A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A p ril23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
RI CH AR D C . E NDE RWOOD,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. SI N CL A I R B RO A D CA ST G RO U P, I NC. ; M . W I LL I AM BUTL ER; DONAL D H. T HOMP S ON; KOKH, LL C, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6232 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 3 - 1 7 2 9 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

In th is e m p lo ym e n t-d isc rim in a tio n c a se , R ich a rd C . E n d e rw o o d a p p e a ls fr om di s t r i ctcour tor der s t hat( 1) gr ant ed the defendant s ’ s um m aryj udgm ent m ot i on on hi s fede r al age- di s cr i m i nat i on and s t at e w age c l ai m s ; and ( 2) di s m i s s ed-2-

hi s s t at e age - di s cr i m i nat i on and i nt er fer ence - w i th- contr actcl ai m s . W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. B AC KGROU ND S i nclai r B roadcastG roup, I nc. , ow ns nu m erous t el evis i on st at i on s, i ncl udi ng s t at i on K O K H i n O kl ahoma C i ty . K O K H i s aff i l i at ed w i th the Fox t el evi s i on netw or k. B i l l B ut l eri s Si ncl ai r ’ s vi ce- pr es i dentof gr oup pr ogr amm i ng and pr om ot i ons . H e s et s pr om ot i on pol i cyand s tr at egyand i s i n char ge of the op erat i ng , prom oti ng , and adv ert i si ng bu dg et s. Fox pr ovi des i t s aff

i l i at es w i th “gui del i nes , ” w hi ch “va ryforeac h Sw eeps R at i ng Per i od. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 3 at804. T he “r at i ngs ” r el at e t o the per cent age of hous ehol ds vi ew i ng a part i cul arpr ogr am, and the “s w eeps per i ods ” s erve as m eas ur es of adve r t i s i ng s al es . Si ncl ai rand i t s s t at i ons occa s i onal l ydepartfr om Fox’ s gui del i nes t o fur t hert hei row n i nt er es t s ; Si ncl ai revi dent l ybel i eves t hat th is is n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith th e F o x g u id e lin e s . In D ec em b er 2 0 0 0 , S inclair hired E n d erw o o d , w h o w as fifty -th ree y ea rs ol d, t o w or k as t he K O K H pr om ot i on m anage r . B ut l erappr oved a s al aryfor E n d e rw o o d th a t w a s $ 2 3 ,5 0 0 m o re th a n th e fo rm e r p ro m o tio n m a n a g e r’ s s a la ry. E nderw ood w as r es pons i bl e foral l fac et s of s t at i on pr om ot i on, w i th the goal of m ai nt ai ni ng r at i ngs and a pos i t i ve s t at i on i m age. I n J anuary2003, E nderw ood w as gi ven a $2, 500 r ai s e.-3-

B ut l erhad mont hl yconfe r ence cal l s w i th pr om ot i on m anage r s , i ncl udi ng E nderw ood. D ur i ng one s uch ca l l , B ut l ercompl ai ned of “ a mol e w ho w as pas s i ng i nform at i on on t o t he netw or ks , ” i d. at805, and he thr eat ened t o fi r e thatper s on w h e n h e d is c o v e re d w h o it w a s , i d. a t 7 2 8 . B u tler’ s th re a t w a s c o n sis ten t w ith S inclair’s w ri tt en em p loym en t po li cy , w h ich s tat es th at “[ a]n em p loy ee ’s di s cl os ur e of c onfi dent i al i nform at i on i s pr ohi bi t ed and w i l l notbe t ol er at ed. ” Id. at83 4. “C on fi den t i al i nfo rm at i on ” i s defi ned i n the poli cyas “pri ce l i st s, compensa t i on, per s onnel dat a, advert i s i ng, m arket i ng and pr om ot i onal i deas and s t r at egi es , cont es ti nform at i on, cus t om erl i s t s , fi nanci al ors ecur i t i es i nform at i on, pr ogr am sche dul es , pendi ng pr oj ect s orpr opos al s , r at e ca r ds , t echnol ogi cal dat a, contr act s , and r es ear ch and de vel opm ents tr at egi es . ” Id. at834. W hen E nd erw oo d w as hi red, he ack no w l edg ed in w ri t i ng his recei pt of Sincl ai rs ’ empl oym ent - pol i cym anual , and he a gr eed t o abi de byi t s “pol i ci es , rul es , and pr ocedur es . ” A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at47. S om et i m e aroun d M arch 20 03 , F ox request ed thati t s affi l i at es purchase tw o “ 1 0 0 p o in t sc h e d u les to p ro m o te T u e sd a y s in th e M a yS w e e p s P e rio d .” A p lt. A pp. , V ol . 3 at800. A ccor di ng t o E nderw ood, thi s w oul d pr es ent“an extr aor di naryconce nt r at i on of r at i ng[s ] . ” Id. at732. O n M arc h 5 , B u tl er instruc ted S inclair’s R eg ion al P rom o ti o n s M an ag er, M i ke H ans en, t hatSi ncl ai r ’ s s t at i ons s houl d onl ypur chas e one “ 100 poi nt s chedul e forpr om ot i ng T ues day s . ” Id. H a n se n se n t B u tler’ s in stru c tio n v ia e m a il-4-

