P ursuant to F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c)(2), D irkK emp tho rne , G ale A . N o rto n ’s * su c c e ss o r, h a s b e e nauto m atica llysub stituteda s ap artyto th is ap p e a l. T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dent , exceptunderthe doctrinesof ** l aw of the ca s e, resj udi cata, and col l aterales toppel . W e general lydi s favorthe citati on of o rd e r s an dj u d g me nt s ; n e v e rth e l e s s , ano rd e ran dj u d g me ntmayb e c ite dun d e rth e te rms and conditi ons of Tenth C ircuitRul e 36. 3. T he H onorabl e Judith C . H errera, U nited StatesD i s tri ctJudge forthe D i s tri ct *** of N ew M exi co, s itting bydes i gnati on. 

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

### Ju ly17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DO UG LAS SCOTT, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 8043 D I R K K E M PT H O R N E , Secr et ar yof * t he U ni t ed St at es , D epar t m entof t he Interior, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV - 1 5 3 - D) (D . W y o .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efo re BRI S CO E, HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udges , and HERR ER A , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *** T h is is a n a p p e a l f

ro m 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 in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t- a p p e lle e . W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d , fin d in g n o e rro r, affirm th e d istric t co u rt.T ermap p o intm ents are n o t perm an ent po sition s, b ut rathe r ap p o intm ents fo r a 1 fixedperi odno tto ex ceed f our years . -2-

B AC KGROU ND I n 1986, Y el l ow s t one N at i onal Par k hi r ed D ougl as Scot tas a s eas onal bi otech n ici an . E v en tually , Y ell o w ston e c o n v erted S co tt ’s em p loy m en t t o a term a p p o in tm e n t a s a w ild life b io lo g is t, w h ic h it r e n e w e d a n n u a lly fo r s e v e ra l yea rs . 1 O n O ct ober27, 1993, Y el l ow s t one aga i n r enew ed Scot t ’ s empl oy m ent , gr ant i ng hi m a t er m appoi nt m entnott o exce ed O ct ober26, 1994. Y el l ow s t one empl oy ed Scot ti n l ar ge meas ur e t o w or k on r es ear ch r egar di ng t he appr opr i at enes s of hunt i ng t he M ont ana- Y el l ow s t one Pr onghor n H er d, a par t i cul ars peci es of ant el ope. D ur i ng O ct oberof 1993, Scot tas s er t ed thatY el l ow s t one gave pr efe r ent i al t r eatm enti n hi r i ng t o femal e s t aff empl oy ees , and on N ovember 10, 1 9 9 3 , h e filed a fo rm a l E E O c o m p lain t to th a t effe c t. I n D ece m berof 1993, Secr et ar yof t he I nt er i orB ruce Babbi t tcr eat ed the N at i onal B i ol ogi cal Sur vey( “N B S”) , a new fede r al agenc yt o be s t affed by m o v ing all o f th e re sea rch scien ti sts an d their fu n d ing fro m the N ati o n al P ark S ervi ce and otheragen ci es of t he D epart m ent of Int eri or t o the N B S . B ecause Scot tw as i nvol ved i n s ci ent i fi c w or k, Y el l ow s t one pl ace d hi m on a l i s tof e m p lo y e e s to b e tra n sfe rre d to th e n e w a g e n c y . H o w e v e r, th e N B S a c c e p ted o n ly t he p erm anen t , full -t i m e sci enti st s, rej ect i ng al l em ploy ees on ter m app oint m ents , i ncl udi ng Scot t . T hos e “l es s t han ful l - t i m e per s ons ” w er e t o r emai n w i t h t heA n empl oyee i s pl ace d on interm ittents tatusw hen l im ited fundsare avai l abl e or 2 the a ctiv ityfo r w h ich h e w as h iredrequ ires h imto w o rk o n lyat ce rtain tim es o f th e year. -3- N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce, w hi ch no l ongerhad fundi ng ora s ci ent i fi c mi s s i on for t hos e per s onnel beca us e al l of i t s s ci ent i fi c func t i ons had bee n t r ans ferr ed t o t he N B S. A s a r es ul tof t hi s l ack of fundi ng, on J anuary1, 1994, Y el l ow s t one c o n v e rte d S c o tt’s a n d se v e ra l o th e r e m p lo y e e s’ p o sitio n s f ro m ter m a p p o in tm e n ts t o “n on -pay , i nterm i t t ent s t at us” po si t i on s. 2 A ft erhi s appoi nt m entbeca m e non- pay , Scot tcont i nued hi s r es ear ch at Ye l l o ws t o n e o n a v o l u n t a r yb a s i s . I n F e b ru a r yo f 1 9 9 4 , h e p l e d g u i l t yt o t wo se p a ra te c o u n ts o f

