# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 26 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Je ss ic a Bro wn

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Div ers ifi ed Dis tri bu ti on Sy st em s, LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 4, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BRIGHT an d M URPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je ss ic a Bro wn br ou gh t th is act io n ag ai n s t h er em pl oyer, Div ers ifi ed

D i st rib ut io n Sy st em s, al le gi ng th at sh e was de m ot ed an d te rm in at ed in vi ol at io n of

t h e F a m il y an d Med ic al Leav e Act ("F MLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 01 –2 65 4. Sh e a l s o
br ou gh t cl ai m s un de r two Mi nn es ot a em pl oym en t st at ut es , Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33 an dMi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 61

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Div ers ifi ed

on all cla im s. We affir m

in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt.

I.

Div ers ifi ed is a su pp ly ch ai n com pa ny th at acq ui res a va rie ty of pr od uc ts fo r

co m m erci al r e t a i l e rs an d ot he r bu si ne ss es

. In 20 02 Bro wn be ga n wor ki ng fo r
Div ers ifi ed as a cu st om er s e rv ic e rep res en ta ti ve

. Sh e was la te r pr om ot ed to th e

po si ti on of ba ck up acco un t ex ecu ti ve

. Su ch "b ack up " acco un t ex ecu ti ve s s u p p o rt

acco un t ex ecu t i v e s who are on si ck le av e or ta ki ng pe rs on al ti m e. Unl ik e acco un t

ex ecu ti ve s, ba ck

up s rare ly in te ract di rect ly wit h ret ai le rs

. Bac ku p em pl oyees are no t

as si gn ed in di vi du al cu st om er acc o u n t s , bu t th ey m us t de ve lo p fam il ia rit y wit h th e

acco un ts a nd pe rfo rm su pp or t ro le s in cl ud in g tra in in g an d syste m s de ve lo pm en t.

Bro wn rece iv ed ex cel le nt rev ie ws as a b a c k up acco un t ex ecu ti ve an d di sp la y ed

pa rti cu la r ap ti tu de for tra in in g o th er em pl oyees.

In 20 09 Bro wn was pr om ot ed fro m he r ba ck up po si ti on to acco un t ex ecu ti ve

. Her pr om ot io n in cl ud ed th ree sc he du le d pa y rai se s th at were co nt in ge nt on he r

pe rfo rm an ce m eet in g ex pe ct at io ns

. In co nt ras t to he r st ro ng pe rfo rm an ce in he r

su pp or t ro le

, Bro wn at fir st st ru gg le d as an acco un t ex ecu ti ve

. Her pe rfo rm an ce

rev ie ws sh ow th at sh e rep eat ed ly m ad e se rio us reco rd ke ep in g erro rs th at em ba rras se d

Div ers ifi ed an d ne arl y cau se d m ajor rev en ue lo ss

. Bec au se sh e wa s n o t m eet in g

ex pe ct at io ns , on e o f he r sc he du le d p ay rai se s was de la y ed by six m on th s.

Bro wn to ok twel ve week s of FMLA le av e in 20 10 aft er rece iv in g a br eas t

can cer di ag no si s. Her pe rfo rm an ce rev ie ws no te d th at sh e ha d be en un ab le to pr ov e
sh e co ul d su ccee d as an acco un t ex ecu ti ve be fo re sh e wen t on le av e, bu t he r m an ag ers

w a n t e d t o gi ve he r an ot he r ch an ce. Div ers ifi ed pr ov id ed Bro wn wit h ad di ti on a l

tra in in g aft er sh e ret u r n e d f r om le av e, an d he r rev ie ws in 20 11 no te d im pr ov em en t

in he r wor k. In Ju ne 20 11 , D i v e r s ifi ed was na m ed "Ven do r of th e Year" by o ne of

-2

-it s cl ie nt s, Urb an Out fit te rs , an d Bro wn was sp eci fic al ly co ng rat ul at ed fo r he r wor k.

Bro wn's Ju ly 20 11 pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w, th e la st on e sh e rece i v e d be fo re go in g on

pr eg na nc y le av e , w a s p o si ti ve , no ti ng th at sh e "k no ws th e syste m well " an d ha d

"i de nt ifi ed th e be st way to w o r k wit h each co nt act at each acco un t." Alt ho ug h

Bro wn's rev ie ws st il l id en ti fie d area s fo r im pr ov em en t, th e co m

pa ny gr an te d he r th e
de la y ed pa y

rai se

.

At th e en d of 20 11 Div ers ifi ed was pu rch as ed by a new own er, Ji m Mu rp hy.

Aro un d th e sa m e ti m e, Su sa n Kos te ck y be cam e Bro wn's su pe rv is or in th e acco un t

ex ecu ti ve de pa rtment. Mu rp hy to ld hi s m an ag ers , in cl ud in g Kos te ck y , to ran k th ei r

em pl oyees an d di sc ha r ge th e lo wes t pe rfo rm ers

. The su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd

sh ows th at on Ja nu ary 9, 20 12

, Kos te ck y m et wit h Div ers ifi ed 's Hum an Re s o u r c es
Dire ct or , Mar y Lou is e Pi rk l, to di sc us s em pl oyee pe rfo rm an ce a n d a p r o po se d

reo rg an iz at io n of th e acco un t ex ecu ti ve de pa rtment. Kos te ck y an d Pi rk l de te rm in ed

th at Bro wn was un de rp erfo rm in g as an acco un t ex ecu ti ve , an d th ey di sc us se d m ov in g
he r to a res tru ct ur ed ba ck up acco un t ex ecu ti ve po si ti on

. In co nt ras t to th e ba ck up

ro le Bro wn ha d or ig in al ly oc c u p i e d, th e ne w po si ti on in cl ud ed si gn ifi can t tra in in g

an d acco un t m an ag em en t res po ns ib il it ie s. It al so of fere d pa y an d b e n e f

it s eq ua l to

th os e p ro vi de d t o a cco un t ex ecu ti ve s.