to E n d erw o o d an d o ther p rom o ti o n m an ag ers. “[B ]ec au se [ h e] w as v ery c o n f u s e d ” b yth e e m a il, i d. at734, E nderw ood forw ar ded i tt o Fox r epr es ent at i ve T odd L ace y , as ki ng: “C onfi dent i al l y , w hati s [B ut l er ] t al ki ng about ? I thought y ou w ant ed one da y s w or t h on T ues dayand then w e pi ck w hi ch s pott o run on w hi ch s t at i on bas ed upon demogr aphi c cha r act er i s t i cs of ea ch s t at i on?” i d. at802; s ee als o i d. at 73 4 , 7 3 8 . L ac eyresp o n d ed : “[H ]e’s m isi n fo rm ed . [Y ]ou ca n ’t pi ck one ort he other . [Y ] ou’ l l have t o pur chas e al l of Tuesda y. . . a di ffe r ent buyforeac h s how . . . i t ’ s pr et t yw el l s pel l ed outi n the gui del i nes w e s ent . ” Id. at810 ( el l i ps es i n or i gi nal ) . A ccor di ng t o L ace y , B ut l er ’ s i ns truct i ons di d not com plyw i t h F ox gu i deli nes. A c c o rd in g to H a n se n , L a c e yso o n c a lled to d isc u ss th e e m a il’s c o n ten ts w i t h hi m . A ft erw ar d, H ans en not i fi ed B ut l erthats om eone ha d forw ar ded the emai l t o L ace y . B ut l ert hen enga ged Si ncl ai r ’ s vi ce- pr es i dentof hum an re s o u rc e s , D o n a ld T h o m p s o n , to fin d o u t w h o h a d fo rw a rd e d th e e m a il to L a c e y . A s ear ch of Si ncl ai r ’ s emai l - s erverl ogs r evea l ed Ender w ood as the s our ce. O n M ar ch 6, B ut l ert ol d T hom ps on and K O K H G ener al M anage rR andy P ra tt th a t E n d e rw o o d sh o u ld b e ter m in a ted fo r d isc lo sin g in ter n a l in fo rm a tio n to F o x . A d d iti o n a lly , eith e r B u tler o r T h o m p so n id e n tifie d E n d e rw o o d a s th e “ m o le w ith in th e o rg a n iza tio n . . . [w h o ] h a d b e e n lea k in g c o m p a n yin fo rm a tio n to out s i de s our ces . ” Id. at752- 53. Pr at tt erm i nat ed Ender w ood on M ar ch 7 and-5-

l a t e rh i r e d a t h i r t y - t wo - y e a r - o l d r e p l a c e me n t . En d e rwo o d c l a i ms th a ta tth e t i me of hi s t erm i nat i on he had a ccrued unus ed vac at i on t i m e w or th $2, 910. A fter ex h au sti n g ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies, E n d erw o o d su ed S inclair, KOKH, Bu t l e r , a n d T h o mp s o n i n fe d e r a l c o u r to n De c e mb e r1 9 , 2 0 0 3 . He as s er t ed fi ve cl ai m s : ( 1) vi ol at i on of the A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct ( A D E A ) , 29 U . S. C . §§ 621- 634; ( 2) vi ol at i on of O kl ahoma’ s A nt i - D i s cr i m i nat i on A ct( O A D A ) , O kl a. St at . t i t . 25, §§ 1301- 11; ( 3) fai l ur e t o payforacc rued and u n u se d v a c a tio n u n d e r O k la. S tat. A n n . ti t 4 0 § 1 6 5 .9 ; (4 ) in ter fe re n c e w ith h is empl oym entagr eementw i t h K O K H ; and ( 5) vi ol at i on of the O kl ahoma com m onl aw publ i c- pol i cyt or tpr ohi bi t i ng empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on i dent i fi ed i n B urk v. K- Mar tC or

p. , 77 0 P . 2d 24 , 29 (O kla. 19 89 ). T he d efen dan t s m ov ed to di sm i ss t he co m plai nt i n it s ent i rety , argui ng , am on g o ther things, that En derw oo d’s B urk claim fa il ed b ec au se th e A D E A p rov ided an ad eq u ate statutoryrem ed y . In E nderw ood’ s r es pons e t o t he mot i on, he oppos ed di s m i s s al of hi s othercl ai m s but con ceded t hat hi s B urkcl ai m w as w i thoutm er i t . A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at66 ( ci t i ng Lis tv. A nchorP ai ntM f g. C o. , 910 P. 2d 1011 ( O kl a. 1996) ( decl i ni ng t o ext end B urkto a g e -d is c ri m in a tio n c la im s ), abr ogat ed by Sai ntv. D ata Exch. , Inc. , 145 P. 3d 1037, 1038- 39 ( O kl a. 2006) ) . E nderw ood al s o obt ai ned l eave t o fi l e an amended compl ai nt . A ft erE nderw ood fi l ed the amended compl ai nt , w hi ch om i t t ed the B urkcl ai m butr et ai ned the otherfouror i gi nal cl ai m s , the di s tr i ct-6-