v io latin g M o n tan a sta te g a m e law s b ym isre p re se n tin g h is s tate of r es i dence i n or dert o obt ai n r es i denthunt i ng l i cens es . T he fol l ow i ng m ont h, an offi ci al w i t h t he M ont ana D epar t m entof Fi s h, W i l dl i fe, and Par ks i nfor m ed S c o tt’ s s u p e ri o rs a t Y e llo w s to n e o f h is v io la tio n s o f

th e M o n ta n a g a m e la w s . O n M ar ch 16, 1994, Scot tm etw i t h offi ci al s fr om t he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce w ho i nfor m ed hi m t hathe w as bei ng di s char ged forcaus e due t o hi s vi ol at i ons of M ont ana’ s w i l dl i fe r es our ce l aw s . T hos e off i ci al s s t at ed thatScot t ’ s hunt i ng l i cens e vi ol at i ons w er e i ncompat i bl e w i t h hi s r es ear ch on t he pr onghor n ant el ope, w hich w as part i al l yfun ded byt he S t at e of M on t ana. Th e go vernm ent al so pr es ent ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour tevi dence , i n t he form of affi davi t s , t hata hunt i ng l i cens e vi ol at i on byone of i t s empl oy ees w as a s our ce of embar r as s m entand s t i gm a t o t he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce, w hi ch i s char ged w i t h w i l dl i fe r es our ce-4-

m a n a g e m e n t. O n M a rc h 1 7 , 1 9 9 4 , g o v e rn m e n t o fficia ls a g a in m e t w ith S c o tt at h is r eques t . Scot tr eques t ed t hatt heychange t he off i ci al r eas on forhi s t er m i nat i on f ro m “ fo r c a u se ” to lac k o f w o rk o r la c k o f

f u n d s in o rd e r to p ro tec t h is professi on al reput at i on . S cottal so exp res sed con cern t hat a t erm i nati on for cause w o u ld re su lt i n h is lo ss o f u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits. In re tu rn fo r th is c h a n g e in t h e r e a s o n fo rh i s t e r mi n a t i o n , Sc o t to ffe r e d t o wi t h d r a w hi s Nov e mbe r1 9 9 3 EEO C o m p lain t alle g in g se x d isc rim in a tio n . T h is p ro p o sa l w a s a ttrac tiv e to Y el l ow s t one, i n par tbeca us e i tw i s hed t o have a cce s s t o t he dat a and other r es ear ch col l ect ed byScot t , s om ethi ng t hatw as unl i kel yi f he w er e t er m i nat ed for cause. A ft er s everal add i t i on al m eet i ng s bet w een S cottand go vernm ent offi ci al s, Y e llo w sto n e o fficia llyc h a n g e d S c o tt’s te rm in a tio n sta tu s f ro m “ fo r c a u se ” to “l ack of fundi ng” and pe r m i t t ed Scot tt o cont i nue t he us e of hi s offi ce a nd g o v e r n me n th o u s i n g t h r o u g h M a y2 8 , 1 9 9 4 , i n o r d e rt o c o mp l e t e h i s wo r k . On A p ril 5 , 1 9 9 4 , S c o tt ex e c u ted a “ S tate m e n t o f W ith d ra w a l” w ith re g a rd to h is E E O C om pl ai nt , w her ei n he s t at ed, “I have notbeen i nt i m i dat ed, coer ced, norany c o n d itio n s p la c e d o n m e to w ith d ra w m yc o m p la in t.” O n J ul y25, 1994, Scot tfi l ed a s econd EE O compl ai nti n w hi ch he a s s er t ed t h a tt h e Nat i o n a l Pa r k Se r v i c e h a d r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s th i m fo rh i s p r i o rEEO act i vitybyt hreat ening t o term i nate hi s em ploym ent unl ess he w i t hd rew his fi rs t E E O char ge. Scot tal s o s t at ed t hathi s agr eed upon r eas on fort er m i nat i on— l ack-5-