In l at e Ja nu ary 20 12 be fo re Ko st eck y ha d t ol d B ro wn ab ou t th e n ew ba ck up

po si ti on , Bro wn in fo rm ed Div ers ifi ed th at sh e was pr eg na nt

, th at he r pr eg na nc y was

hi gh ris k, an d th at sh e ne ed ed to at te nd freq ue nt m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts du rin g th e

w o r k w e e k. Div ers ifi ed acco m m od at ed th es e ap po in tm en ts an d al lo wed Bro wn t o

wor k fro m ho m e at ni gh t to m ak e up ti m e sh e m is se d, en a b l i n g h e r to av oi d ta ki ng
FMLA leav e be fo re her ch il d was bo rn in Ju ne 20 12 . Giv en th e h ig h ri sk na tu re o f

Bro wn's pr eg na nc y , P irk l cl ai m s to ha ve to ld Kos te ck y th at th ey sh ou ld wait to te ll

Bro wn ab ou t he r r e a s s i gn m en t un ti l aft er sh e ret ur ne d fro m le av e to av oi d cau si ng
ad di ti on al st res s.

-3

-In Ju ne 20 12 U r b a n Out fit te rs ag ai n na m ed Div ers ifi ed it s "Ven do r of th e

Year." Acco rd in g to th e Urb an Out fit te rs pu rch as in g m an ag er, Bro wn pr ov id ed th e

"h ig he st le ve l of se rv ic e" in he r ro le as acco un t ex ecu ti ve

. Als o aro un d Ju ne of 20 12

Ch ic o's

, on e of Div ers ifi ed 's m ai n ret ai l cl ie nt s, in fo rm ed th e co m pa ny th at it in te nd ed

to ta ke it s bu si ne ss el se whe re. As a res ul t Mu rp hy req ue st ed th at hi s m an ag ers red uc e

th ei r pa y ro ll s by 10 %. Kos te ck y se nt Mu rp hy a pe rfo rm an ce up da te on he r te am of

acco un t ex ecu ti ve s whi ch id en ti fie d th ree un de rp erfo rm in g em pl oyees: Bro wn, Zac

Lit zo w, an d Mu rie l Ott o. Man ag em en t be ga n d i sc us si ng a nu m be r of op ti on s fo r

th es e un de rp erfo rm in g em pl oyees, in cl ud in g te rm in at io n, bu t th ey di d no t im pl em en t

a p ay ro ll red uc ti on im m ed ia te ly.

Bro wn con ta ct ed Kos te ck y in Aug us t 2 01 2 a nd ask ed to ret ur n t o work earl y
fro m he r FMLA leav e. Bec au se sh e ha d di ffi cu lt y fin di ng ch il d care , sh e req ue st ed

pe rm is si on to wor k fro m ho m e fo r se ve ral week s. Kos te ck y ag reed an d to ld Bro wn

fo r th e fir st ti m e th at sh e was be in g reas si gn ed to th e n ew ba ck up po si ti on

. Bro wn

co m p l a i n e d t h at sh e vi ewed th e reas si gn m en t as a de m ot io n. Sh e ret ur ne d to th e

of fic e in Sep te m

be r 20 12 aft er wo rk in g fr om ho m e fo r se ve ral week s.

In earl y Sep te m be r 20 12 , Mu rp hy sen t an em ai l t o h is m an ag ers ask in g t he m

to im pl em en t th e 10 % pa y ro ll red uc ti on by th e en d of th e m on th

. Kos te ck y pr op os ed

te rm in at in g Lit zo w an d Ott o, two of he r th ree un de rp erfo rm in g em pl oyees. Eve n

th ou gh Bro w n w a s al so un de rp erfo rm in g, he r te am ha d rece iv ed an award fo r

ex cep ti on al cu st om er se rv ic e sh or tl y be fo re sh e to ok he r m at ern it y le av e. Kos te ck y

pr op os ed ret ai ni ng Bro wn in t h e n ew ba ck up ro le de sp it e he r un de rp erfo rm an ce as

an acco un t ex ecu ti ve

.