c o u rt d e n ied th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss a s m o o t, w ith o u t p reju d ice to r efi l i ng. T he defendant s nextm oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai nt . I n M ay 2 0 0 4 , the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e m o ti o n in p art, ruli n g that (1) E n d erw o o d ’s O A D A cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e the O A D A offe r s onl yan admi ni s tr at i ve r emedyfr om t he O klahom a H um an R i gh t s C om m i ssi on , w hich can is sue cease-and-desi st or der s ; and ( 2) t he i nt er fer ence - w i th- contr actcl ai m fai l ed bec aus e “But l erand T h o m p so n w e re a c tin g o n b e h a lf o f [ S in c lair] , w h o [ E n d e rw o o d ] a lleg e s is es s ent i al l yt he s ame ent i t yas [K O K H ] . ” Id. at266. A ft erconduct i ng di s covery , the defendant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent on E nderw ood’ s r emai ni ng t w o cl ai m s . I n J une 2006, the di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed t he mot i on, rul i ng t hat( 1) E nderw ood’ s A D E A cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e the d e fe n d a n ts’ s tate d re a so n fo r firin g E n d e rw o o d

— d isc lo sin g S in c lair’ s in ten t to notcompl yw i t h Fox’ s gui del i nes — w as nota pr et extforage di s cr i m i nat i on, and t her e w as no pat t ern orpr act i ce of age di s cr i m i nat i on atSi ncl ai rorK O K H ; and ( 2) E nderw ood’ s cl ai m r egar di ng vaca t i on payfai l ed bec aus e Si ncl ai r ’ s empl oy ee handbook pr ecl uded paym entforacc rued butunus ed l eave i f the empl oy ee w as t erm i nat ed forcaus e. E nd erw oo d n ow app eal s the fo ur di stri ctcou rtdeterm i nati on s. H e al so s e e k s to c e rt if

yth e v a c a tio n -p a yc la im to th e O k la h o m a S u p re m e C o u rt . W e-7-

aff i r m t he di s m i s s al of Ender w ood’ s cl ai m s fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , a n d w e d e n y h i s m o t i o n t o c e r t i f y. D I SC US SI ON I . St andar ds of R evi ew W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm entde novo, u s in g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd a p p lic a b le in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B aca v. Sklar , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n ly “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par tyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof law .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W h ile “ [ w ]e re so lv e a ll fa c tu a l d isp u tes a n d d ra w a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the non- m ovi ng par ty , ” McG ow an v. C i t y of E u fa la , 472 F. 3d 736, 741 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , “[m]e r e al l egat i ons uns uppor t ed by f u rt h e r e v id e n c e ” w ill n o t p re v e n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, B aca , 398 F. 3d at1216. A d d iti o n a lly , w e “ re v iew [ ] a d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g a m o tio n to di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m de novo. ” L ovellv. Stat e Farm Mut. A uto. Ins. C o. , 4 6 6 F .3 d 8 9 3 , 8 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). In d o in g so , “[ w ]e a c c e p t all w el l - pl eade d fac tual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntas t rue and vi ew t hem i n the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the n o n m o v ing p arty , ” a ffirm ing “o n lyw h en itap p ea rs th a t th e p lain tiff

c a n p ro v e n o se t o f

fa c ts in su p p o rt o f

th e c laim s th a t w o u ld ent i t l e the pl ai nt i ff t o r el i ef. ” Id. at 89 8 -99 (qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted).-8- I I . Th e ADEA Cl a i m T he thr ee- s t age f

r amew or k cr aft ed i n McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U. S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 - 0 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a p p l i e s t o ADEA d i s c r i mi n a t o ry - d i s c h a r g e c l a i ms th a t a re p re m is e d o n in d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . Mc Kn ig h t v. K im b e rly C l ark C or

