H on. V ir g inia M

. K endall, D is tr ic t Jud ge f or the N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 3094 J ULI E S TEP HEN S L ONG, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . T EAC HERS ’ R ETI RE MENT S Y S T E M O F THE S TATE OF I LLINO IS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06- 3194

—Richar d M il ls, Judge
.

A RG UE D J AN UA RY 20, 2009

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 23, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, S YKES, C ircu it Judge, an d K ENDALL, D istrict Judge.  K ENDALL, D istrict Judge. J uli e S teph en s L ong’ s e m plo ym en t w i th the Teacher s’ Reti re m ent S yst em o fthe St ate ofI l l i noi s ( “TRS”) c am e to an end on F ebr uary3, 20 06.2 N o. 08

- 3094 Wh i l e T R S ma i n t a i n s th a ti tf i r e d h e rf o rp o o rp e r f o r man ce, Long b el i eve s that s he was fi re d i n re tal i ati on for tak i ng l eave under the Fa m i ly an d M edi calLeave A ct ( “F M LA ”)

. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t i n f a v o r o f T R S, wh i c h L o n g n o w a p p e a l s . F o r the f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I

. Ba ck g r o und TRS adm i ni ste rs the pensi on pl an thatpro vi des m onthl y r eti re m ent b enefi ts to approxi m ate l y 8 2, 000 re ti re d teache rs thr oughout I l l i noi s. Jon B au m an served as the E xe cu tive Director of TR S. H e hel d ult i m ate responsibi l i ty forthe or gani zati on’ s dayto

- day ac ti vi ti es a nd he po ss es se d fi na lde ci si o nm ak i nga utho r i tyf o ra l ldi sc i pl i na r y a ct i o ns i nc l udi ngthe suspensi on a nd t er m i nati on o fem plo yee s. H um an Resour ces Dir ecto r, Gina Larkin, r epor ted di re c tly to B au m an and oversaw all p erson ne l activities at TR S. Befo r e discipli ni nga n e m pl o y ee , La r k i n wo r k ed i n c o nj u n c tio n w ith th e a p p ro p ria te d ep ar tm en t m an ag er in or der t o deter m i ne a re c om m ended course o fact i on th ats he woul d pr es en t to Ba um an . A t T R S, th e M em b er Ser vic es D ivis ion fac ilit a te s a ll retirem en t, d isab il ity and survivor ben efi t claim s. T erry Via r, Dir ecto r ofM em b erS er vi ces, r epor ted di re ctl y t o Bauman an d o ve r sa w the pa y m en t o fb en efi ts t o TRS m em ber s. The B en efi ts Dep ar tm ent, a subsect i on o f M em berS er vi ces, p r o c ess es al lr eti re m ent b enefi ts. Deputy Di r e c t o ro fth e B e n e fi t s D e p a r t me n tS a l l y S h e r ma n ma n-N o. 08

- 3094 3 ag ed th e B en efit s D ep ar tm en t a n d rep or te d d ire c tly to Viar. To expedit e the paym ent o fb en efi ts, TRS al l ows i ts m em b er s t o re c eiv e t h eir b en efit s t h ro u gh an ele c tr on ic fu n d tra n sfe r (“E FT ”), w h er eb y T R S d ep os its be n efit paym ents dir ectly into a m em ber ’ s ba nk ac cou nt. W i th i n the Be ne fi ts De par tment, th e Pa y r o l la nd In su ra n c e D ep ar tm en t (“P ay ro ll”) p ro c es se s d ire c t d ep os it for m s fo r m em b er s o p tin g t o rec eiv e t h eir p ay m en ts via EFT. Payr ol lInsurance M anage r M ar shal lBra n ham o ve r sa w the d ail y a dm i ni st r at i o n o fb en efi ts f o rTRS m em ber s, i ncl ud i ng the ti m el y pr oce ssingo fEFT paym en ts

. Br anha m r epo r te d t o S he r m an . Lo ngb eg anw o r k i ngatTRSi n S ept embe r, 1 98 5. S ta r ting in 20 00 , L on g w or ke d in P ay ro ll in th e po sit i o n o fP ay ro ll Cl er kIV. Herpr i m ary r es p o ns ibi l i ti es i nc l ude d e nr o l l i ng m em ber s in the EFT progr am , ente ring EFT i nfo rm ati on i nt o a da taba se , v er i fy i ngb an kr o ut i nga nd a cc o unt num ber s a nd r espondi ng to change o faddress r equests from ben efi ciaries. B ran ha m w as L ong ’s d irect sup ervisor. W hen she i ni ti al l y s tar ted i n Payr ol l, Long r ecei ved favorable pe rform an ce review s. O ver tim e, th ou gh, errors i n he r wo r k a nd i nc r e a s i ng ab s e nc e s l e d t o l o wer re vi ew s. In J une 200 5, sh e m isse d 25% o fhersche du l ed w or ki ng days. In J uly20 05, her a b sences r ose to 40 % o f her sched ule d days. A dd i ti onal l y, al though Bra nham ask ed Long in 2004 to tr ai n em plo yee s fro m o therdepartm ents on the EFT proc ess , she had not d on e so as o f J une 200 5. On J uly26 , 2 005, Branham m et w i th Long t o i nfo rm herthatbec ause ofh er a bsente ei sm , he pl anned4 N o. 08