On Octo be r 4, 20 12 Bro wn co m pl ai ne d to a hu m an res ou rces em pl oyee na m ed

Reb ecca W ol sz on ab ou t he r reas si gn m en t. Sh e was al so un ha pp y th at th e co m pa ny

ha d as ke d he r to st op wor ki ng f r o m h om e on Mo nd ay s, an arra ng em en t sh e ha d

pr ev io us ly en

joy ed

. W ol sz on te st ifi ed in he r de po si ti on th at sh e di sc us se d Bro wn's

-4

-FMLA rig ht s wit h he r an d th erea fte r rel ay ed Bro wn's co nc ern s to Hum an Res ou rces

Dire ct or Pir kl , who ha s d en ie d kn owl ed ge of Bro wn's co m pl ai nt s. Bro wn al so m et

wit h Kos te ck y on Octo be r 4 or 5 an d co m pl ai ne d th at sh e sh ou ld ha ve be en ret ur ne d

to he r sa m e job

. Bro wn was f i r e d o n O c t ob er 9, fiv e da y s aft er co m pl ai ni ng to

W ol sz on . Kos te ck y

lat er t es ti fie d th at sh e de ci de d to fir e Bro wn in st ead of Lit zo w
be cau se he ha d a rel at io ns hi p with Talb ot s, an im po rta nt ret ai l cl ie nt

. Acco rd in g to

Kos te ck y , th e Tal bo ts co nn ect io n o nl y be cam e ap pa ren t t o he r aro un d t he ti m e th at

Bro wn co m

pl ai ne d t o h um an res ou rces ab ou t h er FM LA rig ht s.

Late r in Octo be r 20 12

, Bro wn su bm it te d a w ri tten req ue st to Div ers ifi ed as ki ng

fo r th e "t ru th fu l reas on fo r [h er] te rm in at io n" pu rs ua nt to Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33

. Bro wn th erea fte r rece iv ed a le tt er f r o m Div ers ifi ed st at in g th at sh e ha d be en

te rm in at ed be cau se th e lo ss of th e Ch ic o's acco un t ha d req ui red th e co m pa ny to m ak e

pa y ro ll r e d uc ti on s. Bro wn al so su bm it te d a writ te n req ue st fo r he r pe rs on ne l fil e

un de r Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 61

. All pa rti es ack no wled ge th at sh e th en rece iv ed at le as t

pa rt of he r pe rs on ne l fil e, an d no on e di sp ut es th at sh e no w ha s acce ss to th e co m pl et e

fil e.

In Decem

be r 20 12 Bro wn br ou gh t th is act io n ag ai ns t Div ers ifi ed al le gi ng th at

s h e h a d be en de m ot ed an d te rm in at ed in vi ol at io n of th e FMLA. See 29 U.S.C

. §§ 26 01 –2 65 4. Sh e al so al le ge d th at Div ers ifi ed ha d fa il ed to pro vi de he r wit h th e

tru t h f u l r e a s on fo r he r te rm in at io n, in vi ol at io n of Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33

, an d ha d

re f u s e d t o tu rn ov er he r co m pl et e pe rs on ne l fil e wit hi n se ve n wor ki ng da y s, in

vi ol at io n of Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 61

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to

Div ers ifi ed on al l cl ai m s an d de ni ed Bro wn's req ue st fo r pe rm is si on to fil e a m ot io n

fo r rec on si de rat io n.

-5

-II.

W e rev ie w a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. W oo ds v. Daim le rCh ry sl er

Co rp ., 40 9 F.3 d 98 4, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is "ap pr op ria te if

vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty, t he re are no

ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g pa rty is en t i t l e d t o ju d gm en t as a

m at te r of law." Id.

The FMLA "en ti tl es an em pl oyee to twel ve week s of le av e fro m wor k du rin g

an y twel ve -m on th pe rio d if th e em pl oyee mee t s cert ai n st at ut or y req ui rem en ts ."

Pu lc zi ns ki v. Trin it y St ru ct ur al Tower s, In c., 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 05 (8 t h C i r

. 20 12 ).

Tw o " s ub se ct io ns of th e st at ut e es ta bl is h pr oh ib it ed act s." Id

. Sect io n 26 15 (a)( 1 )

"m ak es it un la wfu l fo r an em pl oyer to 'in te rfer e w i t h , r es tra in , o r de ny t he ex erci se

of or th e a t t e mp t to ex erci se ' rig ht s pr ov id ed un de r th e FMLA," an d se ct io n

26 15 (a)( 2) "m ak es it un la wfu l fo r 'an y em pl oyer to di sc ha rg e or in an y ot he r m an ne r
di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al fo r op po si ng an y pr act ic e m ad e un la wfu l' by th e

FMLA." Id

. W e ha ve "re co gn iz ed th ree types of cl ai m s ari si ng un de r th es e two

su bs ec tio ns" —e nti tle m en t, dis cr im inati on , an d ret al ia ti on cl ai m s— an d Bro wn br in gs

al l t hr ee t y

pe s ag ai ns t Di ve rs ifi ed . See i d.

A.

Bro wn argu es th at Div ers ifi ed de ni ed he r an en ti tl em en t u nd er t he FMLA b y
fai li ng to res to re he r to th e acco u n t e x e c u t i v e po si ti on sh e he ld be fo re sh e wen t on
le av e. An en ti tl em en t cl ai m ari se s un de r § 26 15 (a)( 1) whe n "an em pl oyer refu se s to

au th or iz e le av e un de r th e FMLA or ta ke s ot he r act io n to av oi d res po ns ib il it ie s un de r

th e Act." Pu lc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 05

. An em pl oyee who ta ke s FMLA le av e "i s

en ti tl ed , u p o n h e r ret ur n to wor k, to be res to red to a po si ti on th at is th e sa m e as , o r

su bs ta nt ia ll y eq ui va le nt to

, t h e p o s i t io n th at sh e oc cu pi ed whe n th e le av e be ga n."