p. , 149 F. 3d 1125, 1128 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . U nderthatfr amew or k, the p lain tiff m u st in iti a llyp ro v e a “ p rim a fa c ie c a se b ye sta b lish in g th a t h e w a s: ( 1) w i t hi n t he age gr oup pr ot ect ed bythe A D E A w hen he w as t erm i nat ed, ( 2 ) p e r fo r m i n g h i s j o b s a t i s fa c t o r i l y, ( 3 ) d i s c h a r g e d , a n d ( 4 ) r e p l a c e d b y a y oungerper s on. ” Mi l l e rv . Eby Rea l t y G r ou p LLC , 396 F. 3d 1105, 1111 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I f a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s es t abl i s hed, a pr es um pt i on of di s cr i m i nat i on ar i s es , r equi r i ng t he empl oy ert o pr oduce a l egi t i m at e, n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n fo r t h e d is c h a rg e . Id. Fi nal l y , “[i ] f the empl oy er pr offe r s a l egi t i m at e r eas on, t he empl oy ee then mustpr ove, bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , t hatt he empl oy er ’ s expl anat i on i s m er el ya pr et extforunl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. E nderw ood pr ocee ds di r ect l yt o the fi nal s t age of McD onnel lD ouglas , arg u ing that there are “m an yco n tr ad ict ion s d em o n str ati n g p retex t. ” A p lt . B r. at9. P ret ext “can be sho w n b ysuch w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i nco nsi st encies , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n the 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 them unw or thyof cr edenc e and he nce i nferthatt he empl oy erdi d notactforthe as s er t ed-9-

non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons . ” R i ver a v. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 365 F. 3d 912, 925 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hi l e r evi ew i ng forpr et ext , w e do not “actas a super pers on nel departm ent that s econ d g uesses em ploy ers ’ busi ness j udgm ent s . ” Sim m s v. O kl a. ex rel . D ep’tof MentalHealth & Su bstan ce A bu se Servs. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 3 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). M o reo v er, “mer e conj ectur e thatt he[ ] empl 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 an i ns uffi ci entbas i s fordeni al of s um m aryj udgm ent . ” P al ochko v . Manvi l l e C or p. , 21 F. 3d 981, 982 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on o m itted). E nderw ood s ugges t s he has demonstr at ed pr et ext , s et t i ng outa conf us i ng and conf

l i ct i ng l i t anyof cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng: the Fox r epr es ent at i ve’ s r ecol l ect i on of the ca l l t o H ans en; t he di s cr epanc yas t o w ho m ade the t erm i nat i on deci s i on; Si ncl ai r ’ s fai l ur e t o compl ai n aboutthe emai l ; the al t er at i on of the emai l ; and, fi nal l y , t hatt he company ’ s pol i cyr evea l s a patt ern of age di s cr i m i nat i on. E n d e rw o o d first c ites F o x re p re se n tativ e L a c e y ’s in a b ili tyw h e n d e p o se d to re c a ll t e lep h o n in g H a n se n a b o u t th e su bjec t em a il. B u t L a c e ya lso tes tifie d to “bus i nes s r el at ed” t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i th H ans en, A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 5 at 1 1 1 8 , a n d th a t h e w o u ld n o t d o u b t H a n s e n ’s re c o lle c tio n o f th e c a ll, i d. a t 1 1 0 9 . A s w e n o ted a b o v e , H a n se n tes tifie d th a t sh o rtlya f ter h e se n t th e e m a il t o E n d erw o o d , L ac eyca ll ed to d iscu ss it . In a n yev en t, the re leva n ce o f L ac ey ’s m emoryl aps e i s s us pect . E ven i f Laceydi d notcal l H ans en, the fa ctr emai ns t hat-10-

E n d e rw o o d fo rw a rd e d th e e m a il t o L a c e y . T h e m a n n e r b yw h ich H a n se n a c tu a lly l earned o f t he fo rw ardi ng say s l i t t l e abo ut w hetherE nd erw oo d w as fi red becau se of hi s age. E nderw ood al s o r efe r ence s L ace y ’ s bel i ef thatnothi ng i n the emai l r evea l ed a “pr om ot i on s t r at egy . ” Id. at 11 2 2 . B u t L ac ey ’s be li efs are , as th e d istri ct co u rt not ed, m os t l yi r r el evant . I n a di s cr i m i nat oryt erm i nat i on cas e, i ti s the e m p lo y e r’ s b e lie fs th a t c o u n t. See Sor bo v. Uni t ed Parce lSer v. , 432 F. 3d 1169, 1178 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( s t at i ng t hatthe r el evanti nqui ry“conc erns the bel i ef of t he em ploy er that the em ploy ee eng aged i n m i scond uct, no tw hetherthe actual fact s, as s how n byevi dence extr i ns i c t o the empl oy er ’ s as s es s m ent , m ayhave be en o th e rw ise ” ); R i vera , 365 F. 3d at925 ( “I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe pr offe r ed r eas on fora dec i s i on w as pr et extual , w e exa m i ne the fa ct s as theyappea rt o the p erso n m ak ing the d ec isi o n . ” (q u o tat ion o m itted)). E nderw ood nextatt empt s t o i dent i fya di s cr epanc yas t o w ho m ade the ul t i m at e t erm i nat i on deci s i on. H um an r es our ces vi ce- pr es i dentT hom ps on t es t i fi ed that“Pr at t[the K O K H G ener al M anage r ] ul t i m at el ym ade the fi nal deci s i on, ” buthe i m m edi at el ycl ar i fi ed, “W el l , i tw as a col l abor at i ve di s cus s i on. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 5 at1153. A nd Pr at tt es t i fi ed thatpr ogr amm i ng- and- pr om ot i ons v ice-p reside n t B u tl er’s d ir ec ti v e to fir e E n d erw o o d o cc u rred w h il e h e (P ratt ), T h o m p so n , an d B u tl er w ere d iscu ssing w h at t o d o ab o u t E n d erw o o d ’s disclo su re to L a c e y . Id. at1146- 47. W e do nots ee a confl i ctbetw een Pr at tand-11-