- 3094 on withd ra w i ng hi s r ecom m endati on that s he r ecei ve a pr o m o ti o n. Lo nga g r ee d wi thhi s as se ss m en t r eg ar di ng her abse nteei sm . A t the m eet i ng, B ra nham al so i nstr ucted her to tr ai n em plo yee s withi n th e D ata Se rv i ces Dep ar tm ent o n the EFT proces s byS eptem ber20 05. InSep te m b er 20 05 , TR S tr ac ed se ve ra l err or s w ith in th e E FT sy st em to L on g. Fo r ex am p l e , s h e im p ro p er ly r ec o r ded a ba nka cc o untnumbe rwhi chr esulted i n TR S sendi ng a m em ber ’ s be nefi t paym ent t o the wrong l oca ti on. S he al so i m proper l y docum ented an add re ss w hi ch r esul ted i n a m em b er ’ s e str anged ex- w i fe r eceiving sen siti ve fina nc ialinform ation abou t t he m em ber. O n S e p t e mb e r1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , th e me mb e r s c a l l e d T R S t o c o mp lain t a b ou t th e d ifficu lty th ey h a d r e c eiv in g th eir benefi t paym ents. A l though Long had res ponsib ility f or re sponding to m em berco m m unica ti ons re gar ding EFT tr ansact i ons, she w as abse nt fro m w or k that day, so o ther T R S em plo yee s fi el ded the cal l s. The next day, Branham m et w i th Long t o discu ss her EFT err or s a nd the i m pact that her abse nces had on other TRS em plo yee s. Branham als o in for m ed L on g th atsh e h ad n otp ro c es se d p ay ro ll ded ucti on pl an appli cati ons in a ti m el y m anner w hi ch r es ul te d i n T RS movingr es po ns ibi l i tyf o rpr o ce ss i ngthe appli cati ons to another departm ent. O nce agai n, Branham urge d Long to tr ai n other T R S em plo yee s o n the EFT pr o ce ss . He s um m ar i ze d the meet i ngi n a mem o r an dum dated Se ptem ber20 , 20 05. I n the f al lo f20 05, Lark i n hel d tw o m eet i ngs with Branham and Sher m an to di scuss Long’ s perf or m ance. Through the m eet i ngs, Lark i n l earned that Long ente re dN o. 08

- 3094 5 incorrect ad d resses in th e E F T d a t aba se, en tered i nc orre c t ro u tin g n u m b er s a n d d id n otco m p let e h er t a s k s in a t i m el y m ann er . S he al so disc ove re d that in additi on t o th e m em ber com p lai n t s tha t TR S received , Lon g’s fel l ow em plo yee s co m pla i ned about her perf or m an ce. Branham a nd S herm an i nfo rm ed Larkin ofthei r bel i ef that Long’ s err or s r esul ted i n TRS f ai l i ng to ge t i ts checks to i ts m em ber s. Based on Long’ s m any absence s, o n Se ptem ber26 , 20 05 , Sh er m an info rm ed L on g th atsh e m igh t b e e l igib le for leave un d er the FM L A

. Lon g the n ap p li ed f or int erm itt en t F M L A le a v e fo r m ed ial ep ico n d ylit is (t en n is elb ow ). TR S a p p ro ve d h er req u es t fo r FM L A lea ve in O ctob er and i ns tru cted Lon g to notify her sup ervisors w h en sh e w ou ld be ab se n t b ec au se of h er m ed ica l co n d it i o n . L o n gi n f o r me d T R S th a th e r ab s e n c e s o n S e p t e mb er 22 an d 28 , 20 0 5 w er e re lat ed to th e c on d itio n . In N ove m ber20 05, Long m odi fi ed h er FM LA appli cati on t o re qu e s ti nt e r mi t t e ntl e a v e t o t r e a to v a r i a n c y s t s . Aft er TRS approve d the r evi sed ap pli cati on o n Decem ber2, 20 05, L ongi nf o r m ed he re m pl o y ertha t th e f o l l o wi ng abse nces re l ate d to FM LA l eave : October 13, 14, 20 , 21 , 24 a n d 2 8 ; No v e mb e r 3 , 7, 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 5 a n d 1 8 ; a nd J anua r y 5 , 2 00 6. S he w as al so abs en t fr o m wor kf o rnine day s in Dec embe r20 05 and fi ve da y s i n J anua r y 2 00 6. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s th a tth o s e ab s e n c e s we r e n o tF MLAr e l a t e d. I n l ate D ecem ber2005 orearl y Ja nuary 2006 , Lark i n m et w i th B ra n ham and Sher m an ag ai n. A t the m eet i ng, B ran ha m an d She rm an inform ed L arkin th at L o n g’s6 N o. 08

- 3094 per f o r m an ce ha d no t i m pr o ve d, an d a s a r es ul t, TRS f a i l e d t o g e t b e ne fi t s pa y men t s t o i t s memb e r s . Branham a l s o t o l d L a r k i n th a t h e f o u n d a l a r g e b a c k l o go fE F T f o r ms th a tLo ngh a d n o te nt e r e d int o the s y s t e m o n seve ra l occa sions. Bran ha m e xp ressed frus tration w ith L ong ’s abse nteei sm and sugg est ed that TRS shoul d fi re Long. A f t e rr e c e i v i ngBr a nh a m’ s s ug g e s t i o n, La r k i n r e v i e wed Long’ s per f or m ance e val uati ons, the m em berco m pla i nts re l ate d to her w or k a nd the com m ents from Branham an d Sh er m an . L ar kin t h e n m e t w ith B au m an tw ice in J anua r y 2 00 6 to di scu ss Lo ng ’ s per f o r m an ce . At the J anuary31 , 20 06 m eet i ng, Lark i n recom m ended that B au m an term inate L ong . A fter revi ew ing L ong ’s perform ance e val uati ons and discuss i ng m em berco m pla i nts w i th Branham , B au m an deci ded to fi re Long o n February3, 2 006 base d up on the m em berco m pla i nts and the m i sdir ecte d c h ecks

. W hen he m ade the deci si on to fi re her, Baum an di d n ot have any know l edge o f Long’ s F M LA l eave . On Augu st3 1, 2 00 6, Lo ngfi l ed su i t, clai m ing th atTRS fi re d her i n re tal i ati on for tak i ng FM LA l eave . The di str i ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j u d gm en t forTRS, fi nd i ng tha t Long f ai l ed to cr eat e a ge nuine i ssue off act as to w hetherTRS fi re d her i n re tal i ati on f or tak i ng FM LA l eave .