W al ke r v. Trin it y Mar in e Pro du ct s, In c

. , 72 1 F.3 d 54 2, 54 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ); se e 29

-6

-U.S.C. § 26 14 (a)( 1)

. W he n an em pl oyee cl ai m s th e de ni al of a be ne fit to whi ch sh e

i s en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA, sh e "n eed no t sh ow th at an em pl oyer act ed wit h

di sc riminat or y

in te nt ." Pu lc zi ns ki , 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 5.

Bro wn al le ge d th at up on ret ur n fro m m at ern it y l e av e sh e was no t res to red to

he r po si ti on as acco un t ex ecu ti ve or to an eq ui va le nt po si ti on

. Alt ho ug h Div ers ifi ed

do es no t di sp ut e f

o r t he pu rp os e of it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t th at Bro wn's

reas si gn m en t was "n ot eq ui va le nt " to he r pr io r po si ti on , it arg ue s th at s he do es no t

ha ve an en ti tl em en t cl ai m be cau se sh e was no t pr oh ib it ed fro m ta ki ng FMLA le av e.
Div ers ifi ed m is co nc ei ve s Bro wn's cl ai m

. Bro wn do e s n o t cl ai m th at Div ers ifi ed 's

act io ns in te rfer ed wit h her ab il it y to ta ke m at ern it y le av e bu t rath er tha t Dive rs ifi ed

f a i le d to res to re he r to an "eq ui va le nt " po si ti on whe n sh e ret ur ne d fro m le av e. Se e

W al ke r, 72 1 F.3 d at 54 4. Bro wn's cl ai m t ha t Div ers ifi ed de ni ed he r an eq ui va le nt

po si ti on th us f

i t s w i t hi n th e Pu lc zi ns ki fram ewo rk as a § 26 15 (a)( 1) en ti tl em en t

cl ai m

. See 69 1 F.3d at 10 05

. Mo reo ve r, Bro wn's en ti tl em en t cl ai m is di st in ct fro m
he r di sc riminat io n cl ai m , in whi ch sh e al le ge s th at Div er s i f i ed to ok ad ve rs e act io n

ag ai ns t he r be cau se sh e to ok m at ern it y le av e. See id

. at 10 05 –0 6. Bas ed on th e fact s

in th is reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

to Div ers ifi ed on Bro wn's en ti tl em en t cl ai m

.

B.

Bro wn al so arg ue s th at Div ers ifi ed di sc riminat e d ag ai ns t he r fo r ex erci si ng

FMLA ri gh ts when it de m ot ed he r to a ba ck up po si ti on up on he r ret ur n from lea ve

. Dis cri m in at io n cl ai m s ari se un de r § 26 15 (a)( 1) "wh en an em pl oyer ta ke s ad ve rs e

act io n ag ai ns t an em

pl oyee be cau se th e em

pl oyee ex erci s e s r i g h ts to whi ch he is

en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA." Pu lc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 06

. W e ha ve "co ns id ered

FMLA di sc riminat io n cl ai m s un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng

fram ewo rk th at is ap pl ie d in Tit le VII cas es ." Id

. at 10 07

. To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e

cas e of FMLA di sc riminat io n, "an em pl oyee m u s t s h o w : ( 1) th at he en ga ge d in

-7

-act iv it y pr ot ect ed un de r th e Act, (2 ) th at he su ffer ed a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t

act io n, an d (3 ) th at a cau sa l co nn ect io n ex is te d be twee n th e em pl oyee's act io n an d th e
ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ." Id

.

The pa rti es ag ree th at Bro wn en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed a c ti vi ty by req ue st in g

FMLA le av e an d th at sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n whe n sh e was

m ov ed to a ba ck up ro le up o n he r ret ur n fro m le av e. The y do di sp ut e whe th er a

"ca us al co n n e c t i o n ex is te d" be twee n Bro wn's ex erci se of he r rig ht to ta ke FMLA

le av e an d Di ve rs ifi ed 's d eci si on to reas si gn he r. Pu lc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3d at 10 07

. The

un di sp ut ed su m

m ary ju d g m en t reco rd sh ows th at Kos te ck y an d Pi rk l were

"co nt em pl at in g th e tra ns fer be fo re" Bro wn req ue st ed FMLA le av e, whi ch cal ls in to

qu es ti on an y cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n th e two

. See Cl ark Cn ty. Sch

. D i s t

. v.

Bree de n, 5 32 U.S. 26 8, 27 2 (20 01 ) (p er curi am ). Bro wn argu es , ho wev er, t ha t s he

can st il l sh ow a c au sa l con ne ct io n bec au se Kos te ck y an d Pirk l had no t m ad e a fin al

de ci si on t o r e a s s ig n he r be fo re sh e req ue st ed FMLA le av e. Her arg um en t fai ls

be cau se th e co m

pa ny's "p ro ceed in g al on g li ne s pr ev io us ly co nt em pl at ed

, th ou gh no t

yet de fin it iv el y de te rm in ed

, is no ev id en ce wha te ve r of cau sa li ty." Id

. W e t h u s

co nc lu de th at th i s " r e co rd do es no t su pp or t a pr im a faci e cas e of FMLA

di sc riminat io n." See Bro wn v. Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le

, 71 1 F.3 d 88 3, 89 1– 92 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ).