o f f u n d in g — w a s u n tr u e b e c a u s e Y e llo w s to n e h a d re c e iv e d a d d itio n a l f u n d in g . A ft er a tw o d ayheari ng i n w hich he revi ew ed ex hibi t s and took w i t ness t es t i m ony , an admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge conc l uded thatScot thad fa i l ed t o pr ove hi s cl ai m s and w as bound byhi s pr i orw i t hdr aw al of hi s E E O cl ai m s . O n J ul y9, 2002, Scot tfi l ed hi s A m ended Com pl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he D i s t r i ctof M ont ana i n w hi ch he c l ai m ed thatt he governm enthad r et al i at ed agai ns thi m forhi s pr ot ect ed EE O act i vi t i es . T he ca s e w as t r ans ferr ed t o t he D i s t r i ctof W y om i ng, and on M ar ch 26, 2004, t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed t he g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. D I SC US SI ON I . St andard of R evi ew W e r evi ew de novo t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng on t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. S e e W e ld in g v . B io s C o rp ., 3 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 1 7 (1 0 th C i r . 2004) . Sum m ar yj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i on t r ans cr i pt s , aff

i davi t s and evi dent i ar ym at er i al s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C el ot ex C orp. v. C at r et t , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 23 (1 9 8 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t w ill b e g ra n ted to d e fe n d a n t if p lain tiff “ fa ils to m a k e a sh o w in g su fficie n t to e sta b lish th e e x iste n c e o f a n e lem e n t es se n tial to t hatpar t y ’ s cas e, and on w hi ch t hatpar t yw i l l beart he bur den of pr oof att r i al . ”T hi s C ourthad previ ous lyhel d thata retal i ati on pl ainti ff mustal l ege and prove 3 th at h e w a s s ub

je c t to an“ a dv e rs e e mp lo ym e nt a c tio n .” M ille r v . A uto . C lub o f N .M ., Inc. , 420 F. 3d 1098, 1119 ( 10th C ir . 2005) . U nderB url ington, thati s no l ongerthe c o rre c t stan d ard . In ste a d , to p re v a il o naT itl e V II re taliatio nc laim , a p laintiff n e e do n ly sh o w “ th at a r e a so n ab le e mp lo ye e w o u ldh av e f o un dth e c h a llen g e da c tio nm aterially advers e, ‘ w hi ch in thi s contextm eansitw el lm i ghthave “ di s s uaded areas onabl e w orker fromm aking ors upporting a charge of di s crim inati on. ” ’ ” B url ington, 126 S. C t . at2415 -6- C el ot ex C orp. , 477 U . S. at322. “Thus, t o s ur vi ve s um m ar yj udgm entt he pl ai nt i ff has t he bur den t o putfor t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o w ar r anta ver di ctas a mat t erof l aw ; a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence w i l l nots uffi ce. ” Lanm an v. J ohns on C ount y , 393 F .3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 4 -5 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). II . S c o tt’s R e ta lia tio n C la im L ike th e d istri ct co u rt , w e m u st ev alua te t h e m erit s o f th e d efen d an t’ s m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm entpur s uantt o t he s hi ft i ng al l ocat i on of bur dens of p ro o f se t fo rth in M c D o n n e ll D o u g las C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). F irst, t he bur den i s on t he pl ai nt i ff t o come for w ar d w i t h evi dence on everyel ement of hi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. See i d. at802. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on underT i t l e V I I , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonst r at e that( 1) he w as engage d i n pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on t o di s cr i m i nat i on; ( 2) t hata r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d have found t he cha l l enged a ct 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 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 . B u rl in g to n N . & Sant a Fe R y . C o. v. W hi t e, - - - U . S. - - - - , 126 S. C t . 2405 ( 2006) ; A r go v. B l ue C ro ss a n d B lu e S h ield o f K a n sa s, In c ., --- F .3 d ---, 2 0 0 6 W L 1 8 0 6 6 0 5 , at * 7 (1 0 th C i r . J ul . 3, 2006) . O nce the pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hes hi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, “the 3( quoting R ochon v. G onzal es , 438 F. 3d 1211, 1219 ( D . C . C ir . 2006) ( quoting W as hington