I I

. Di scussi on W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e nov o, v ie w ing the f acts and allreason able inferences i n the l i ght m ostfavo rabl e to the no n-m oving par ty.N o. 08

- 3094 7 See R idi ng s v. R iversid e M ed. C tr. , 537 F.3d 755, 760 (7th C ir. 20 08)

. S um m ary j udg m en t i s pr o perwhen“ th er e i s no ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial fa c t a n d th e m ov in g p ar ty is en ti tl ed to a j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw . ” Fed

. R

. Ci v. P. 56 ( c)

. To defea t a m o ti o n fo rs um m ary j udg m en t, the no nm oving par ty m ust pre sent m or e than j ust “ bar e a l l ega ti ons. ” de la R a m a v. Ill. D ept. o f H um a n S ervs. , 54 1 F

. 3d 681, 68 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008). The no n- m o vingpa r tymustpr es en t

“ ‘ ev i den ce o n whi chthe j ur y c o ul d r ea so nabl y fi nd f orthe nonm oving par ty. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng R ozsko w iak v. Vill. of Arli ngton Heights , 415 F.3d 608 , 612 (7th C ir. 2005)). As a pr el i m i na r y matt er, Lo nga tt empts t o questi o n the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to st rik e p or tio n s o f h er af f id av it that contr adic ted her previ ous deposi ti on tes ti m ony. A l though s he has not f or m al l y pres en ted the i ssue f or re vi ew , she i m pli ci tly questi ons the ruling atse ver al po i nt s i n h erb r i efa nd s ta te s i n a f o o tnote th at“ th e d istri ct cou rt erroneou sly struck portion s of L ong ’s affi davi t. ” Long does not devel op the ar gum ent or c ite to speci fi c por ti ons ofthe re cor d that woul d il l ustr ate how the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d. To pre sent an ar gum ent on ap peal, a partym ust deve l op i ts p osit i o n b y pr o vi di ngc i ta ti o n t o the r el ev an t po r ti o ns of th e rec or d an d su p p or tin g a u th or ity

. See F ed. R. App. P. 28 ( a) (9) ( A). “ [ U]n su ppo r te d a nd un der dev el o ped ar g um ents ar e wai ved. ” U nite d States v. Turc o tt e, 40 5 F

. 3d 515, 538 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. A party m ay w ai ve an argu m ent b y dis p uti ng a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r uling in a foo tnot e o r a o nesente nc e assert i on that l acks ci tat i on t o re cor d evi dence. Se eBe am on v. M ars hal l & Il s l ey Trust Co. , 41 1 F

. 3d 854, 86 28 N o. 08

- 3094 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ); see also U nite d States v. White, 87 9 F

. 2d 1509 , 15 13 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 9) ( ar g um en t r ai se d i n pa ss i ng i n a footnote de em ed w aived ). I n c l ai m i ngtha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er red i n s tr i k i ng port i ons of Long’ s a ffi davi t that co nfl i cted with her deposi ti on t est i m ony, Long doe s no t i denti fy the pro per stan d a r d o f r eview or th e legalstan d ard f or stri king selfser vi ng affi davi ts as i napp osite to deposi ti on t est i m ony. H erst ate m ent c ontains no ci tat i on t o t h e recor d to sh ow whi ch po r ti o ns o f th e affi dav i t sh e be l i ev es w ere im p ro p er ly st ric ke n or w h y th ey w er e im p ro p er ly st r i ck en . Be ca us e Lo ngha s f ai l ed t o pr o per l y pr es en t th e i ss ue o fwhethe rthe di st r i ctc o urt err ed i n s tr i k i ng port i ons ofheraffi davi t, she has wai ved the ar gum ent. T h e F M L A allow s e ligib le e m p loy e e s t o t ak e u n p aid lea v e t o t e n d to a se riou s h ea lth co n d itio n . See 2 9 U. S

. C. § 2612

. A d d iti ona ll y, th e FM L A proh ibi ts em p loyers fro m di scr i m i nati ng ag ai nst e m plo ye es w ho have ta ken FM L A lea ve . See 29 U .S.C . § 26 15 ; see also K ing v . P referred Tec hni ca l Gr oup , 1 6 6 F

. 3 d 8 8 7, 8 9 1 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 )

. An empl o y ee may pr o ce ed unde rthe di r ec t o ri ndi r ec t m ethods o fpro ofto es tabl i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se ofr et al i ati on u n d e r t h e F M L A

. Se eRi di ngs , 53 7 F

. 3d at 771. Long a ttem pts to pro ceed under the di re ct m etho d onl y. A pl ai nt iffpro ceedi ng under the di re ct m etho d of proo fm ust pro du ce di re ct o r ci rcum sta nti alev i dence that “the pr o te ct ed co nduc t was a su bsta nt i alo rmot i va ting f acto r i n the em plo yer ’ s deci si on. ” Le wis v. Sch. D i s t

. #7 0, 5 2 3 F

. 3 d 7 3 0 , 74 1

- 4 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. T o e s t ab l i s h a p r i ma facie case of r etaliati on u nd er the d irect m eth od of p roof,N o. 08