W hi le Bro wn arg ue s th at Div ers ifi ed ha s fai le d to pr od uc e an y written bu si ne ss

reco rd s pr ov in g th at Kos te ck y an d Pi rk l di sc us se d tra ns ferr in g he r be fo re sh e

req ue st ed FMLA le av e, sh e al so ha s pr od uc ed "n o ev id en ce to r e bu t" ei th er Pi rk l's

affi da vi t or Kos te ck y 's de po si ti on

. See St ewart v. Ri se , In c., 79 1 F.3 d 84 9, 86 2 (8 th

Ci r. 20 15 ). Bo th of th es e wit ne ss es st at ed th at th ey ha d m et to d i s c u s s Bro wn's

tra ns fer on Ja nu ary 9, 20 12

, week s be fo re sh e req ue st ed FMLA le av e. Bro wn cl ai m s

th at th e m eet in g ne ve r to ok pl ace, rel y in g on th e te st im on y of two m em be rs of he r

-8

-acco un t te am , Jo hn Dod d an d Rac he l Jo rd ah l. Bo th em pl oyees te st ifi ed th at th ey di d

no t kn ow ab ou t th e Ja nu ary 9t h m eet in g, bu t bo th em pl oyees als o tes ti fie d th at th ey

were no t in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on to reas si gn Bro wn. W e co nc lu de th at th ei r la ck of

pe rs on al kn owl ed ge wou ld pr ev en t th ei r te st im on y fro m es ta bl is hi ng a tri ab le is su e

of fact

. See, e.g., Cam fie ld Tire s, Inc. v . Mic he li n Ti re Co rp ., 71 9 F .2d 13 61

, 13 67
(8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). The di st ric t co ur t th us pr op erl y gr an te d s u mm a r y ju dg m en t to

Div ers ifi ed on th e d is cri m in at io n c la im

.

C.

Bro wn al so arg ue s th at Div ers ifi ed ret al ia te d ag ai ns t he r b y t e r m in at in g he r

f iv e da y s aft er sh e ha d co m pl ai ne d to hu m an res ou rces ab ou t whe th er he r FML A
rig ht s ha d be en vi ol at ed

. A ret al ia ti on cl ai m ari se s un de r § 26 15 (a)( 2) if an em pl oyer

ta ke s "a dve rs e ac ti on " ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who "o pp os es an y pr act ic e m ad e un la wfu l

un de r th e FMLA— fo r ex am ple

, if an em

plo y ee co m

plai ns ab ou t an em

pl oyer's refu sa l

to co m pl y wit h th e st at ut or y m an da te to pe rm it FMLA le av e." Pu lc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d

at 10 05 –0 6. Div ers ifi ed ad m it s th at Bro wn ha s es ta bl is he d a pr im a faci e ret al ia ti on

cas e be cau se sh e (1 ) en ga ge d i n p r o t e c t e d act iv it y whe n sh e co m pl ai ne d th at th e

co m pa ny ha d vi ol at ed he r FMLA rig ht s by as si gn in g he r to a ba ck up po si ti on whe n
sh e ret ur ne d fro m le av e, (2 ) su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym e n t a c t i on whe n sh e was

te rm inat ed

, an d (3 ) es ta bl is he d a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y an d

th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n in th at s h e was fir ed on ly fiv e da y s aft er sh e

co m pl ai ne d ab ou t FMLA vi ol at io ns

. See W ie rm an v. Cas ey 's Gen

. St or es , 63 8 F.3 d

98 4, 9 99 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Si nc e Bro w n h a s m et he r pr im a faci e bu rd en on he r ret al ia ti on cl ai m , Div ers ifi ed "m

us t art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on fo r it s act io n."

W ie rm an , 63 8 F.3 d at 99 9. Div ers ifi ed as se rts th at it fir ed Bro wn be cau se it ha d lo st

-9

-on e of it s bi gg es t cl ie nt s an d ne ed ed to cu t 10 % of it s pa y ro l l b y te rm in at in g

un de rp erfo rm in g em

pl oyees. Thi s "l eg it ima t e , no n- ret al ia to ry reas on " cau se s th e
bu rd en to sh i f

t ba ck to Bro wn to "i de nt ify ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to crea te a ge nu in e

i s su e of m at eri al fact " on whe th er Div ers ifi ed 's "p ro ffer ed ex pl an at io n is m erel y a

pr et ex t fo r un la wfu l ret al ia ti on ." Id

. The re are "at le as t two way s a pl ai nt iff m ay
de m on st rat e a m at eri al qu es ti on of fact reg ard in g pr et ex t." Torg ers on v. Ci ty of

Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 47 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). A pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow th at

th e em pl oyer's ex pl an at io n is "u nwo rth y of cred en ce

. . . be cau se it ha s no ba si s in

fact ," or "b y pe rs ua di ng th e co ur t th at a pr oh ib it ed reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed th e

em pl oyer." Id

.