v . Il l. D ep ’to f R ev enu e, 42 0 F . 3 d6 5 8 , 6 6 2 (7thC ir . 2 0 0 5 )). -7- bur den s hi ft s t o t he empl oy ert o offe ra fa ci al l yl egi t i m at e r at i onal e fort he m at er i al l yadver s e ac t i on. T he bur den t hen s hi ft s back t o t he pl ai nt i ff t o s how t he empl oy er ’ s expl anat i on i s pr et ext . ” I d. at1120. In g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of the d efen d an t, the d istri ct co u rt r el i ed on t w o s epar at e r at i onal es t o s uppor ti t s rul i ng. Fi r s t , w hen ana l y zi ng Scot t ’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, t he di s t r i ctcour tfound t hathe had fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t he e x iste n c e o f

a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h is p ro tec ted a c tiv itya n d th e m a ter ially a d v e rse a c tio n . In re a c h in g th a t co n c lu sio n , the d istric t co u rt a p p lied th e “ b u tfor ” t es tadopt ed byt he Four t h, Fi ft h, Seventh, and N i nt h C i r cui tC our t s of A ppeal s . See, e. g. , V i l l i ar i m o v. A l oha I s l and A i r , I nc. , 281 F. 3d 1054, 1064- 65 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); D u n n v . N o rdstrom , Inc . , 2 6 0 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 4 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); M ayber r yv. V oughtA i r cr aftC o. , 55 F. 3d 1086, 1092 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) ; R os s v. C om m uni cat i ons Sat el l i t e C orp. , 759 F. 2d 355, 364 ( 4t h C i r . 1985) , abr ogat ed by P ri ce W at erhouse v . H op kins, 49 0 U . S . 22 8 (198 9). T his st and ard r equ i res a pl ai nt i ff t o pr ove “that‘ butfor ’ t he pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t ys he w oul d nothave be en s ubj ect ed t o t he ac t i on of w hi ch s he cl ai m s . ” J ack v. T exac o R es ear ch C t r . , 743 F. 2d 1129, 1131 ( 5t h C i r . 1984) . I n t he al t ernat i ve, t he di s t r i ctcour tal s o found t hatScot thad fa i l ed t o demonst r at e thatt he l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons p roffe red b ythe g o v ern m en t i n su p p o rto f th e m aterial lyad v erse ac ti o n w ere-8-

m e re p re tex t fo r d isc rim in a tio n . B e c a u se w e a g re e th a t S c o tt fa iled to d e mo n s t r a t e t h a tt h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s r e a s o n s fo rh i s t e r mi n a t i o n we r e p r e t e x tu a l , we need notr eac h t he ques t i on of w het hert he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have a ppl i ed the

“ b u t-fo r” tes t. U nderT ent h C i r cui tpr ece dent , a pl ai nt i ff maydemonst r at e thatt he empl oy er ’ s l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fort he mat er i al l yadver s e ac t i on i s m ere pr et ext bypo i nti ng t o “such w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i nco nsi st encies , i ncoher enci es , orcont r adi ct i ons i n t he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons for i t s act i on t hata r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d r at i onal l yfi nd t hem unw or t hyof cr edenc e and he nce i nferthatt he empl oy erdi d notactfort he as s er t ed n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s.” M o rg a n v . H ilt i, In c ., 1 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng O l s on v. G en. E l ec. A s t r os pace , 101 F. 3d 947, 951- 52 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 6 )). T yp ica lly , a p lain tiff m a ysh o w p re tex t in o n e o f th re e w a y s: (1 ) w ith e v id e n c e th a t d e fe n d a n t’s s tate d re a so n fo r th e [ m a ter ially adver s e ac t i on] w as fal s e; ( 2) w i t h evi dence t hatt he defendantact ed cont r ar yt o a w r i t t en companypol i cypr es cr i bi ng t he ac t i on t aken by th e d e fe n d a n t u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ; o r ( 3 ) w ith e v id e n c e th a t . . . he w as t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om ot hers i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed empl oy ees w ho viol at ed w ork rul es of co m parabl e ser i ou sness. K endr i ck v. Pens ke Tra ns p. Ser vs . , I nc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1230 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W i t h r egar d t o pr et ext , t he ques t i on i s w hethert he empl oy erhones t l ybel i eved i t s non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on. W hethert he empl oy er w as m i s t aken ori t s deci s i on fool i s h i s of no m om ent ; r at her , t he i s s ue i s w het her-9-