- 3094 9 th e pla in tiff m u st p re se n t evid en c e of “(1 ) a s t at u to rily pr o te ct ed ac ti vi ty ; ( 2) a mate r i al l y a dve r se e m p loyment acti on t ake n by th e em plo yer ; and ( 3) a causalco nnecti on b et w ee n th e t w o.” Cas key v . Colgat e -Palm ol i veCo. , 53 5 F.3 d 58 5, 59 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). D ire c t e vid en c e t yp ica lly co ns i st s o fa n a dm i ss i o n b y the decision m ak ertha t he ac te d w ith re ta liat o r y int en t. Seeid . C irc u m st an tia l ev id en ce allow s the find er of fact to i nf e r t h a t retali atory ani mus mo t i v a t e d the de c i s i o nma k e rt o t a k e a n a dv e r se em p loy m en t a c tio n ag ain stth e e m p loy ee . See i d. C i r c u mst an ti al ev i den ce m ay i nc l ude su spi ci o us t i m i ng, a m bi g uous o ra lo r w ri tten sta tem ents, o r behavi orto w ar d or com m ents dir ecte d at o therem plo yee s in th e pr ote cted g ro u p . SeeN ichols v. S. Ill

. U niv. -Ed w ardsvil le, 5 1 0 F

. 3d 772, 782 (7th C ir. 2007). The pa r ti es do no t d ispu te th atLo nge ng ag ed i n a pr o te cted ac ti vi tywhens he t o o kF M LA l ea ve o rtha t sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n w h en T R S t er m inated her. T o supp or t herco ntenti on TRS fi re d her be ca us e sh e to o k F M LA l ea ve , sh e o ffer s th e fo l l o wi ng pie ces ofci rcum sta nti alev i dence: Branham ’ s s tat em en ts , f ai l ur e o fTRSt o f o l l o w i ts i nt erna ldisc i pl i ne p ro c ed u re s w h en it f ire d h er an d th e “ su d d en d ec lin e” in her perf or m ance r evi ew s a rou n d the ti m e that s he to ok l eave . Long cl ai m s that Branham re com m ended t o B au m an a n d L ar kin th atT R S sh ou ld fire L on g b ec au se h e h eld a ni mus t o wa r ds h e rf o rt a k i ngF M LA l e a v e . T o s up p or t t h a t con ten tion, sh e po ints to severa l of Bran ha m ’s st at em en ts r eg ar d in g h er a b se n ces. Fo r exam ple ,10 N o. 08

- 3094 Long poi nts t o a m em or and u m thatBranham drafted to m emor i al i ze a meet i ngtha t he he l d wi thLo ng . In the m em o, Branham not ed that he m et w i th Long t o disc uss her abse nces and the i m pact that th e absence s h ad on P ay ro ll’s ov er all w or klo ad

. A d d itio n ally , i n h is deposi ti on, Branham sta ted that abse nteei sm affecte d Lo ng ’ s per f o r m an ce fr o m J une 2 00 5 th r o ugh J an u ar y 2 00 6. H e a tt rib u te d so m e o fP ay ro ll’s ov er all pr o bl ems t o Lo ng ’ s ab se nc es , s ucha s EFT b ac k l o g s an d m issed m em ber com p lai nt s. H e also stated that Lon g’s abse nces had a neg ati ve i m pact o n the m orale ofo ther Pa yrollem p loyees beca us e the y had to p e r form Lon g’s du ti es i n additi on t o thei r own duri ng herabs ences. A l tho ugh Lo ngc l a i ms tha tBr a nh a m’ s me mo pr o v i des e v i de nc e o fh i s r e t a l i a t o r y a ni mus t o wa r ds h er F M LA l e a v e , B r a nh a m m e tw i th L o n ga n d d r a ft e d th e me mo bef o r e s he e v e n a pp l i e d f o r F M LA l e a v e . Br a nh a m m et w i th Long t o disc uss her absence s a nd EFT er ro rs o n Se ptem ber1 5, 2005

. On Septe m ber20 , 20 05, he dr afted hi s m em o to sum m ar i ze the m eetin g. S herm an di d not i nfo r m Lo ngab o uth e rp o t e nt i a le l i g ib i l i ty f o rF M LA l eave unti lS eptem ber26 , 20 05, days aft er Branham hel d the m eet i ng and drafted the m em o that disc ussed Long’ s absence s. B ec ause Long had not eve n appli ed f or FM LA l eave wh en Branham di scusse d Long’s abs en ces and drafted the m em o to sum m ar i ze the m eet i ng, tho se s t a t e me n t s t ha t he ma d e i n th e me e t i n ga n d th e me mo can not prov id e e v iden ce th at he held a retali atory an im u s t ow ar d s L o n g ’ s u se of FM L A lea ve . Se eD urki n v . City of Chi cago , 3 4 1 F

. 3 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 4

- 1 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ An em plo yer cannot re tal i ate i f ther e i s nothi ng f or it to retaliate against.”).N o. 08