Bro wn arg u e s t h a t th e ti m in g of he r te rm in at io n, whi ch cam e jus t fiv e da y s

aft er sh e ha d co m

pl ai ne d th at he r FMLA rig ht s were v i o l a t ed

, in di cat es th at a "p ro hi bi te d reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed " Div ers ifi ed th an a ne ed to cu t th e pa y ro ll

. Torg ers o n , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 47

. Alt ho ug h "t em po ral pr ox im it y st an di ng al on e" is

ge ne ral ly ins uf

fic ie nt to es ta bl is h p ret ex t, v ie wed "wi th in th e co nt ex t o f th e o ve ral l

reco rd

, [it ] m ay di rect ly su pp or t an in fere nc e of ret al ia ti on , an d it m ay al so affe ct th e

reas on ab le ne ss of in fere nc es dr awn fro m o t h e r e vi de nc e." W al la ce v. DTG
Ope rat io ns , In c., 44 2 F.3 d 11 12

, 11 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by
Torg ers on , 64 3 F.3d at 1 04 3, 1 05 8; see Eli se rio v. Un it ed Ste el wor ke rs of Am eri ca

Loc al 31 0, 3 9 8 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 79 –8 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Here, be cau se on ly fiv e da y s
el ap se d be twee n Bro wn's FMLA co m pl ai nt an d he r te rm in at io n, "t em po ral pr ox im it y

pr ov id es st ro ng su pp or t fo r an in fere nc e of ret al ia to ry in te nt ." W al la ce, 44 2 F.3 d at

11 22

.

Bro wn al so as se rts th at Div ers ifi ed 's st at ed reas on fo r fir in g Bro wn in st ead of

Lit zo w wa s "u nwo rth y of cred en ce

. . . b ecau se it ha s no ba si s in fact ." Torg ers on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 47

. Lit zo w ha d be en sc he du le d fo r te rm in at io n up un ti l ab ou t th e ti m e

-1 0-Bro wn co m

pl ai ne d to W ol sz on

. Kos te ck y te st ifi e d th at sh e de ci de d to fir e Bro wn

in st ead of Lit zo w be cau se he ha d a rel at io ns hi p wit h an im po rta nt cl ie nt

, an d th at th is

rel at io ns hi p on ly be cam e ap pa ren t to he r aro un d th e ti m e th at Bro wn m et wit h hu m an

res ou rces

. Bro wn ne ve rth el es s ha s id en ti fie d ev id en ce in th e su m m ary jud gm en t

reco rd in di cat in g th at Lit zo w ha d be en rem ov e d f r o m t he Talb ot s acco un t m on th s
be fo re Bro wn was fir ed

, th us crea ti ng a di sp ut e of fact

. See W oo ds

, 40 9 F.3 d at 99 0.

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly co n c l u d e d t ha t whe re an em pl oyer ha s kn own ab ou t it s

st at ed reas on fo r ta ki ng ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t an em pl oyee "fo r an ex te nd ed pe rio d

o f t i me, " bu t on ly act s aft er th e em pl oyee en ga ge s in pr ot ect ed act iv it y , th e

em pl oyer's earl ie r in act io n su pp o r t s an in fere nc e of pr et ex t. W al la ce, 44 2 F.3 d at

11 22

. Lit zo w's rel at io ns hi p wit h Tal b o t s pr ed at ed Kos te ck y 's pl an to fir e hi m , a nd

Kos te ck y o n l y of

fere d Talb ot s as a reas on fo r ret ai ni ng Lit zo w aft er Bro wn ha d

co m pl ai ne d to hu m an res o u r ces

. A "fa ct fin de r co ul d reas on ab ly in fer" th at if

Lit zo w's rel at io ns hi p wit h Talb ot s "al on e ha d be en th e tru e m ot iv at io n" fo r Bro wn's

te rm in at io n, he r di sc ha rg e "wo ul d no t ha ve fo ll owe d so cl os el y on th e he el s" of he r

FMLA co m

pl ai nt

. Id

. Bro wn ha s al so po in te d to ev id en ce th at cal ls in to qu es ti on th e
cred ib il it y of Kos te ck y 's te st i mo n y r eg ard in g th e de m ot io n an d fir in g. W e th us

co nc lud e ba se d on th es e fact ua l di sp ut es an d th e te m po ral pr ox im it y be twe en Br ow n' s

co m pl ai nt an d he r te rm in at io n th at sh e ha s id en ti fie d ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact

o n w h e t h e r "a pr oh ib it ed reas on , rat he r th an th e em pl oyer's st at ed reas on , act ua ll y

m ot iv at ed " h er t erm in at io n. To rg ers on , 64 3 F .3d at 1 04 7.

III.

Fi na ll y , Bro wn arg ue s th at th e di st ri ct co ur t al so erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gme n t t o D iv ers ifi ed on he r two st at e la w em pl oym en t cl ai m s. Sh e as se rts th at

Div ers ifi ed vi ol at ed Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 61 by fai li ng to pr ov id e he r wit h a co py of he r

-1 1-co m

pl et e pe rs on ne l reco rd wit hi n se ve n da y s, bu t sh e do es no t ap pe ar to di sp ut e th at

s h e s u b se qu en tl y acq ui red th e en ti re fil e. To av oi d su m m ary jud gm en t on a § 18 1.9 61 cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t pr od uc e so m e ev id e n c e o f l ack of co m pl ia nc e or

act ua l da m ag es . S ee Carp en te r v. Nels on , 1 01 N.W .2d 91 8, 92 1 (Mi nn . 1 96 0) ; se e

al so W il so n v. Po la ris

, 19 98 Mi nn

. App

. LEXIS 12 20

, at *3 –6 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ).

Bro wn do es no t id en ti fy an y reco rd s th at ha ve no t been m ad e av ai la bl e at th is ti m e.

