) t o r ece i ve a not i ce of

i nt entt o di s m i s s ( and be t erm i nat ed) or( 2) t o r es i gn bys i gni ng a r el eas e of a l l cl ai m s agai ns tt he C ountyand r ece i ve a tw o- m onth s ever ance packa ge. A ppel l ee Br. at4- 5. Pl ai nt i ff di s put es thi s char act er i zat i on of her op t i on s; she cl ai m s that s he w as i nform ed s he w as t erm i nat ed, ei therw i th m oneyorw i thout , and s he had t o m ake a n i m m edi at e dec i s i on as t o w hethers he w ant ed money ornot , des pi t e herr eques t s thats he be a l l ow ed t o cons ul ther h u sb an d , h av e ti m e to c o n side r th e o p ti o n s an d to se e the p ap erw o rk for bo t h o pti on s. A ppel l antB r . at20. Pl ai nt i ff br oughtt hi s l aw s ui tal l egi ng cl ai m s of gende rdi s cr i m i nat i on- 4-

under42 U . S. C . § 2000e ets eq . , di s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on under42 U . S. C . §§ 12101- 12213, br eac h of contr act , pr om i s s or yes t oppel , and vi ol at i on of the Fam i l yand M edi cal L eave A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 2601 ets eq . T h e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C ountyon al l cl ai m s . Pl ai nt i ff a ppeal s that ju d g m e n t. O n ap p ea l, w e re v iew d e n o v o the p rop ri etyo f a g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t. EE O Cv. Hor iz on/CMS Heal thcar e C or p. , 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C i r . 2000) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s onl yw arr ant ed w hen ther e exi s t s no genui ne i ssue as t o an ym at eri al factand the m ov i ng partyi s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f

la w . A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 5 0 (19 8 6 ). In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n yg e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t ex ists, e v id e n c e is to b e li b era ll yco n stru ed in fav o r of the p artyo p p o sing the m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. F l or om v. E l l i ot tM f g. , 8 6 7 F .2 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). A s t o Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m of s exual di s cr i m i nat i on, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o D efe ndant . T he C ountyhas s ubm i t t ed leg iti m a te, n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s fo r P lain tiff ’s te rm in a tio n – h e r in a p p ro p ria te b eh av ior w ith co -w o rke rs an d h er n u m ero u s u n ex cu sed ab sen ce s. Itis Plainti ff ’s bur den t o art i cul at e how t he C ounty ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons ar e unw or thyof bel i ef. See Reev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods
. , Inc. , 5 3 0 U . S . 1 3 3 , 1 4 6 -49 (20 0 0 ); R an dle v. C i t

y of Au rora , 69 F. 3d 441, 451 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . Pl ai nt i ff doe s not d ispu te th e v era cityo f th ese p u rpo rt ed rea so n s; r athe r, sh e d efen d s tha t th eyw ere- 5-