- 3094 11 Lo nga l so c l ai m s th atBr anha m ’ s st at ement s dur i ng hi s depo si ti o n r ev ea l th at he he l d a r et al i at o r y a ni m us to war ds he rbased o n h erF M LA l ea ve . Al th o ugh h e at tr ibut ed Lo ng ’s p er f o r m an ce pr o bl ems t o he rmany abse nces, he s tat ed t h at her abse nces fro m J une 200 5 thro ugh J anuary20 06 cre ate d probl em s s uch as EFT ba ck l o g s an d m i ssed m embe rc o m pl aint s. Lo ng ’ s st r i ng ofabs entee i sm beg an i n Ju n e 2 005 w hen she m i sse d 25% ofhersche du l ed days, and continued in to J uly20 05 w hen sh e mi s s e d 4 0 % o fh e rs c he du l e d d a y s . OnJ uly 26 , 2005 , Branham hel d a m eet i ng with Long to i nfo rm her of the tollthat her a b s e n t e eism w as taking on he r perform an c e w h en h e t old h er th at h e h ad to w ith d ra w h is re com m endati on that s he r ecei ve a pro m oti on based solel y on h er m an y absen ces. In Sep tem ber 2005 , b efore she e ven a pp l ied f orFM LA l eave , Branham tr aced m any e r r o r s wi th i n Payroll t o Lo nga nd he l d a meet i ng w ith he r on Sep tem ber 1 5 , 2 005 to d iscus s her p erf or m an c e i ssues . Even wh en TRS appro ved herappli cati on forFM LA l eave i n Octobe r and s h e in dica ted that som e o fherpre vi ou s ab sences were re l ate d to her m edi calco nd i ti on, the ear l i estd ate that she i nd i cate d w as S ept embe r 22 , 2 00 5, a fte rBr anha m ha d a l r ea dy do cum en te d tha t he rabs en ce s wer e ne g at i ve l y a ffecti ng he rp e r f o r man c e . Anyc o mm e nttha t B ra nh a m m a de r e g a r di ngab s e nc e s b e f o re L onge v e n a pp l i e d fo rF M LA leave cou ld n o t h ave be en eviden ce of a r etaliatory i ntent on hi s par t. Eve n a ss um i ngtha t Br anha m ’ s depo si ti o n t es ti m o ny re veal s that he he ld r eta l i ato ryani m us to w ar ds Long, to dem onst ra te a ca us alco nnecti on be tw een a pro tect ed12 N o. 08

- 3094 activity and an ad verse em p loy m en t action, “a plaintiff m u st provi de dir ect orci rcum sta nti alev i dence that the de cis i onmak erh as ac te d for a p ro h ibit ed rea so n . A dec i si o nm ak eri s th e per so n ‘ r es po ns ibl e fo rthe c o ntes ted deci si on. ’ ” Roge rs v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 32 0 F

. 3d 748, 75 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( emphas i s i n o r i g ina l ) ( quo ting C hiaram onte v. Fashion B ed Group, Inc. , 129 F. 3d 391, 39 6 ( 7th Cir

. 19 97) )

. “S tat em ents by subor dinat es nor m al l y a re not p ro b at ive of an int en t t o re ta liat e b y th e d ec i s ion m ak er .” Wil lis v. M arion Cou nty Aud it or’s O ff ice, 118 F. 3d 542, 54 6 (7th C ir. 1997). At TRS, o nl y Ba um anha s th e au th o r i tyt o m ak e per so nne lde ci si ons r eg ar di nge m pl o y ee di sc i pl i ne , i nc l udi ng w hether to suspend o r ter m i nate an em plo yee . Bra nham onl y r eco m m ended to Lar ki n that T RS sho uld fi re Long; he di d n o tma k e the u l ti m ate de c i s i o n. Ba uma n mad e th e dec i si o n a fte rc o ns ul tingwi thLa r k i n, B ra nha m a nd She rm an . Th erefore, even i f B ran ha m he ld retali atory ani m us to w ar ds Long, to sho w a causalco nnecti on be

tw een he r FM LA l eave and herte rm i nation , s h e m ust sh o w tha t B au m ana ct ed f o ra pr o hibi te d r ea so n. The re cor d does no t co ntai n any evi dence th at B aum an fi re d L ong b e c a u s e she took FM L A l eave ; i n fact, the record s ho ws tha th e di d n o te v e n k no w tha tLo ngt o o kF M LA l eave w h en he fi re d her. Because Baum an di d not know th atL on g t oo k F M L A l e a v e, h e c ou ld n oth av e p os sib ly te r m i na te d he rf o rtha t r ea so n. A l though a pl ai nti ffm ust gener al l y pr ovi de evi dence that the d ec isionm ake r acte d fo r a pro hibi ted r eas on t o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac ie c ase ofr eta l i ati on, co urts haveN o. 08

- 3094 13 i m pu ted the r eta l i ato ry intent o fa subor dinat e t o an em p l oye r i n si tuati ons w here the subor dinat e e xert s sig n ifica n t in f l u e n c e o ve r th e e m p loy m en t d ec isio n . See, e . g. , M etzger v. Il l. S ta te Po li ce, 519 F.3d 677, 682 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); B rew er v. B d. of Trs. of the U niv. of Ill

. , 47 9 F

. 3d 908, 9 1 7

- 1 8 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); Rozs kowia k, 41 5 F

. 3d at 613; R o gers , 3 2 0 F

. 3 d a t7 5 4 ( no t i ngp o t e nt i a lf o re mpl o y er liabi l i ty i fdeci si onm ake r m er el y “ rubbe r- sta m ped” a bi ase d subor dinat e’ s r ecom m endati on)

. Thi s theor y o f liab ility , kn ow n as th e “ c at ’s p aw ” d oc tr in e, se e Wil lis , 11 8 F.3 d at54 7, h as rec eiv ed inc on sis te n t t re at m en t in th is Cir cui t. S om e ca ses hol d that a subo rdi nate m ust hav e a “s in gu lar influ en c e” o v e r th e e m p loy m en t d ec isio n, see St aub v. Pr oc t orHos p. , 5 60 F

. 3d 64 7, 6 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a nd ot h er s d o n otd ra w su c h a brig h t lin e, s e eSh age rv. Upj ohn , 91 3 F

. 2d 39 8, 4 05 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)