Alt ho ug h Bro wn as se rts sh e was da m ag ed by fo rci ng Div ers ifi ed to co m pl y wit h th e

st at ut e, sh e p ro vi de s n o e vi de nc e to su pp or t t hi s cl ai m . Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, "th e

co nt ro ll in g pr in ci pl e go ve rn in g act io ns fo r da m ag es is th at da m ag es whi ch are

sp ecu la ti ve , rem ot e, or co njec tu ral are no t reco ve rab le ." Le o n i v

. B em is Co

., 25 5

N.W .2d 82 4, 82 6 (Mi n n

. 1 9 7 7 )

. Bec au se th e "re co rd co nt ai ns no pr oo f be y on d

sp ecu la ti on " th at Bro wn was act ua ll y da m ag ed by Div ers ifi ed 's § 18 1.9 61 vi ol at io n,

t he di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Div ers ifi ed on th is cl ai m

. See S to rag e Tech . Cor

p. v . Cis co Sy s., In c., 39 5 F .3d 92 1, 9 28 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

Bro wn al so m ai nt ai ns th at Div ers ifi ed vi ol at ed Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33 be cau se

it di d no t pr ov id e he r wit h th e tru th fu l reas on fo r he r te rm in at io n aft er sh e req ue st ed

i t

. Sect io n 18 1.9 33 pr ov id es th at an "em pl oyee who ha s be en in vo lu nt ari l y

te rm in at ed m ay

. . . requ es t i n wri ti ng th at th e em pl oyer in fo rm th e em

pl oyee of th e

reas on fo r th e te rm in at io n." Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33

. The em pl oyer m us t th en "i nf

or m

th e te rm in at ed em

pl oyee in writ in g of th e tru th fu l reas on fo r th e te rm in at io n." Id

. An

em pl oyer is "o nl y li ab le un de r § 18 1.9 33 to 'an em pl oyee in jure d b y a v io la ti on of

se ct io n 1 8 1

. 9 3 2

. '" Nich ol s v. Met ro

. Ct r. fo r In de p. Liv in g, 50 F.3 d 51 4, 51 7 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ) (ci ti ng Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 35 ). Si nc e Bro wn ne ve r a l l e g e d a
"wh is tl eb lo wer ret al ia ti on cl ai m " un de r § 18 1.9 32

, se e id

. at 51 6, Div ers ifi ed arg ue s

th at sh e al so fai le d t o p ro ve a § 1 81 .93 3 c la im

.

-1 2-Alt ho ug h Bro wn di d no t pl ead a § 18 1.9 32 cl ai m , "a pa rty m ay ob ta in rel ie f on

a th eo ry of reco ve ry no t ex pr es sl y [p le d] i n th e co m p l a i n t bu t pr ov ed at tri al , wh en

it is ba se d on th e sa m e wro ng fu l act th at was [p le d], an d whe n th e op po si ng pa rty ha s

ha d fair no ti ce." Mo rg an Dis tri b. Co

. v. Unid y na m ic Co rp ., 86 8 F.2d 99 2, 99 5 (8t h

Ci r. 19 89 ); se e Ogl al a Si ou x Trib e of In di an s v. And ru s, 60 3 F.2 d 70 7, 71 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 79 ). The sa m e act un de rlyin g Bro wn's FMLA ret al ia ti on cl ai m wou ld al so su pp or t

a § 18 1.9 32 cl ai m

. The el em en ts of a § 18 1.9 32 cl ai m tra ck th e el em en ts of an FMLA

ret al ia ti on cl ai m , an d "M in n e s o ta co ur ts ap pl y th e fam il ia r th ree- pa rt McDo nn el l

Dou gl as an al y si s in res ol vi ng cl ai m s of ret al ia to ry di sc ha rg e un de r § 1 8 1

. 9 3 2."

Nich ol s, 50 F.3 d at 51 6. Fu rth erm or e , B r o w n p l ed a § 18 1.9 33 cl ai m in he r

co m pl ai nt

, so he re th e "o pp os in g pa rty ha s ha d fai r no ti ce." Mo rg an D i s t r i b

. , 86 8

F.2 d at 99 5. Giv en th e si m il ar i t y of FMLA ret al ia ti on an d § 18 1.9 32 cl ai m s, we

co nc lu de th at a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ex is ts on whe th er Bro wn's te rm in at io n
le tt er pr ov id ed th e "t ru th fu l reas on " fo r he r d i sc ha rg e be cau se a di sp ut e si m il arl y

ex is ts on whe th er Div ers ifi ed ret al ia te d ag ai ns t he r fo r ex erci si ng he r FMLA rig ht s.

See Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 33

. Th e di st ric t co ur t th us erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o Di ve rs ifi ed on th e § 18 1.9 33 cla im

.

IV.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we no w

1. affi rm th e su m

m ary jud gm en t gr an te d to Div ers ifi ed on Bro wn's

di sc riminat io n a nd Mi nn . Sta t. § 18 1.9 61 cla im s,

2. rev ers e su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Div ers ifi ed on Bro wn's en ti tl em en t,

ret al ia ti on , and Mi nn . Sta t. § 18 1.9 33 cla im s, an d

3. rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

-1 3-BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I am pl eas ed to co nc ur in th e majo rit y op in io n wit h br ie f co m m en ts fo r th e
be ne fit of t he di st ric t ju dg e an d t he pa rti es on fur th er p ro ceed in gs

.

Fi rs t, in m

y vi ew, Bro wn’s su pp os ed “ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m un de r th e FMLA

was no t pr op erl y rai se d on ap pe al

. Bro wn pr ov id ed pe rfu nc to ry arg um en ts reg ard in g

a “ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m , bu t ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d he r cl ai m is pr op erl y co ns tru ed as

an “ en ti tl em en t” an d no t a “ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m

. (Ap p. Br

. 3 9, 43 -4 4, 47 ).