T hom ps on’ s t es t i m ony . A nd even i f w e as s um e thatPr at tand Thom ps on offe r ed di ffe r i ng t es t i m onyr egar di ng “w ho had had the fi nal s ays o i n t erm i nat i ng R i char d E nderw ood, ” i d. at1153, thatdoes nots ugges tanys or tof age - r el at ed anim us. E nderw ood fur t hercl ai m s pr et exti n Si ncl ai r ’ s fai l ur e t o compl ai n thathe al s o forw ar ded the s ubj ectemai l t o a K O K H advert i s i ng agent . E nderw ood cont ends t hatt hi s pr oves he di d notvi ol at e companypol i cy . A gai n w e s ee no r el evantconnec t i on t o pr et ext . A di s cl os ur e t o a K O K H advert i s i ng agentthat B utl er i ntended t o d eviat e from F ox ’s gu i deli nes i s not the sam e t hing as a dis cl osure of thati ntent i on t o the veryenti tyi nter est ed in enfo rci ng tho se g u id e lin e s. M o re o v e r, P ra tt an d B u tler te stified th a t E n d e rw o o d ’s d isc lo su re to F o x v io la te d c o m p a n yp o lic y . See i d. , V o l. 3 a t 7 6 3 (P ra tt d e p o sitio n ); i d. at806 (B u tl er a ffidav it ). E nderw ood al s o ci t es ( 1) hi s depos i t i on t es t i m onythatPr at ts eemed reluc tant to fir e h im ; and (2) the d ep o sit ion test im o n yo f a K O K H n ew s d ir ec tor, w h o t o l d E n d e r w o o d t h a th i s t e r m i n a t i o n w a s u nj u s t i fi e d . T h i s e v i d e n c e s a ys not hi ng of pr et extw hen vi ew ed i n cont ext . Fi r s t , Pr at tt es t i fi ed thathe “a g o n ized ” a b o u t fi ri n g E n d erw o o d an d that “itw as n o t a ha p p yd ayfo r [h im ]” b e c a u se h e a n d E n d e rw o o d w e re f rie n d s a n d h a d k n o w n e a c h o th e r fo r tw e n ty y e a rs . Id. at756. Second, t he new s di r ect ort es t i fi ed thathe t ol d E nderw ood that-12-

t he t erm i nat i on w as unj us t i fi ed bec aus e “he fel ts orryfor[Ender w ood] . ” Id. , V ol . 5 at1170. N ext , E nderw ood as s ert s t hatthe “e m ai l w as al t er ed. ” A pl t . B r . at11. B ut he does noti dent i fyt he purpor t ed al t er at i on. A nd dur i ng hi s depos i t i on, he e x te n s iv e ly d is c u s s e d th e e m a il, n e v e r m e n tio n in g a n ya lte ra tio n to its c o n te n t. A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 3 a t 7 3 3 -3 5 , 7 3 8 -3 9 . M o re o v e r, h e a d m its fo rw a rd in g th e e m a il to L a c e y . Id. at738. E nderw ood fur t hercont ends thathe has adduce d a patt ern of age di s cr i m i nat i on. E vi dence of pr et extm ayi ncl ude the empl oy er ’ s pol i cyand p ra c tic e re g a rd in g its e m p lo ym e n t o f p e rs o n s in th e p ro te c te d a g e g ro u p . See G ar r et tv. Hew l et t - P ackard C o. , 305 F. 3d 1210, 1217 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . B ut beca us e “pa t t ern and pr act i ce e vi dence s t andi ng al one w i l l r ar el ys uffi ce t o s how pr et ext , ” O r t izv. Nor t on , 2 5 4 F . 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted), w e h a v e c a u tio n e d e m p lo y e e s to p ro d u c e “ re lia b le e v id e n c e o n th e s e p o in ts ,” P i ppi n v. B ur l i ngt on R es . O i l& G as C o. , 4 4 0 F . 3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s e v id e n c e o f