. In Shag e rv. Upj ohn , f or ex ampl e, the c o ur t f o und tha t ev i den ce of “taint ” an d “i nfl ue nc e” by a non -de ci si o nm ak er made th e deci si onm ake r a “ conduito f[ hi s] prej ud i ce. ” S e ei d. The cou rt did not su ggest, how ever, that th e sub ord inate’s i nfl ue nc e m us t be “ sing ul ar, ” f o cus i ngi ns te ad o n the l ac ko fi nd epe nde ntde l ibe r at i o n b y the de ci si o n- m ak i ng c om m itt ee . Se ei d. Thi s a pp ro ach was l ar gely r epl i cate d i n M etzg er, wh er e the co urt em phasi zed the l ack ofev idence ofany “i m properi n fl uence” by the s ubor dinat e an d th e in d ep en d en t n at u re of th e d ec i s i on -m ak in g. See 519 F

. 3d at6 82

. Othe rc as es, ho wev er, s ug g es t th atthe cat’ s paw d oct rine on ly appli es w here a “deci si on m ake r is . .

. w h olly d ep en d en t o n a sin gle so u rc e o f info rm at ion .” See B rew er, 4 79 F.3d at91 7-1 8. T h e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n in St aub , for in st an c e, h eld th at“t o b e a c at ’s p aw r eq u ire s . . .14 N o. 08

- 3094

a bl i nd r el i ance, the stuffo f‘ si ngul ari nfluence. ’ ” See St aub , 56 0 F

. 3d at 659. The Co ur t m er ely no te s th i s i nt erna lc o nfl i ctf o rthe re cor d. I t nee d not r eco nci le these approa ches today f or se ve ra l rea so n s. Firs t, L on g is o n ly c laim in g t h a t a sin gle su bord inate ( B r an ha m ) w as th e sou rce of the retali atory an im us that Lon g seeks to im p ut e to Ba um an . M oreover, r eg ar dl es s o fthe a ppr o a c hth ato ne a do pts , a n inde pen den t in ve st iga tio n by th e d ec isio n m ak er w eig h s h e a vily ag ain sta fin d in g ofe x c e ss ive influ en c e. See St aub , 56 0 F .3 d a t 6 59 ; see also M etzg er, 51 9 F

. 3d at 682; Wil lis , 11 8 F. 3d at 547. H er e, Baum an re l i ed on i nfo rm atio n fro m seve ra ldi ffer ent s ourc es bef or e a rr i vi ng atthe deci si on to fi r e Lo ng . Af te rBr anha m r ec o m m en ded th atTRS shoul d fi re Lon g, Larkin gathere d i nfo rm ati on o n her own byr evi ew i ng in for m ati on fro m S herm an, m em ber c om p lain ts an d L on g’s p er f or m an c e e va lu at ion s. L ar kin th enhe l d t wo mee ting s wi thBa um an to di sc us s th e si tuati on be f or e s he m ad e h ero w n re com m endati on th at T R S shou ld fi re Lon g. A fter rec eiving La rkin’s i npu t, Baum an r evie w ed the i nfo rm ati on r el ating to Long i nd ep endentl y. W hi l e Bra nham m et w i th Baum an to d iscuss the m em berco m pla i nts that Pay ro l lhad re

cei ved, Branham di d not co ntro lal lo fthe i nfo rm ati on that B aum an had to ev al uate the r eco m m endati on t o ter m i nate Long. The set of data avai l abl e to B au m an consi ste d o f i nfo rm ati on provi ded by Branha m , Sher m an an d L a r k i n. No thingi n the r e c o r d s ug g e s t s tha tBr anham ex er ted singul ari nfluence o verBaum an’ s deci si on o r th a tB a u ma n me r e l y “ r u b b e r - s t a mp e d ” B r a n h a m’ s r e c o mm endati on; to the contr ar y, the und i sputed f acts sho wN o. 08

- 3094 15 that Baum an r evi ew ed m ult i ple so urces o fi nfo rm ati on on hi s o w n, hel d at l eas t three m eet i ngs a nd recei ved Lar k i n’ s i nde pen den t r ec o m m en dat i o n b efo r e dec i di ng to fire L ong. W hi l e Long questi ons the thor oughness an d i nd ep en d en ce of Bau m an ’s inv estigation, the record sh o ws tha t Bauman was no t whol l y de pen den t o n a si ngl e s ourc e o fi nfo rm ati on a nd r evi ew ed the f acts r el ev an t to the de ci si o n o n h i s o w n, w hi chi s al ltha t he w as re q u ire d to do to abs ol ve TRS ofpote nti all i abi l i ty u n d er th e c at ’s p aw th eo ry . Se eStaub , 56 0 F

. 3d at 659; B rew er, 47 9 F

. 3d at 918. T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i fB r a n h a m’ s d e p o s i t i o n p r o v i d e d s o me e v i de nc e tha th e h a rb o r e d a r e t a l i a t o r y a ni mus t o wa r ds Lo ng ’ s F M LA l ea ve , the r ec o r d s ho ws tha t Bauman, who did notev en kno w thatLong t oo k FM LA l eave , act ed as the ul ti m ate deci si onm aker. Long has noti ntro du ced evi dence thatwould prov i de a b asi s for im p u ti ng a re tal i ato ryani m us fro m Branham to Baum an bec au se B ran ha m did not ex ert sin g u lar infl ue nc e over B au m an ’s dec i si o n. Acco r di ng l y, Br anha m ’ s st atement s r eg ar di ng Long’ s a b se n tee i sm do notpro vi de herwith e vi dence that TRS fi re d her because she too k F M LA l eave . Long al so offer s TRS’s fai l ure to f ol l ow it s o w n i nter nal d iscipli ne proc ed u res as evid en ce of TR S’s retali atory i n t e n ti n f i r i n gh e r . Ane mpl o y e r ’ s d e p a r tu r e fr o m i t s o wn em p loy m en t p olic ies ca n co n st itu te circ u m st an tia l ev id en c e o f d isc rim in at ion