The refo re, I wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of Bro wn’s di sc riminat io n
cl ai m wit ho ut fu rth er di sc us si on

. See Ro ts ko ff v. Co ol ey , 43 8 F.3 d 85 2, 85 4- 55 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng a fai lu re to de ve l o p a n i s s u e in th e br ie fs is eq ui va le nt to an
ab an do nm en t o f th e is su e fo r fai lu re t o p ro vi de a reas on for a co nt en ti on ).

Se c o n d

, o n rem an d, Bro wn’s “ en ti tl em en t” cl ai m is no t go ve rn ed by th e

McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk

. See, e. g ., Sm it h v. Diff ee Fo rd

Lin co ln -Me rcu ry , In c., 29 8 F.3 d 95 5, 96 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Kin g v. Pref erre d

Te ch

. Grp

., 16 6 F.3 d 88 7, 89 1 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (n ot in g th at whe n pr ov in g a n

“ en ti tl em en t” cl ai m “ ‘[t]he in te nt of th e em pl oyer is im m at eri al ’ ”). In st ead

, Bro wn

i s on ly req ui red to sh ow “ sh e was en ti tl ed to th e be ne fit de ni ed ”– he re, res to r a t i o n

fo ll owi ng le av e. See, e.g ., S ta ll in gs v. Hus sm an n Co rp

. , 4 4 7 F

. 3 d 10 41 , 1 05 0 (8 th

Ci r

. 2 0 0 6 ) (q uo ti ng Ru ss el l v. N. Bro ward Hos p., 34 6 F.3 d 13 35

, 13 40 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 03 ). He re, whe n th e fact s ar e ta ke n i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Bro wn, Br own

ha s s ho wn a s tro ng pri m a fac ie cas e.

Thi rd

, du rin g th e m ajor it y ’s an al y si s of Bro wn’s “ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m , th e

m ajor it y refe ren ces an al le ge d di sc us si on be twee n Kos te ck y an d Pi rk l on Ja nu ary 9,

20 12

, as se rti ng “ [t]he un di sp ut ed su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd sh ows th at Kos te ck y an d

-1 4-Pi rk l were ‘con te m pl at in g th e tra ns fer be fo re’ Bro wn req ue st ed FMLA le av e.” (Ma j.
Op. at 3, 8 (ci ta ti on om it te d) ).

To th e ex te nt fact s reg ard in g th e a l l e g e d Ja nu ary 9, 20 12 di sc us si on are
rel ev an t to ei th er Bro wn’s “ en ti tl em en t” or “ ret al ia ti on ” cl ai m , th e te st im on y of bo th

Kos te ck y an d Pi rk l is su bjec t to cred ib il it y fin di ng s by th e jury as ack no wled ge d by

th e m ajor it y

. (See id

. at 11 (“ Bro wn ha s a l so po in te d to ev id en ce th at cal ls in to

qu es ti on th e cred ib il it y of Kos te ck y ’s te st im on y ”); se e al so Torg ers on v. Ci t y of

Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba n c ) (q uo ti ng Ree ve s v.

San de rs on Pl um

bi ng Pro ds

., In c., 53 0 U.S. 13 3, 15 0, 12 0 S. Ct

. 20 97

, 14 7 L. Ed. 2d

10 5 (2 00 0) ) (“ ‘Credi bi li ty de te rm in at io ns , the w ei gh in g of ev id en ce, an d th e dr awin g

of le gi ti m at e in fere nc es fro m th e fact s are jury fu nc ti on s, no t th os e of a jud ge .’ ”).

In pa rti cu la r, th e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce un de rm in es th e cred ib il it y of bo th Kos te ck y an d

Pi rk l re ga rd in g t he Jan ua ry 9, 2 01 2 m eet in g:

1. Bet ween Ja nu ary 9, 20 12 an d t h e d at e Bro wn in fo rm ed Div ers ifi ed sh e

wou ld ne ed FMLA leav e, Bro wn was nev er tol d sh e wou ld be m ov ed to a
ba ck -u p p os it io n.

2. The re is no writ te n reco rd th at th e Ja nu ary 9, 20 12 m eet in g oc cu rred

, whi ch

is un co m m on for a co m

pa ny lik e Div ers ifi ed

. 3. It is un us ua l th at Dod d (Bro wn’s “ do tt ed -li ne ” su pe rv is or ) a n d Jo rd ah l
(Bro wn’s rep la cem en t) were n o t n ot ifi ed of Jo rd ah l’s pr om ot io n pr io r to

Bro wn’s FM LA leav e.

4. The ev id en ce in di cat in g Lit zo w was r e mo ve d fro m th e Talb ot s acco un t

cal ls in to qu es ti on al l of Kos te ck y ’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e de m ot io n an d

fir in g o f Bro wn.

-1 5-5. Urb an Out fit te r’s acco la de s in di cat in g Bro wn pr ov id ed th e “ hi gh es t l ev el

of se rv ic e” in he r ro le as acco un t ex ecu ti ve un de rm in es an y in di cat io n th at

in Ja nu ary 2 01 2 Bro wn was “ un de r p e r f or m in g” as an acco un t ex ecu ti ve

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-