its p ro ffe re d re a so n is s in c e re . S to v e r v . M a rtin e z , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 7 6 (1 0 th C i r . 2004) . Fi nal l y , a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ovi de s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng t hatt he empl oy er ’ s r eas ons fori t s m at er i al l yadver s e ac t i on ar e pr et extual ; a gene r al i zed su sp icio n is n o t en o u g h . S a lg u e ro v . C ityo f C lo v is, 3 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In th is case , the g o v ern m en t offe rs t w o legiti m ate, no n -discrim inato ry r eas ons fort er m i nat i ng Scot t ’ s empl oy m ent . Fi r s t , t he governm enthas demonst r at ed t hatt he r es ear ch func t i ons per for m ed byScot t , as w el l as t he f u n d in g fo r th o se f

u n c tio n s, w e re tra n sfe rre d to th e N B S

— a n e n tirelyse p a ra te agenc y— l eavi ng Scot tw i t houtvi abl e empl oy m entatY el l ow s t one. T hus , t he bur den s hi ft s t o Scot tt o s etfor t h evi dence t o s uppor tan i nfer ence t hatt hi s r eas on forhi s t er m i nat i on w as m er e pr et ext . Scot tci t es t o defe ns e couns el ’ s openi ng s t at ement att he admi ni s t r at i ve hea r i ng t hat“ther e w as s t i l l t he w or k t o be done; t her e w as s t i l l funds fort he w or k t o be done” as evi dence t hatt hi s expl anat i on for his t erm i nati on w as pret extual . H ow ever, S cottm i sl eadingl yqu otes on l yt he fir st h alf o f d efen se c o u n sel’s sen tenc e, th e se co n d h alf o f w h ich s tat es: “b u t th e w o rk w as now t he r es pons i bi l i t yof N B S and notY el l ow s t one N at i onal Par k. T he funds w er e now i n t he bank forN B S and notY el l ow s t one N at i onal Par k. ” Thus, w hen vi ew ed as a w hol e, i ti s cl eart hatdefe ns e couns el ’ s s t at ement cont ai ns no c o n c e ss io n o r ju d icia l ad m iss io n a s S c o tt co n ten d s, b u t ra th e r is c o n sis ten t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o sitio n th a t th e w o rk a n d f u n d in g h a d b e e n tra n sfe rre d to-10-

a n o th e r a g e n c y , th e re b yju s tif y in g S c o tt’ s d is m is s a l f ro m Y e llo w s to n e . Scot tal s o ar gues t hatt her e i s no evi dence t hatanyot her“t er m ” or“nonpay , i nt er m i t t ents t atus ” empl oy ees w er e t er m i nat ed ea r l ydue t o t he tr ans ferof m o n e ya n d re s e a rc h to N B S , w h ic h in d ic a te s th a t h e re c e iv e d d is p a ra te tr e a tm e n t. Un d e rM c Do n n e l l Do u g l a s , h o we v e r , i ti s n o tt h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s b u r d e n t o c o me for w ar d w i t h evi dence t hati t s l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on i s not pr et extual