. SeeRud in v . Lincol n Cm ty. Co ll

. , 42 0 F .3d 71 2, 72 3 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Giac ol e t t o v. A m ax Zi nc C o., Inc. , 954 F.2d 4 2 4 , 427 (7th C ir. 1992). H ow ever, when a pr o g r es si ve di sc i pl i ne po l i cype r m i ts the16 N o. 08

- 3094

em plo yerto exer ci se disc re ti on in disc harg i ng an em plo yee w i thout exhausti ng al l of the pol i cy’s st ep s, f ai l ure to f ol l ow al l o f t h e ste ps does not sugge st a di sc rim in at or y m ot ive

. Se eFa nev. Lo ckeReynol ds, LL P , 48 0 F.3 d 53 4, 54 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Haguev. Thom ps on D i s t r i b

. Co. , 436 F.3d 816, 828 (7th Cir. 2006). TRS’s Em plo yee Dis ci pline Pol i cy uti l i zes a prog re ssi ve d isc ip lin e p lan , w h er e t h e d isc ip lin ar y s te p s t yp ic a l ly fol low thi s pat te r n: ( 1) o r alwar ni nga nd inf o r m alc o unse l i ng ; ( 2) wri tt enwar ni ng an d co uns el i ng ; ( 3) s us pen si o n; and ( 4) disc harg e. H owever, the pol i cy al so sta tes , “[ d]ependingo n the f acts and ci rcum sta n c es i nvol ved inea c h sit u at ion, m an ag em en t m ay ch oo se to be gin d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n atan y s te p .” A d d itio n ally, “[ f ]or ce rt ain m aj orvi ol ati ons orcon tin ued fa i l ure to re spond to pri or d isc ip lin ar y a c tio n, d isc h ar ge m ay be t h e on ly re c ou rs e.” W hen sk i pp i ng to the d ischarge st ep, TRS’ s pro cedures r e q u i r e th e s u p e r v i s o r an d d i v i s i o n h e a d t o ma k e r e c o mm endati ons fordi schar ge to the Di re cto r ofH um an Resour ces. H er e, the re cor d evi denc e sh ow s that TRS b ega n to disc i pline Long forherabs en teei sm bygi vi ng heran or alwarn in g. On Jul y 2 6, 20 05, Branham i nfo rm ed Long thathe woul d no l onge r supp or t herpro m oti on be ca us e o fhe re xc es si ve abs en te ei sm du r i ngthe months ofJ une and July20 05. A dd i ti onal l y, Branham m et w i th Long tw i ce in Se ptem ber 2 005 to di scuss l ate pro cess i ng o fpayr ol l ded ucti on pl an appli cati ons, EFT er ro rs , Lo ng ’ s f ai l ur e to tr ain o th er st aff i n EFT pr o ce dur es and com pla i nt s fr om m em ber s a nd co w or ker s r el ating toN o. 08

- 3094 17 Long’ s EFT work. Despi te these warni ngs, Bra n h am disc ove re d a l ar ge back l ogo fEFT f or m s o n sev er aloccasi ons i n l ate 200 5 an d ea rl y 2 006. On m ult i ple o ccasi ons, Long di d no t de l i v e r g r o up s o f EF T s l i ps t o the Data Services D ep artm en t for p rocess ing un tilthe d ay b efore th e cut

- o ffda te whenTRS ’ s pr o cedur es c al l ed f o rthe sl i ps to be del i ver ed on a dai l y b asi s so that Data S er vi ces coul d spread o ut i ts proce ssing o fthe f orm s. T hi s del ay for c ed D at a S er v i c e s to p ro c es s a ll of th e E FT form s in a s i ngl e day to ensur e ti m el y paym ent o fm em berbene fi ts. A fter disc ove ring thi s back l og of EFT form s sever al ti m es, Branham , S h er m an and Vi arr eco m m ended to Larkin that Long sho uld be fi red . T hi s r eco m m endati on com pli ed w i th TRS’ s pol i cy that re quir ed the supervis or and divi si on hea d to m ake r eco m m endati ons f or disc harg e t o the Di re cto r ofH um an S er vi ces. A lth ou gh TRS’ s p o l i c y a l l o ws f o rp r o g r e s s i v e di s c i pl i ne , i ta l so all ow s for term ination in th e even t of con tinu ed f ail ure to respond to pre vi ous warni ngs. Long r ecei ved or al w ar n in gs on atlea stth re e o c c as ion s b e g in n in g in J uly 2005 bef or e her ter m i nati on i n February 2006

. T h erefore, becau se L ong received se v e r al w arn ings before ter m i nati on a nd bec ause TRS had the abi l i ty to begi n disc i plinaryact i on a t a ny st ep, TRS di d not v i ol ate i ts di s c i pl i na r y p o l i c y wh e n Lo ngwa s t e r mi na t e d. L o n gp o i n t s o u tth a tu n d e rT R S ’ s p o l i c y, i n c i r c u mst an c es th atco u ld res u lt in im m ed iat e t er m in at ion, a su per vi so rmusts ubmi t a wri tt enr eque stde tai l i ngthe i nci dent to the divi si on hea d, the Di re cto r of Hu m an Resour ces and the Executi ve Dir ecto r. Because Br an ham18 N o. 08