th e re su lt o f

h e r d e p re ss io n . W h ile P lain tiff ’s e x p lan a tio n m a yb e th e sa d tru th , it does nots at i s fyherbur den of s how i ng thatthe C ounty ’ s s t at ed r eas ons forher te rm in a tio n w e re p re te x tu a l. P l ai nti ff h as al so fai l ed to produ ce evidence to est abli sh t hat s he w as a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i tyunderthe A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct (A D A ). T o w i t hst and sum m aryj ud gm ent on he r A D A cl ai m , P l ai nti ff “m ust sh o w th a t (1 ) sh e is d isa b led w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A D A , (2 ) sh e is a b le to per form heres s ent i al j ob funct i ons w i th orw i thoutr eas onabl e ac comm odat i on, and ( 3) [the C ount y ] di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns theri n [i t s ] empl oym entdeci s i ons beca us e of he ral l eged di s abi l i t y . ” C r oy v. C obe Labor at or i es , Inc . , 345 F. 3d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 3 -04 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A d isab il ity , as d efined b ythe A D A , is “(A ) a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entt hats ubs t ant i al l yl i m i t s one orm or e of the maj or l i fe a ct i vi t i es of s uch i ndi vi dual ; ( B ) a r ecor d of s uch i m pai r m ent ; or( C ) bei ng r egar ded as havi ng s uch an i m pai r m ent . ” Id . at1204 ( ci t i ng Su tto n v . Un itedA ir Li nes , Inc. , 527 U . S. 471, 478 ( 1999) ) . Pl ai nt i ff ha s notpr oduced e vi dence that s he w as s ubs t ant i al l yi m pai r ed ors i gni fi cant l yr es tr i ct ed i n anym aj orl i fe act i vi t y . A l t hough s he att es t s t hatheri nt erm i t t entdepr es s i ve epi s odes caus ed her d i ffi c u l t yi n s l e e p i n g a n d g e t t i n g a l o n g wi th h e rc o - wo r k e r s , s h e h a s n o ts h o wn h o w th e se lim itatio n s p re v e n ted h e r f ro m p e rfo rm in g h e r jo b “ o r th a t sh e is unabl e t o per form anyof the l i fe a ct i vi t i es compl et el y . ” C r oy , 345 F. 3d at1204 ( fi ndi ng pl ai nt i ff s uffe r i ng fr om m ul t i pl e s cl er os i s notdi s abl ed underm eani ng of- 6-

A D A ). C o n seq u en tl y , w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j u d g me n tt o De fe n d a n to n t h i s c l a i m. W e a lso d e ter m in e th a t P lain tiff ’s c laim fo r re talia tio n u n d e r th e F M L A is
w i t ho ut m eri t . In order t o m ake a p ri m a facie cas e of repri sal , “a plai nti ff m ust s how ( 1) pr ot ect ed empl oy ee a ct i on; ( 2) adver s e ac t i on byan empl oy erei ther aft erorcont empora neous w i t h t he empl oy ee' s pr ot ect ed ac t i on; and ( 3) a ca us al connec t i on betw een the empl oy ee' s act i on and the empl oy er ' s adver s e ac t i on. ” Morgan v. Hi l t i, Inc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1324 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . A caus al connec t i on betw een Pl ai nt i ff’ s exer ci s e of FM L A l eave s and hereventual t erm i nat i on i s not su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. T h e C o u n ty ’s st ated rea so n fo r P lai n ti ff ’s t erm i nat i on–herdi ffi cul t yi n get t i ng al ong w i th cow or ker s –i s document ed b e g in n in g in 1 9 9 7 (t w o y e a rs p ri o r t o P la in tiff ’s e x te n d e d F M L A le a v e s ). P la in tiff h a s fa ile d to s h o w th a t th is re a s o n w a s p re te x tu a l. See, e. g. , St ew ar tv. A dol ph C oors C o. , 217 F. 3d 1285, 1289 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( not i ng s hi ftof bur den in rac e d iscri m ination ca se). A s t o t he s t at e ca us e of a ct i on forbr eac h of contr act , Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s thatat t he t i m e of he rdi s m i s s al t he C ountybr eac hed i t s contr actbyfai l i ng t o pr ovi de h e r w ith th e a p p ro p ri a te p ro c e d u ra l p ro te c tio n s th a t w e re s ta te d in its p o lic ie s . T her e i s a di s put e i n t he r ecor d overw hetherthe C ountyfol l ow ed i t s pol i ci es at th e tim e P lain tiff

sig n e d h e r re lea se . S p e c ifica lly , P lain tiff c laim s th a t th e C o u n ty did not i nfo rm her that s he w ou l d h ave the ri gh tt o fil e a gri evan ce i f she ch ose- 7-

nott o r es i gn. T he C ount ym ai nt ai ns thatPl ai nt i ff w as notonl yful l yi nform ed of h e ro p t i o n s b u t , mo r e i mp o r t a n t l y , th a th e rs i g n i n g o f a r e l e a s e n e g a t e s a n yc l a i ms th a t P lain tiff