— t hati s , evi dence t hati tt r eat ed al l s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed empl oy ees t he sa m e a s S c o tt. R a th e r, S c o tt h a s th e a ffirm a tiv e b u rd e n to d e m o n stra te p re tex t. O ne pr i m ar ym et hod of doi ng s o i s t o s how t hathe w as t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om o ther sim il arly -si tuated em p loy ee s. S ee K en d ri ck , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). S c o tt h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n to c o m e fo rw a rd w ith su c h e v id e n c e , an d it i s nots uffi ci entforhi m m er el yt o poi ntt o t he abs ence of evi dence i n t he r ecor d. T he governm ental s o pr es ent ed evi dence of i t s s econd l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fort er m i nat i ng Scot t ’ s empl oy m ent : t hathe vi ol at ed M ont ana’ s hunt i ng l i cens e l aw s and t hats uch vi ol at i ons w er e both embar r as s i ng t o t he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce a nd i ncons i s t entw i t h Scot t ’ s r es ear ch on t he M ont ana- Y el l ow s t one Pr onghor n H er d. Scot tar gues t hatt hi s r eas on i s pr et extual beca us e ot herempl oy ees of t he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce e ngaged i n s i m i l ar i nfr act i ons y ets uffe r ed no mat er i al l yadver s e ac t i on. A gai n, Scot tfai l s t o poi nt t o evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor thi s as s er t i ons . Scot tar gues t hatan uni dent i fi ed “pa r k offi cer ” r ece i ved a c i t at i on fordr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence y et-11-

re c e iv e d n o p u n ish m e n t. H o w e v e r, S c o tt fa ils to c ite e v id e n c e th a t su p p o rts th is a ss e rtio n o r th a t ex p lain s h o w th e o ffice r w a s s im ilarlysitu a ted to S c o tt. S c o tt al s o poi nt s t o t es t i m onyt hati ndi cat es t hathi s s uper vi s or ’ s s on r ece i ved a c i t at i on fo r vio lat ing h u n ti n g law s, y et rece ived n o m aterial lyad v erse ac ti o n . H o w ev er, the testi m o n ythat S co ttcit es d o es n o t cl ea rl yind icate w h ethe r his su p erv isor’s s on w as even e m pl oy ed byY el l ow s t one att he t i m e of hi s vi ol at i on, w hatt he s cope of hi s empl oy m entw as , w hatt he natur e of hi s i nfr act i on w as , orw hatt he cons equenc es w er e t hathe mayhave s uffe r ed as a r es ul t . I n fac t , t he t es t i m ony th a t S c o tt cite s re v e a ls th a t th e w itn e ss e s q u e stio n e d o n th e to p ic h a d v e rylit tle i nfor m at i on aboutt he eve nti n ques t i on. Scot tal s o ar gues t hathi s i nfr act i ons w e re n o t se rio u s e n o u g h to ju stif yh is te rm in a tio n b e c a u se h is s u p e rv iso r h a d to “make hi s cas e” t o ot heroffi ci al s t hatScot ts houl d be t er m i nat ed. T he t es t i m ony S c o tt c ite s , h o w e v e r, s im p ly d o e s n o t s u p p o rt h is v e rs io n o f e v e n ts . Fi nal l y , Scot tci t es t o t es t i m onyfr om one governm entoffi ci al w ho s t at ed th a t S c o tt w a s n o t u lti m a telyd isc h a rg e d fo r h u n tin g lice n se v io latio n s. W h ile th is i s an accu rat e descri pti on of the offi ci al ’s t est i m on y , i tdo es nothi ng t o est abli sh pr et ext . T her e i s no di s put e i n t he r ecor d t hati ni t i al l yY el l ow s t one t er m i nat ed Scot t ’ s empl oy m entbeca us e of hi s vi ol at i ons of M ont ana hunt i ng l aw s , but u lt im atelyag ree d to ch an g e the o ffici al reaso n fo r his term ination to lack o f w o rk and l ack of

fundi ng. T he uncha l l enged e vi dence s how s t hatbot h l ack of fundi ng and w i l dl i fe r es our ce l aw vi ol at i ons w er e val i d r eas ons forendi ng t he-12-

empl oy m entr el at i ons hi p, and t hatul t i m at el yt he governm ents et t l ed on the fo rm e r a t S c o tt’s u rg in g . S c o tt h a s n o t co m e fo rw a rd w ith e v id e n c e to demonst r at e t hathi s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th M ont ana s t at e hunt i ng l aw s w as not t he t rue r eas on fort he mat er i al l yadver s e ac t i on. In lig h t o f

th e fo re g o in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in g ra n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. H a v in g c a re f u lly r evi ew ed t he br i efs , t he r ecor d, and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e A FFIRM t he j udgm ent o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt Ju d ith C . H errera D i s t r i ctJ udge