a d isc rim in a to ryp a ttern , E n d e rw o o d c ites h is a ffid a v it test im o n ythat h e b ec am e c o n ce rne d in late 20 0 2 “tha t th ere w as a ‘hitli st’ ” agai ns tol derempl oy ees , i ncl udi ng hi m s el f. A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 5 at1074. B uthe has “neve rs een the l i s t , ” i d. , V ol . 7 at1541, and he doe s notaddr es s how bei ng on s uch a l i s ts quar es w i t h t he fa ct s thathe w as hi r ed w hen he w as fi fty - thr ee, he w as pai d a s al arys ubs t ant i al l ym or e than hi s pr edec es s or , and he w as gi ven a-13-

r a i s e i n J a n u a r y2 0 0 3 . He a l s o d i r e c t s o u ra t t e n t i o n t o th e a ffi d a v i t s o f two form er“[m]a s t er[c] ont r ol s [o] per at or [s ] ” atK O K H w ho offe r ed thei rbel i efs t hat o ld e r e m p lo y e e s “ w e re b e in g sin g led o u t an d tre a ted u n fa ir[ ly ]” so th e yw o u ld q u it. Id. , V o l. 5 a t 1 0 7 7 ; i d. at1081. N ei theroper at oroffe r ed anyfoundat i onal s uppor tforhi s bel i ef, how ever , otherthan hi s ow n r es i gnat i on, and onl yone of th e o p e ra to rs w a s in th e p ro te c te d a g e g ro u p w h e n h e re s ig n e d , s ee 2 9 U. S . C. § 6 3 1 (a ) ( a p p lyin g th e p ro te c tio n s o f th e A D E A to p e rs o n s fo rt ya n d o ld e r) . W e concl ude thatt hi s evi dence does notr el i abl yi ndi cat e a pa t t ern of age d is c ri m in a tio n . See A nt oni o v. Sygm a Netw ork, Inc. , 458 F. 3d 1177, 1184 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“[A ] plainti ff ’s m ere co njecture that [th e] e m p loy 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 an i ns uffi ci entbas i s for d en ial o f su m m aryjud g m en t. ” (q u o tat ion o m itted)); Mar t i nezv. W yo. , D ep’ tof Fam i l y Servs. , 218 F. 3d 1133, 1137 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( “Specul at i on, of cour s e, d o e s n o t su ffice fo r e v id e n c e .”); see also Vanas co v. Nat i onal

- Louis Uni v. , 137 F. 3d 962, 967 ( 7t h C i r . 1998) ( s t at i ng that“evi dence of s catt er ed dec i s i ons ei t herfavor i ng ordi s favor i ng ol derempl oy ees r evea l s l i t t l e aboutthe [empl oy er ’ s ] pr oces s es and i s cert ai nl yi ns uffi ci ent , w i thoutm or e, t o pr ove a p att ern o f a g e d iscri m ination ”). W e conc l ude thatno r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd pr et extfr om the evi dence offe r ed byE nderw ood.O ne mont h aft ert he di s t r i ctcourtent er ed s um m aryj udgm ent , r es ol vi ng t he 1 r emai nderof Ender w ood’ s cl ai m s , t he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our text ended the B urkt or tt o “thos e w ho al l ege e m pl oym entage di s cr i m i nat i on. ” See Sai nt , 145 P .3 d a t 1 0 3 9 , ab roga t i ngL ist , 910 P. 2d at1014. W hi l e w e “mustr evi ew t he D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in lig h t o f p re se n tlye x istin g [ sta te] law , n o t th e law in effectatt he t i m e thatj udgm entw as r ender ed, ” Fusari v. Stei nb erg , 419 U . S. 379, 38 7 (197 5), w e rei t erat e t hat En derw oo d’s B urk cl ai m w as r em ov ed from t his case byE nderw ood. C ons equent l y , t her e i s no di s tr i ctcourtrul i ng r egar di ng B urkfor us t o r evi ew . -14- I I I . O kl ahoma A nt i - D i s cr i m i nat i on L aw E nderw ood ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s O A D A and B urk cl ai m s. B ut the d i stri ctcou rtdid not di sm i ss hi s B urkc laim ; ra th e r, in r es pons e t o t he defendant s ’ fi r s tm ot i on t o di s m i s s , E nderw ood con ceded

— perhap s prem aturel y— that hi s B urkcl ai m “ha[ d] no bas i s under O kl ahoma l aw , ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at66, and he a bandoned the cl ai m byfi l i ng an a m e n d e d c o m p la in t th a t c o m p le te ly o m itte d it, s ee D avis v. TXO P r od. C or p. , 929 F. 2d 1515, 1517 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( obs ervi ng that“an a m ended c om pl ai nt or di nar i l ys uper s edes t he or i gi nal and r ender s i tof no l egal effect ” ( quot at i on o m itt e d )). A n d w h ile th e d istric t co u rt d id d ism iss E n d e rw o o d ’s O A D A c laim in