m a ya ss e rt a g a in st th e C o u n ty . T h e d istric t co u rt c h o se n o t to a d d re ss th e re lea se , b u t in ste a d c o n c lu d e d th a t P lain tiff “ fa iled to id e n tifya sin g le p ro m ise th a t . . . the C o u n tyfa iled to p e rfo rm ,” n o tw ith sta n d in g P lain tiff ’s c laim o f d e n ial o f

p ro c e d u ra l rig h ts in h e r d isc h a rg e . T h e d istric t co u rt d e c lin e d to ru le on t he val i di t yof the r el eas e, appar ent l yconcl udi ng thatno contr actual r i ghthad been br eac hed. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o the C ountyon Pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m . I tappea r s fr om the s par s e r ecor d befor e us thatthe t r i al cour tdi d notappr ehend Pl ai nt i ff’ s br eac h of contr actcl ai m . W e i nt erpr ett he gr avamen of Pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m t o be dur es s i n the exe cut i on of a r el eas e, r el y i ng on Wi esen v. Sh ort , 6 0 4 P .2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 2 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 9 ). W e n o t e t h a tt h e p r e - t r i a l d i s m i s s a l o f a l l fe d e r a l l a w c l a i m s , l e a v i n g o n l y a s t at e l aw cl ai m , gener al l ypr event s a di s tr i ctcour tfr om r evi ew i ng t he mer i t s of th e s ta te la w c la im . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c )(3 ); s ee als o That cherE nt ers . v. C ache Count

y C or p. , 9 0 2 F .2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ N o tio n s o f c o m ity and fe der al i s m demand t hata s t at e courttryi t s ow n l aw s ui t s , abs entcompel l i ng re a so n s to th e c o n tra ry .”); Jones v. Int er m ountai n P ow erP r oj ect , 794 F. 2d 546, 5 4 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (“ If a fe d e ra l cla im a g a in st a p a rtyis d ism iss e d b e fo re trial, th e p e n d e n t s ta te la w c la im s s h o u ld o f te n b e d is m is s e d a s w e ll.” ), r ev’ d on other g ro u n ds, Ye llo w Fre ig h t S y ste m , In c . v. D o n n e lly , 4 9 4 U .S . 8 2 0 (1 9 9 0 ).- 8-

I n t hi s cas e, gi ven the s par e att ent i on devot ed t o the s t at e l aw cl ai m i n the par t i es ’ br i efs and the di s t r i ctcour topi ni on, i ti s nece s s aryforus t o r emand for f u r t h e rd e v e l o p m e n tt o d e c i d e w h e th e rs u m m a ryj u d g m e n ti s a p p r o p r i a t e . We ca n n o t say , at th is j u n cture , that itw o u ld b e a n ab u se o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s di s cr et i on t o r et ai n t he s t at e l aw cl ai m , how everw e comm end t o the courtthe Supr eme C our t ’ s caut i ons cont ai ned i n C a rn eg ie- Me llo n Un ive rs ity v . C o h ill : “[I ] n t he us ual cas e i n w hi ch al l fede r al
- l aw cl ai m s ar e el i m i nat ed befor e tr i al , t he bal ance of fa ct or s t o be cons i der ed underthe pende ntj ur i s di ct i on d o ctri n e–jud ici al ec o n o m y , co n v en ienc e, fa irn ess, an d co m ity– w il l po int t o w ard de c l i ni ng t o e xe r c i s e j ur i s di c t i on ov e rthe r e mai ni ng s t a t e - l a w c l a i ms. ” 48 4 U. S. 3 4 3 , 3 5 0 n . 7 (19 8 8 ). C ons equent l y , w e AF F I RM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent t o De fe n d a n to n a l l c l a i ms e x c e p tt h e s t a t e b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c tc l a i m, wh i c h we RE M AND to th e d istric t co u rt fo r e ith e r c lar ifica tio n o f th e sta te la w c laim o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , d ism iss a l.