- 3094

o r al l y i nf o r m ed Lar k i n o f h is r ec o m m en dat i o n tha t Lo ng shoul d b e fire d, Long cl ai m s that TRS’ s pol i cy w as vi ol ate d w hen i t fire d her. TRS co unters thati t o nl y has an o bl i gat i on t o m ake wri tte n re com m endati ons f or ter m i nati on w hen an em plo yee com m i ts “a si ngl e, se ver e, or a t r o c iou s p olic y v iola tio n ” t h atco n st itu te s a firea b le offense. Be c ause TRS and Branham pro vi ded o ra l w ar n in gs to L on g b eg in n in g in lat e Ju ly 2 00 5, ap p ro x im at e l y s i x mo n th s b e f o r e th e d a t e o fh e rt e r mi n at i o n, T R S c l ai m s that Long’ s t er m i nati on was notan “ i m m ed iat e t er m in at ion ” u n d er th e p olic y, bu t r a t h er th e re su lt ofr epeate d i nstance s o fsubst andard perfor m ance. Because the di sci plinarypolic y al l owed f orTRS to ter m i n at e Long under the ci rcum sta nces, the actual d ec isio n to te rm in a t e L o n g d id n otvio lat e t h e p olic y. If the pol i cy w as vi ol ate d at a l l, i t was wh en Branham or all y rec om m en d ed L on g’s te rm in at ion to L ar kin instea d ofpro vi ding Larkin w i th a w ri tte n re porto utlini ngthe r ea so ns tha t he b el i ev ed th atTRSs ho ul d fi re L o n g . Wh e n T R S h a s th e a u th o r i ty t o t e r mi n a t e a n e mp l o y e e , th e f a c tth a ta ma n a g e rma d e h i s r e c o mmen da t i o n o r a l l y i ns t e a d o fi n wr i t i ngdo e s n o tp r o v i de ci r cumst an tial e vi den ce o fr et al i at o r y i nt en t. Underthe po l i cy, Br anha m ha d the a utho r i tyt o r ec o m m en d Long’ s di schar ge base d up on herpoorj ob p er f or m ance. The f act that he di d so or al l y r atherthan i n w ri ti ng does n otp er m it th e in fer en c e t h atT R S d isc h ar ge d L on g in re tal i ati on forta ki ng F M LA l eave . Fi nal l y, Long c l ai m s that the decl i ne i n her perf or m ance ev alua ti o ns pr o vi des ci r cumst an ti al ev i den ce th at T RSN o. 08

- 3094 19
term inated her in retaliati on for taking FM L A l eave . “[A ]n em p loyer’ s su d d en dissat isf action w ith an em p loyee’s perf or m ance afte r that em plo yee enga ged in a pr ote cted acti vi ty m ay const i tute ci rcum stanti alev i dence ofcausa ti on. ” Cul ve rv. Gor m an & Co. , 416 F.3d 540 , 546 (7 th Cir. 2005 ). H ere, L ong clai m s tha t her “ex em p lary track record b elie s a n y s u gg es tio n th ath er p er for m an c e s u d d en ly changed. ” S he co ntends that“the f act that an em plo yee ha d cons istent ly overp erform ed exp ecta tio n s f or m ore than twenty yea rs and then a l lo fa sudd en be com es a ba d e m pl o y ee i s s impl y no t l o g i ca l

. ” Des pi te the se c o nt e nt i ons , the r e c o r d s ho ws tha tT RSfi r s tdo c ume nt e d a decl i ne i n Long’ s per f or m ance i n J une and J uly20 05, wh en she m i sse d 25% and 40% o fthe w or ki ng days i n each m onth, r espect i vel y. On J uly26 , 20 05 and Septem ber15 , 20 05 , Bran ha m met wi thLo ngt o di sc us s he rde cl i ni ng perf or m ance. In the m eet i ngs, Branham di scusse d her ab se n te eis m in a d d itio n t o se ve ra l E FT err or s a tt rib u ta b le to her that caused del aye d benefi t paym en ts to m em ber s a nd the disc los ure ofa m em ber ’ s per sonal i nfo rm ati on to a thi rd party

. Du ring the m ee tings , B ra n h am als o in for m ed L on g th atsh e h ad n ottim ely proce sse d seve ra lpayr ol ldeductio n pla ns. B ran ha m d o c um en ted those de fi cienc ies in L ong ’s perform ance b ef or e S eptem ber22 , 20 05, the date o fher firs t F M L A -re lat ed ab se n c e. W h ile a s u d d en d ec lin e in per f o r m an ce e va l ua ti o ns a fte ra n e m pl o y ee e ng ages in a prot ecte d activi ty m ay provi de ci rcum sta nti alev i dence ofdi scr i m i natory inten t, a decl i ne i n perfor m ance20 N o. 08

- 3094 bef or e the em plo yee engag es i n prot ecte d acti vi ty does not allo w for a n infe re n c e o f ret alia tio n . S e eDurki n , 34 1 F.3 d at61 4-1 5 (“ It is a x iom at ic t h ata p lain tiff e n ga ge in sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty bef or e a n em p loy ercan re tal i ate ag ai nst he r f orenga gi ng in sta tutor i l y protected ac tiv i t y . . . . A n em p loy er ca n n otret alia te if th er e is nothi ng f ori t t o re tal i ate ag ai nst.”)

. Because Branham firs t d oc u m e n te d a d ec lin e in L on g’s p er for m an c e in J une 200 5, atl eas t three m onths bef or e L ong eve r too k F M LA l eave , the decl i ne i n Long’ s perf or m ance evaluati ons cannot provi de ci rcum sta nti alev i dence of re tal i ato ryi ntent.

I I I

. Concl usi on Bec ause L o ngha s f ai l ed to pr es en t ev i den ce tha t TRS ac te d w ith r et alia to ry in te n t w h en itfired h er , a j u ry co u ld not i nfe r that TRS fi re d her because she too k F M LA l eave . T he refore, the d istri ct cou rt’s gran t of su m m ary j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

10- 23- 09