1 r es pons e t o t he defendant s ’ s econd mot i on t o di s m i s s , i tcorr ect l yrul ed thatt he O A D A does notpr ovi de anyt hi ng m or e than an a dm i ni s tr at i ve r emedyforage d is c ri m in a tio n . See Sai nt , 1 4 5 P .3 d a t 1 0 3 8 -3 9 ; Tat e v. B r ow ni ng- Fer r is , Inc. , 8 3 3 P . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 9 (O k la. 1 9 9 2 ).-15- I V . V aca t i on Pay E nderw ood r el i es on B iggs v. Sur r ey Broadc as t i ng C o. , 811 P. 2d 111 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1991) , forhi s cl ai m forvaca t i on pay . “W hi l e notbi ndi ng on t hi s cour t , deci s i ons bya s t at e’ s i nt erm edi at e appe l l at e court s pr ovi de evi dence of how t he s t at e’ s hi ghes tcourtw oul d rul e on the i s s ue, and w e ca n cons i derthem as s uch. ” Com bs v . Pr i c e Wat e r ho us e Coope rs LLP , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 0 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). W e g e n e ra llyfo llo w in ter m e d iate ru lin g s in th e a b se n c e o f

“ o th e r p e rsu a siv e d a ta th a t th e h ig h e st c o u rt o f th e sta te w o u ld deci de otherw i s e. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T o begi n, E nderw ood bel at edl ys eeks t o cert i fythe ques t i on t o the O k lah o m a S u p re m e C o u rt. W e d e n yE n d e rw o o d ’s m o tio n to c e rtify th is iss u e to t he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our t , as “[w ] e gene r al l yw i l l notcert i fyques t i ons t o a s t at e s upr eme cour tw hen the r eques t i ng partys eeks cert i fi cat i on onl yaft er havi ng r ece i ved an a dver s e dec i s i on fr om the di s tr i ctcour t . ” P a rkUn iv . E n te rs ., Inc. v. A m . C as . C o. of R eadi ng, P a. , 442 F. 3d 1239, 1242 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . M or eover , “[w ] hethert o cert i fya ques t i on of s t at e l aw t o t he s t at e s upr eme cour ti s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the fe der al court , ” O l i ver os v. Mitch e ll , 4 4 9 F . 3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) , a n d we decl i ne t o exer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on her e, gi ven the cl ar i tyof the r egul at i ons and the t erm s of Si ncl ai r ’ s empl oym entpol i cy , w hi ch Ender w ood agr eed t o.T he l egi s l at i ve amendm ent s t o s ect i ons 165. 3 and 165. 1, effect i ve 2 N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a re n o t r e tr o a c tiv e , a n d th e re fo re , a re in a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e . O k la. S tat. tit . 4 0 , § § 1 6 5 .1 & 1 6 5 .3 (A ) (W e st S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); s ee als o 2005 O kl a. L aw s , ch. 359, § 2. -16- T ur ni ng t o t he mer i t s of the cl ai m , i n B iggs , the O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C iv il A ppeal s hel d t hata fi r ed empl oy ee w as ent i t l ed t o paym entforunus ed vac at i on t i m e, even though t he empl oy er ’ s l eave pol i cyl i m i t ed paym ent“t o s i tuat i ons w h ere the e m p loy ee g ives tw o w ee k s’ no ti ce . ” 8 1 1 P . 2 d at 11 4 . T h e c o u rt r eas oned thatnotonl yw as t he fi r ed empl oy ee una bl e t o compl yw i th the empl oy er ’ s pol i cy , butt hatt he O kl ahoma st atut e r equi r i ng paym entof an empl oy ee’ s w ages upon t he end of empl oym ent , O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 40, § 165. 3, l acke d an “i nvol unt aryt erm i nat i on exce pt i on. ” B iggs , 811 P. 2d at114 . We c o n c lu d e th a t B iggs i s n o td i s p o s i t i v e o f En d e rwo o d ’ s c l a i m. I n t he af t erm ath of B iggs , § 165. 3 has been c l ar i fi ed byr egul at i on. W hen E n d erw o o d w as fir ed in 2 0 0 3 , § 1 6 5 . 3 rea d , “W h en ev er a n em p loy ee ’s em ploym ent t erm i nates , t he em ploy er s hall paythe em ploy ee’s w ages i n fu l l , l ess offs et s . . . . ” O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 40, § 165. 3( A ) ( W es t 1999) . “W ages ” i ncl ude 2 v a c a tio n p a y“ w h ich [ is] e a rn e d a n d d u e , o r p ro v id e d b yth e e m p lo y e r to h is empl oy ees i n an es t abl i s hed pol i cy . ” Id. § 1 6 5 . 1 ( 4 ) . Th e Ok l a h o ma C om m i s s i onerof Labor , w ho i s char ged w i th “enfor c[i ng] and “a dm i ni s t er [i ng] t he pr ovi s i ons of [Ti t l e 40] , ” i d. § 165. 7( A ) , has cl ar i fi ed the def i ni t i on of “w ages ” i n t hr ee c r i t i cal r es pect s . Fi r s t , w ages ar e not“ea rned and due ” i f a-17-

“condi t i on[ ] pr ece dentt o paym ent ” has notbeen met . O kl a. A dm i n. C ode § 380: 30- 1- 2. Second, an “e s t abl i s hed pol i cy ” i ncl udes a w r i t t en empl oym ent p o lic y . Id. A n d th ird , an yc o n d iti o n s re g a rd in g v a c a tio n b e n e fits “ c o n tain e d in a w ritten p o licysig n e d b yth e e m p lo y e e ” m u st b e sa tisfied b e fo re “ th e b e n e fit becomes partof w ages earned and due . ” Id. § 3 8 0 :3 0 -1 -8 (e ); s ee als o i d. § 380: 30- 1- 5( 4) ( s t at i ng t hatt he “D epart m ents hal l r ej ectany[ac crued- l eave ] cl ai m i f the . . . cl ai m anthas fai l ed t o m eetal l condi t i ons pr ece dentr equi r ed for s uch paym ent ”) . T hus , an empl oy er ’ s w r i t t en pol i cy , s i gned bythe empl oy ee, w hi ch condi t i ons paym entforunus ed vac at i on t i m e on the empl oy ee notbei ng t erm i nat ed forcaus e, w i l l defe atan ac crued- l eave cl ai m br oughtbyan empl oy ee t erm i nat ed forcaus e. B eca us e Si ncl ai r ’ s empl oym entpol i cy , w hi ch Ender w ood a g re e d to , p re c lu d e s “ p a ym e n t fo r u n u se d v a c a tio n . . . to a n e m p lo y e e w h o . . . is di s m i s s ed forcaus e, ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 3 at846, and bec aus e Ender w ood has not i dent i fi ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o di s put e hi s t erm i nat i on forcaus e, hi s cl ai m for vacati on payfai l s. V . T or t i ous I nt er fer ence T o p l ead a c l ai m for t ort i ou s i nter ference w i th co ntr actor busi ness r el at i ons , t he pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that( 1) he had a contr actual orbus i nes s r i ght t hatw as i nt er fer ed w i t h; ( 2) t he i nt er fer ence w as m al i ci ous and w r ongful ; ( 3) t he i nt er fer ence w as nei t herj us t i fi ed, pr i vi l eged norexcus abl e; and ( 4) the in te rfe re n c e p ro x im a te ly ca u s e d d a m a g e . Mac Adj us tm ent, Inc. v. P r op.-18-

Loss R es ear ch Bureau , 5 9 5 P .2 d 4 2 7 , 4 2 8 (O k la . 1 9 7 9 ). F u rt h e r, a w r ongful - i nt er fer ence cl ai m “ca n ar i s e onl yw hen one w ho i s nota partyt o a contr acti nt er fer es w i t h t hatcontr actbyconvi nci ng one of the contr act i ng part i es t o br eac h i t s t erm s . ” Voi l es v. Santa Fe Mi ner als , Inc. , 911 P. 2d 1205, 1210 ( O kl a. 1996) . T hus , an age ntof a pr i nci pal cannotbe hel d l i abl e fori nt er fer i ng w ith a c o n tr a c t b e tw e e n th e p ri n c ip a l a n d a n o th e r p a rt y . Mar t i n v. Johns on , 975 P. 2d 889, 896 ( O kl a. 1998) . B uti f the age ntact s out s i de the s cope of the a g e n c y , h e c a n b e h e ld lia b le . Id. at896- 97 & 897 n. 8. W e conc l ude that En d e r wo o d ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s a r e fa t a l t o h i s i n t e r fe r e n c e c l a i m. I n t he amended compl ai nt , he al l eged thathum an r es our ces vi ce- pr es i dent T hom ps on, act i ng on B ut l er ’ s advi ce a nd Si ncl ai r ’ s behal f, “w r ongful l yi nduced [ K O K H ] t o b re a c h its e m p lo ym e n t a g re e m e n t w ith [ h im ].” A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 1 a t 9 7 . B u t h e a ls o a lle g e d th a t S in c la iro w n e d K O K H , i d. at95, thatB ut l erand T h o m p s o n w e re S in c la ire m p lo y e e s “ a c tin g in th e s c o p e o f th e ire m p lo ym e n t,” i d. a t 1 0 0 , a n d th a t h e re p o rt e d to B u tle r, i d. at96 . B ased on these al l egati on s, no t hi r d par t yi nt er fer ed w i t h t he K O K H / E nderw ood contr act : Si ncl ai rand K O K H w ere b asica ll yind ist ing u isha b le fo r pu rpo ses o f E n d erw o o d ’s e m p lo ym e n t, a n d B u tle r a n d T h o m p s o n p ro p e rl ya c te d a s S in c la ir ’s a g e n ts . E nderw ood cannots t at e a vi abl e i nt er fer ence cl ai m byes s ent i al l yal l egi ng that S in c lair in ter fe re d w ith its o w n c o n tra c t.-19-

T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge