H onor abl e J udi t h C . H err er a, D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge, D i s tr i ctof N ew * M exi co, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

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

### September 26,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
NAN CY M ET ZL ER, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. F E DE RA L HOME L OAN B ANK OF T OP E KA a / k / a F HL BA NK T OP E KA, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 04- 3412

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct ofK ansas ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV- 4 0 2 4 - S AC) S t e p h e n D. La n t e r ma n , S l o a n , Ei s e n b a r th , Gl a s s ma n , M c En t i r e & J a rb o e , L. L. C. ( A l an V . J ohns on, w i t h hi m on t he br i efs ) , T opeka, K ans as , forPl ai nt i ffA p p e llan t. Pat r i ci a E. R i l ey , W eather s & R i l ey , T opeka, K ans as , forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efor e P OR F I L I O, E B E L , C i r cui tJ udges , and HERR ER A, D i s tr i ctJ udge. *
EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.“ W e re v iew th e g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t d e n o v o , an d a ffirm o n lyif 1 t he r ecor d, cons i der ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, es t abl i s hes no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” J ones v. D enverPub. Sch. , 427 F. 3d 1315, 1318 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). In re c iti n g th e re lev a n t fa c ts, w e v iew th e e v id e n c e , an d d ra w re a so n a b le 2 i nfer ence s t her efr om , i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M et zl er . M ei ner s v. U ni v. of K a n ., 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). - 2 - Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antN ancyM et zl er( “M et zl er ”) w as form er l yan empl oy ee of D efe ndant - A ppel l ee Fede r al H om e Loan B ank of Topeka a / k/ a FH L B ank of T opeka ( “FH L B ”) . FH L B t erm i nat ed M et zl erfr om herpos i t i on as a D at abas e and Sy s t ems A nal y s ti n N ovember2002. M et zl ert hen fi l ed an a ct i on undert he Fa mi l ya n d M e d i c a l Le a v e Act , 2 9 U. S. C. § § 2 6 0 1 - 5 4 ( “ FM LA”) a g a i n s tFHLB al l egi ng: ( 1 ) i n t e r fe r e n c e wi t h h e rF M LA- c r e a t e d r i g h t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 9 U. S . C. § 2 6 1 5 (a )(1 ); a n d (2 ) re talia tio n fo r e x e rc isin g h e r rig h ts u n d e r th e F M L A in vi ol at i on of 29 U . S. C . § 2615( a) ( 2) . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent fo r F H L B o n b o th claim s. A p p ly ing the a p p rop ri ate su m m aryjud g m en t st an d ard o f r e v i e w , w e A F F I R M.

1 BA CKGROUND 2 A l t hough M et zl erbegan he rempl oym entw i th FH L B on O ct ober20, 1986, th e re a l co n flicts th a t fo rm th e b a sis o f h e r c o m p lain t an d th is a p p e a l b e g a n in Sept ember2002 aft ert he I nform at i on T echnol ogy( “I T ”) D epart m ent , w i th w hom- 3 -

s h e h a d w o rk e d s in c e 1 9 8 6 , re o rg a n iz e d a n d p la c e d h e r u n d e r a n e w s u p e rv is o r. B ot h befor e and a ft ert he r eor gani zat i on, M et zl erw or ked as a D at abas e and Sy s t ems A nal y s t( “D B A ”) . T he form al j ob des cr i pt i on forthi s pos i t i on r emai ned unchange d t hr oughoutherempl oym ent : M et zl erw as r es pons i bl e form ai nt ai ni ng F H L B ’s relat ion d atab ase o p era ti n g sy stem , ca ll ed M icroso ft S tru cture d Q u ery L anguage Ser ver( “SQ L Ser ver ”) ; i ns t al l i ng updat es and mai nt ai ni ng the dat abas es , w hi ch i ncl uded “da t a bac kups , fi ne tuni ng, cr eat i ng i ndexes , and r evi ew i ng and i m pl ement i ng t he des i gns of the bank’ s appl i cat i on devel oper s ”; and as s i s t i ng pr ogr amm i ng s t aff i n t echni cal as pect s of appl i cat i on s el ect i on, d e v e lo p m e n t, a n d s u p p o rt . F rom Ju n e 2 0 0 0 u n ti l M etzler’s t erm ination , P h il A n d russ w as th e IT D i r ect or . Pr i ort o t he r eor gani zat i on, M et zl erw or ked i n the N etw or ks and S y st em s G roup o f t he IT D epart m ent unde r tw o d i fferenti m m ediat e supervis ors, bot h of w hom l acke d t he expe r i ence neede d pr oper l yt o m anage a D B A l i ke M et zl er : fr om 2000 unt i l A pr i l 2002, M et zl er ’ s i m m edi at e s upervi s orw as St eve M ont gom ery , t he N etw or k and Sy s t ems M anage r ; and fr om A pr i l 2002 unt i l the re o rg a n iz a tio n , K a th le e n G ro te w a s M e tz le r’ s s u p e rv is o r. O n Sept ember16, 2002, t he I T D epart m entw as r eor gani zed. T he re o rg a n iza tio n c re a ted a n e w g ro u p w ith in th e IT D e p a rtm e n t ca lled th e P rojec ts and Suppor tG r oup. W i t h t hi s r eor gani zat i on, among ot herthi ngs , the- 4 -

r es pons i bi l i t i es forfunct i ons i nvol vi ng D at a Tra ns form at i on Ser vi ces ( “D T S”) packa ges , w hi ch ar e s t andar d SQ L s ervert ool s thatanyexper i ence d SQ L Ser ver admi ni s t r at or s houl d know how t o us e, and document at i on of D T Ss a nd backup pr ocedur es m oved fr om t he pr ogr amm er s and deve l oper s t o the new Pr oj ect s and Suppor tG r oup. M et zl erhad us ed D T S forl i m i t ed purpos es pr i ort o the re o rg a n iz a tio n . Ch r i s M i l l e r , wh o wa s fa mi l i a rwi th S QL S e r v e ra n d t h e d u t i e s o f a DBA and had pr evi ous l yper form ed D T S package s , beca m e the hea d of the new Pr oj ect an d S u p p o rtg rou p . A lth o u g h M il ler ha d n o t prev iou slyac ted a s M etzler’s im m e d ia te s u p e rv is o r, M ille r h a d m a n a g e d p roje c ts in w h ic h M e tz le r p a rt ic ip a te d . O vert he y ear s , M i l l erand M et zl erhad deve l oped “pr ofes s i onal di ffe r ence s of opi ni on” aboutt he manneri n w hi ch M et zl eroper at ed, ors houl d have ope r at ed, h e r d a ta b a s e s . T h ree d ay s b efo re the reo rga n izati o n , A n d russ m et i n d ividu all yw ith ev ery I T D epart m entempl oy ee w ho w oul d be r eport i ng t o a new m anage raft ert he re o rg a n iza tio n . D u rin g h is m e e tin g w ith M e tzle r, h e in fo rm e d h e r th a t sh e w o u ld b e tran sfe rred to the n ew P rojec ts an d S u p p o rtg rou p an d p lace d u n d er M il ler’s s u p e rv is io n . M e tz le r r e s p o n d e d th a t s h e w o u ld ra th e r b e fir e d . M e tzle r m iss e d w o rk o n th e first d a yo f th e re o rg a n iza tio n a n d w o rk e d o n ly par tof the nextdaybefor e goi ng hom e s i ck and vi s i t i ng a doct or . T he phy s i ci an- 5 -

di agnos ed M et zl erw i t h w or k- r el at ed s tr es s , depr es s i on, anxi ety , and r el at ed s ym pt om s , and or der ed hert o s t ayoff w or k fortw o w eeks . O n Sept ember30, t he phy s i ci an or der ed hert o s t ayoff w or k forone more w eek. O n O ct ober4, the p h y s i c i a n i s s u e d M e t z l e ra wo r k r e l e a s e o r d e rp e r mi t t i n g h e rt o r e tu rn t o h a l f- t i me w o rk . M e tzle r re tu rn e d to w o rk o n O c to b e r 8 , w o rk in g fo u r h o u rs p e r d a yu n til F H L B ter m in a ted h e r e m p lo ym e n t o n N o v e m b e r 1 5 . A t so m e tim e p rio r to M e tzle r’s re tu rn to w o rk o n O c to b e r 8 , M ill e r u n d e rsto o d th a t M e tzle r p lan n e d to r eques tr etr oact i ve FM L A l eave forthe t i m e s he had be en abs ent . O n O ct ober17, M et zl ers ubm i t t ed thatr eques tforFM L A l eave r etr oact i ve t o Sept ember17, due to h e r s e ri o u s h e a lth c o n d itio n , a n d F H L B a p p ro v e d th e le a v e o n O c to b e r 1 8 . M et zl erw as t her efor e dee m ed t o be on ful l - t i m e FM L A l eave fr om Sept ember17 unt i l herr etur n t o w or k on O ct ober8, and then on r educe d s chedul e l eave upon h e r r e tu rn to w o rk . U pon herr etur n t o w or k on O ct ober8 thr ough hert erm i nat i on, M et zl er m ai nt ai ned the s ame j ob t i t l e, t he des cr i pt i on of herpos i t i on r emai ned uncha nged, and s he r ece i ved the s ame payand bene fi t s thats he r ece i ved both pr i ort o the r eor gani zat i on and pr i ort o herFM L A l eave . H ow ever , as A ndrus s had i nform ed M etzler o n S ep tem b er 1 3 , sh e w as n o w p art of the n ew P rojec ts an d S u p p o rt g ro u p a n d u n d e r M ill e r’s su p e rv isio n . T h e d u ties a n d tas k s a ss ig n e d to M e tzle r in- 6 -

t hi s new gr oup r equi r ed hert o us e more advanc ed fe atur es of ce r t ai n t ool s than s h e h a d p re v io u s ly u s e d . T he dayaft erM et zl err etur ned t o w or k par t - t i m e, M i l l erand M i chae l Sm i t h, an out s i de cons ul t antw i t h expert i s e as a D B A , m etw i th M et zl er . M i l l er a n d S m ith tes tifie d th a t M e tzle r ig n o re d M ill e r a n d a v o id e d c o m m u n ica tin g w ith herdur i ng t he meet i ng. M et zl eracknow l edges thati ti s pos s i bl e s he s atw i th her back t o M i l l ert hr oughoutt he meet i ng. T hats ame day , M i l l erw r ot e a for m al couns el i ng document( “O ct ober9 couns el i ng document ”) , w hi ch r epr oved M et zl er forbei ng uncomm uni cat i ve, rude beha vi or , and the unpr oduct i ve us e of he rt i m e, a n d re q u ire d M e tzle r to c o rre c t th e se d e ficie n c ies . It also re q u ire d M e tzle r to updat e M i l l erdai l yr egar di ng herpr oj ects t atus and i m pos ed an O ct ober17 deadl i ne fora s peci fi c as s i gnm ent . T he O ct ober9 couns el i ng document concl uded: W e nee d y ou and y ourbackgr ound know l edge, butw e ca nnotaffor d an em p loy ee that ca n n o t w o rk a s p art of the tea m an d b e p rod u cti v e. If t hes e i t ems do notdr amat i cal l yi m pr ove w i thi n t he next2 w eeks or other d eadl i nes es t abl i s hed, y ou w i l l be couns el ed further , up t o and i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on. M i l l ergave the documentt o M et zl eratthe end of M et zl er ’ s w or k dayon O ct ober 9. M i l l ert es t i fi ed thats he i s s ued the O ct ober9 couns el i ng documentbeca us e s he obs erved thatM et zl er ’ s unpr oduct i ve habi t s and att i tude pr obl ems w er e r ecurr i ng a n d s h e w a n te d M e tz le r t o u n d e rs ta n d s u c h p ro b le m s w e re n o lo n g e r a c c e p ta b le .- 7 -

M et zl ers i gned the document , not ed herdi s agr eement , and l at ers ubm i t t ed a r es pons e t o i t . H ow ever , M et zl erfai l ed t o pr ovi de M i l l erw i th the dai l ys t atus r epor t s r equi r ed byt he couns el i ng documentunt i l O ct ober15 beca us e M et zl er e rro n e o u slyb e liev e d th a t M ill e r h a d a c c e ss to M e tzle r’s e lec tro n ic p a yro ll tim e s h e e ts , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e re fle c te d th e s a m e in fo rm a tio n . O n O c to b e r 2 3 , M ill e r a ss ig n e d M e tzle r th e tas k o f a dju stin g c e rta in n u m b e r s i n o n e o f

F H L B ’ s d a t a b a s e s w i th a d e a d l i n e o f t h e fo l l o w i n g d a y, b e liev in g th e tas k sh o u ld tak e a p p ro x im a telytw o h o u rs. M e tzle r e x p lain e d to M i l l er , i n herr epor ton O ct ober25, t hatt he t as k w oul d actual l yt ake appr oxi m at el yfourhour s . M et zl ercompl et ed the as s i gnm ents even da y s l at er , on O ct ober30. M i l l eral s o as s i gned M et zl ert he t as k of r evi ew i ng document at i on for a bac kup of a pa r t i cul ars y s t em, t he netw or k, and the hots i t e w i th deadl i nes of O ct ober25, 28 and 29, r es pect i vel yforeac h t as k. M et zl ercompl et ed the as s i gnm ent s on N ovember1. O n O ct ober29, M et zl erm etw i th M i l l erand D i na C ox, FH L B ’ s D i r ect or of H um an R es our ces , t o di s cus s t he O ct ober9 couns el i ng document . M et zl er tes tifie d th a t sh e to ld M ill e r a n d C o x sh e th o u g h t sh e w a s b e in g tre a ted u n fa irly beca us e of he rFM L A l eave . D ur i ng thatm eet i ng, M et zl eradmi t t ed thats he m issed so m e d ea d li n es, bu t exp resse d h er b eli ef that m an yo f th ese d ea d li n es w ere unr eas onabl ys hor t . A ft err evi s i ons byA ndrus s and C ox, M i l l ercompl et ed a f i nal- 8 -

ver s i on of a w r i t t en r es pons e t o M et zl er ’ s obj ect i ons t o the O ct ober9 couns el i ng do cum ent, w hich st at ed, am on g o ther things: I s t r ongl ydi s agr ee w i t h N ancy [M et zl er ] ’ s pos i t i on thats he s houl d not h a v e t o p e r fo r m l i k e e v e r yo n e e l s e b e c a u s e s h e h a s b e e n i l l . N a n c y & h er D o ctor d ec ided the a p p ro p ri a te tim e sh e c o u ld co m e b ac k to w o rk a n d th a t sh e w o u ld b e a b le to w o rk 4 h o u rs p e r d a y . T h e e x p e c tatio n is t h a ts h e w o u l d w o r k a n d b e p r o d u c t i v e fo rt h o s e 4 h o u r s e a c h d a y. N ancys eems t o t hi nk s he shoul d have a “tr ans i t i on per i od” of s how i ng up forw or k butnothavi ng t o r eal l ydo anythi ng. On Nov e mbe r4 , M i l l e ra s s i g n e d M e t z l e rt o wr i t e a s e r i e s o f s i x DTS packa ges t o t r ans ferdat a fr om one dat abas e t o another . M i l l eres t i m at ed thatthe fi r s tp a c k a g e wo u l d r e q u i r e t h r e e h o u r s a n d th e o th e rfi v e wo u l d r e q u i r e two hour s eac h— a t ot al of 13 hour s — and s etthe dea dl i nes forthes e t as ks as N ovember4, 5, 6, and 7. B efor e del i ver i ng t hes e as s i gnm ent s t o M et zl er , M i l l er had her t i m e est i m at i on s r eview ed b yS m i th, the o uts i de co nsult ant w i th ex pert i se as a D B S; A ndrus s , t he I T D i r ect or ; and B i l l M cSpadden, the bank’ s appl i cat i ons d e v e lo p m e n t m a n a g e r, to e n su re th e a m o u n t o f tim e g iv e n w a s re a so n a b le. A ll th re e to ld M ille r h e r t im e e s tim a tio n s w e re re a s o n a b le . O n t he s ame dayt hatM i l l ergave M et zl erthe as s i gnm ent s and corr es pondi ng deadl i nes , M et zl ercompl ai ned aboutone part i cul ardeadl i ne t o her c o -w o rk e r, A n ita W rig h t. W rig h t, i n tu rn , sp o k e w ith C o x a n d to ld h e r th a t “it l o o k e d l i k e a c o u p l e mo r e h o u r s n e e d e d t o b e a d d e d t o s e v e r a l o f M i l l e r ’ s t i me es t i m at es . ” C ox, i n tur n, s poke t o M i l l eraboutone s peci fi c dea dl i ne, and M i l l er- 9 -

ext ended i tfr om t hr ee t o t w el ve hour s . B etw een N ovember4, w hen the t as ks w er e as s i gned, and N ovember15, w hen FH L B t erm i nat ed her , M et zl erw or ked for t yhour s . A s of hert erm i nat i on, how ever , M et zl erhad notcompl et ed anyof th e s ix D T S p a c k a g e s a s s ig n m e n ts . M i l l erdr aft ed anothercouns el i ng documenton the s ame days he ext ended M et zl er ’ s deadl i ne byni ne hour s , w hi ch cr i t i ci zed M et zl erforl ack of pr oduct i vi t yand mi s s ed dea dl i nes . A ft erM i l l ergave the documentt o C ox for r evi ew , C ox advi s ed M i l l ernott o del i veri tt o M et zl er . I ns t ead, overthe nextfew w eeks C ox hel d s ever al m eet i ngs — i ncl udi ng one on N ovember7 and anotheron N o v e m b e r 1 3

— b e tw e e n h e rse lf, M e tzle r, M ill e r, an d a t lea st o n c e , A n d ru ss , to at t empt t o i m pr ove M et zl er ’ s pr oduct i vi tyand comm uni cat i ons betw een M et zl er an d M il ler. D u ri n g thes e m ee ti n g s, M etzler w as n o t i n fo rm ed that h er w o rk p e r fo r m a n c e w a s s o d e fi c i e n tt h a th e rj o b w a s i n j e o p a r d y. O n N ovember11, M i l l erpr epar ed a mem or andum t o A ndrus s and B r ad H odges , FH L B ’ s Seni orV i ce Pr es i dentforH ous i ng, T echnol ogyand Pl anni ng, rec o m m en d ing that M etzler’s em p loym en t be term inated (“N o v em b er 1 1 m em o ”). T hen, on N ovember13, M i l l erpr epar ed anothercouns el i ng documentthats he i nt ended t o del i vert o M et zl er , buts he fi r s tgave t o i tC ox t o r evi ew . C ox advi s ed M ille r t o p ro c e e d w ith te rm in a tio n ra th e r t h a n d e liv e r t h e c o u n s e lin g s ta te m e n t.- 10 -

L at ert hatday , M i l l er , C ox, A ndrus s , and H odges m ett o di s cus s w hether M e t z l e rwas a b l e t o me e th e ra s s i g n e d j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o rwhe th e rFHLB neede d t o fi nd s om eone e l s e w ho coul d pr oduce the l evel of w or k r equi r ed. C ox test ifi ed that the d ec isi o n to term inate M etzler d u e to th e e ffec t of M etzler’s fai l ur e t o m eetdeadl i nes , heruncooper at i venes s , and the effec tof hernegat i ve at t i tude on the w hol e t eam w as m ade j oi nt l yand bas ed, atl eas tpart i al l y , on M i l l er ’ s N ovember11 m emo. FH L B t erm i nat ed M et zl er ’ s empl oym enteffect i ve N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 . M et zl ert hen br oughtan ac t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourtfort he D i s tr i ctof K ans as al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 29 U . S. C . § 2615( a) ( 1) and ( 2) of the FM L A . I n an or derdat ed Sept ember21, 2004, t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfor F H L B o n th e § 2 6 1 5 (a )(1 ) c laim a f ter fin d in g th a t M e tzle r fa iled to sta te a v iab le i nt er fer ence cl ai m and thathercl ai m w as m or e pr oper l yanal y zed a s a r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he di s t r i ctcour tfur t herfound thatM et zl erfai l ed t o s how pr et extand g r a n t e d s u mm a r yj u d g me n tfo rF HL B o n t h e § 2 6 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. On appea l , M et zl erar gues t hats he s t at ed a vi abl e cl ai m forFM L A i nt er fer ence and t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforFH L B on both her § 2 61 5(a) (1) and (2) cl ai m s. DI S CU S S I ONS e c tio n 2 6 1 5 (a ) p ro v id e s: 3 (a ) In ter fe re n c e w ith rig h ts (1 ) E x e rc ise o f

rig h ts I ts hal l be unl aw ful forany em pl oy ert o i nt er fer e w i th, r es tr ai n, ordenyt he exe rcise o f orthe att empt t o exer ci s e, anyr i ght p rov ided u n d er this su b ch ap ter. ( 2) D i s cr i m i nat i on I ts hal l be unl aw ful for any empl oy er t o di s char ge ori n anyother m annerdi s cr i m inate agai ns tanyi ndi vi dual foroppos i ng any p rac ti ce m ad e u n law fu l bythis sub ch ap ter. 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 6 1 5 (a ). E m p lo y e e s a re a u th o riz e d u n d e r 2 9 U .S .C .§ 2 6 1 7 (a ) to b ri n g a c a u s e o f

a c tio n fo r v io la tio n s o f § 2 6 1 5 (a ). - 11 - T hi s ci r cui thas r ecogni zed tw o theor i es of r ecove ryunder§ 2615( a) : an ent i t l ementori nt er fer ence t heoryar i s i ng fr om § 2615( a) ( 1) , and a r et al i at i on or di s cr i m i nat i on t heory ar i s i ng fr om § 2615( a) ( 2) . See Sm i th v. D i ffe e For d- 3 L i ncol n- M er cury , I nc. , 298 F. 3d 955, 960 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . T he di s t i nct i on betw een thes e tw o t heor i es i s i m por t antbeca us e the el ement s and bur dens of p ro o f th a t ap p lyto § 2 6 1 5 (a )(1 ) c laim s d iffe r f ro m th o se th a t ap p lyto § 2 6 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) c l a i ms , s e e i d . a t9 6 0 - 6 2 , a n d we t h e r e fo r e a n a l y z e M e t z l e r ’ s c l a i ms s e p a r a t e l y. I. R e ta lia tio n C la im R et al i at i on cl ai m s undert he FM L A ar e s ubj ectt o the bur den- s hi ft i ng a n a lysis o f

M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s C o rp . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -0 4 (1 9 7 3 ). S e e D o e b e le v . S p ri n t/U n ite d M g m t. C o ., 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).W e h a d p re v io u slyh e ld th a t a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f re talia tio n u n d e r b o th 4 T itle V II a n d th e F M L A re q u ir e d a n “ a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n .” S e e , e .g ., M aldo n ad o v . C ityo f A ltu s, 4 3 3 F . 3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (T it le V II) ; C h a v e z v . T h o m a s & B e tts C o rp ., 3 9 6 F .3 d 1 0 8 8 , 1 1 0 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( F M L A ). W e not ed i n A r go v. B l ue C r os s & B l ue Shi el d of K ans as , I nc. , 452 F. 3d 1193 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ), ho w ever, t hat the S up rem e C ou rtrecent l yrej ect ed o ur “adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n sta n d a rd ,” b yh o ld in g th a t a T itl e V II re talia tio n c laim pl ai nt i ff “ need onl ys how ‘ t hata r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d have found t he c h a lle n g e d a c tio n m a te ri a lly a d v e rs e .’” Id . a t 1 2 0 2 n .2 (q u o tin g B u rl in g to n N . & S a n t a F e Ry . Co . v . Wh i t e , 1 2 6 S . Ct . 2 4 0 5 , 2 4 1 4 - 1 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ) . S u b s e q u e n t l y , we (c o n tin u e d ...) - 12 - Un d e rt h i s a n a l y s i s , t h e p l a i n t i ff b e a r s th e i n i t i a l b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r i ma faci e case of ret al i at i on . Id. If the p l ai nti ff d oes so, then the d efen dan tm ust offe ra l egi t i m at e, non- r et al i at or yr eas on forthe empl oym entact i on. I d. T he p lai n ti ff then b ea rs th e u lt im ate b u rde n o f d em o n str ati n g that the d efen d an t’ s p ro ffe re d re a s o n is p re te x tu a l. I d .; s e e a ls o G u n n e ll v . U ta h V a lle yS ta te C o ll., 1 5 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 3 (1 0 th C ir.1 9 9 8 ) (e x p lain in g th a t p lain tiff h a s th e u lti m a te b u rd e n o f

d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e c h a llen g e d e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n w a s th e re su lt o f in te n tio n a l r e ta lia tio n ).

A . P ri m a F aci e C as e of R et al i at i on T o s t at e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on, M et zl erm us ts how t hat : ( 1) s he e n g a g e d in a p ro tec ted a c tiv ity ; (2 ) F H L B to o k a n a c tio n th a t a r e a so n a b le empl oy ee w oul d have found m at er i al l yadver s e; and ( 3) t her e exi s t s a ca us al 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 extended W hit e t o A D E A and A D A plai nti ffs. S ee H aynes v. Lev el 3 C om m c’ns, L L C , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 2 5 8 8 3 6 , at * 1 , 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t a T i t l e V I I , A D E A , orA D A pl ai nt i ff musts how : “( 1) thathe enga ged i n pr ot ect ed oppos i t i on t o di s cr i m i nat i on, ( 2) thata r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d have found t he chal l enged a ct i on m at er i al l yadver s e, and ( 3) thata ca us al connec t i on exi s t ed betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand the mat er i al l yadver s e ac t i on”) ( quot at i ons o m itted). B ec au se “ [t]he F M L A ’s [retali ati o n ] clau se is ‘de ri v ed fro m T it le V II a n d is [ th u s] in ten d e d to b e c o n stru e d in th e sa m e m a n n e r,’” D u c k w o rth v . P ra tt & W hi t ney , I nc. , 152 F. 3d 1, 9 n. 8 ( 1s tC i r . 1998) ( al t er at i ons om i t t ed) ( quot i ng S. R ep. N o. 103- 3, at34 ( 1993) , r epr i nt ed i n 1993 U . S. C . C . A . N . 3, 36) , the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ej ect i on of our“adve r s e empl oym entact i on” r equi r ement appl i es w i t h equal for ce i n t he cont extof an FM L A r et al i at i on cas e. - 13 - connec t i on betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand the adve r s e ac t i on. See A r go, 452 F . 3 d at 12 0 2 ; C h av ez , 3 9 6 F . 3 d at 11 0 4 . T h e fir st tw o o f th ese req u ir em en ts are c l e a r l yme ti n th i s c a s e — M e t z l e re n g a g e d i n a p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i tyb yt a k i n g FM LA l eave for a s er i ous heal t h condi t i on and FH L B w as aw ar e of s uch l eave , and any rea so n ab le em p loy ee w o u ld h av e fo u n d term ination m aterial lyad v erse . T h e third el ement , t hen, r emai ns t he onl yone on w hi ch i ti s ques t i onabl e w hetherM et zl er m ade a s uffi ci ents how i ng. T o es t abl i s h t he thi r d el ementof a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on, M et zl er mus ts h o w a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n b e twee n h e rp r o t e c t e d a c t i v i tyo f t a k i n g FM LA l eave and FH L B ’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e herempl oym ent . T he “c r i t i cal i nqui r y ” at t hi s pr i m a fa ci e s t age i s “w hethert he pl ai nt i ff ha s demonstr at ed thatt he [empl oy er ’ s ] act i on occurr ed underci r cumst ance s w hi ch gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. ” G arr et tv. H ew l et t - Packar d C o. , 305 F. 3d 1210,- 14 -

1221 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e have r epea t edl yr ecogni zed t empora l pr oxi m i t ybetw een pr ot ect ed conduc tand t erm i nat i on as r el evant ev iden ce o f a ca u sal co n n ec ti o n su ffici en t t o “jus ti fyan infere n ce o f re tal iat o ry m ot i ve. ” See, e. g. , H aynes , 456 F. 3d 1215, 2006 W L 2258836, at*9. W e have e m p h a siz e d , h o w e v e r, th a t a p lain tiff m a yre lyo n tem p o ra l p ro x im itya lo n e o n ly i f “the t erm i nat i on i s verycl os el yconnec t ed i n t i m e t o the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty . ” A n d e rso n v . C o o rs B re w in g , 1 8 1 F .3 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). H er e, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es that M et zl ers ubm i t t ed herform al r eques tfor r etr oact i ve FM L A l eave on O ct ober17, 2002 and thatFH L B appr oved i tt he foll ow i ng day . V i ew ed in a l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o M et zl er, t he record al so i ndi cat es t hatM i l l erknew of M et zl er ’ s i nt entt o i nvoke FM L A r i ght s forher ab sen ce so m eti m e b etw ee n the b eg inn ing o f M etzler’s ab sen ce fro m w o rk (S ep tem b er 1 7 ) an d h er return to w o rk (O ctob er 8 ). A s a re su lt , M etzler’s ter m in a tio n o c c u rre d a t m o st a b o u t 6 w e e k s a f ter F H L B k n e w M e tzle r in ten d e d to eng age in prot ect ed acti vityand w i thin as l i t t l e as fou r w eeks of M et zl er’ s r equ est fo r F M L A -p ro tec ted lea v e . B e c a u se h e r te rm in a tio n w a s th e re fo re “ v e ryc lo se ly connec t ed i n t i m e” t o herpr ot ect ed FM L A act i vi ty , i d. , s he has es t abl i s hed the th ird , an d fin a l, ele m e n t o f h e r p rim a fa c ie c a se . C o m p a re R a m ire z v . O k la. D e p t. of M ent al H eal t h, 41 F. 3d 584, 596 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng thata one a nd one-- 15 -

hal f m ont h per i od betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand the adve r s e ac t i on m ay , by i t s el f, es t abl i s h caus at i on) , overrul ed on othergr ounds byE l l i s v. U ni v. of K an. M ed. C t r . , 163 F. 3d 1186 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) , w i th R i chmond v. O N E O K , I nc. , 120 F. 3d 205, 209 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( deci di ng thata per i od of thr ee mont hs betw een th e p ro tec ted a c tiv itya n d th e a d v e rse a c tio n , sta n d in g a lo n e , is n o t su fficie n t to estab li sh ca u sati o n ). B . L egi t i m at e, N onret al i at ory R eas on for T erm i nat i on H a v in g e sta b lish e d h e r p rim a fa c ie c a se , the b u rd e n u n d e r M c D o n n e ll D ougl as t hen s hi ft s t o FH L B t o demonstr at e a l egi t i m at e, nonr et al i at or yr eas on fo r its te rm in a tio n d e c isio n . S e e D o e b e le, 3 4 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 5 . F H L B a ss e rts th a t it fire d M e tzle r d u e to h e r p o o r jo b p e rfo rm a n c e , p o o r a tti tu d e , an d fa ilu re to m a in tain a d e q u a te jo b -re late d sk ill s. B e c a u se th e se re a so n s a re n o t fa c ially pr ohi bi t ed, t he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatFH L B art i cul at ed a leg iti m a te, n o n re talia to ryre a so n fo r te rm in a tin g M e tzle r’s e m p lo ym e n t. C. Pr e t e xt T o d efeat s um m aryj ud gm ent, t hen , M et zl er m ustshow t hat there i s a genui ne di s put e of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherFH L B ’ s expl anat i ons for t erm i nati ng her em ploym ent ar e pret extual . S ee M i ckels on v. N ew Y ork L i fe Ins. C o. , — F. 3d — , 2006 W L 2468302, at*11 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ; C havez , 396 F. 3d at 1104. T o es t abl i s h pr et ext , M et zl err el i es on s i x pi ece s of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence- 16 -

all eg ed lyestab li sh ing : ( 1 ) th e p rox im ate ti m ing o f h er term ination ; ( 2 ) a p att ern of r et al i at or yconduct ; ( 3) FH L B ’ s pr i ortr eatm entof her ; ( 4) FH L B ’ s act i on c o n tra ryto its h a n d b o o k p o licy ; (5 ) F H L B ’s d o c u m e n tatio n o f h e r file in ant i ci pat i on of l i t i gat i on; and ( 6) pr oof thatFH L B ’ s expl anat i on i s unw or thyof cr edenc e. 1. T i m i ng ofM et zl er’ s t erm i nat i on It is u n d is p u te d th a t F H L B d is c h a rg e d M e tz le r d u ri n g h e r F M L A le a v e . A lth o u g h tem p o ra l p ro x im ityis o n e re lev a n t fa c to r to b e c o n sid e re d b yth e c o u rts in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e e m p lo y e r’s e x p lan a tio n is a p re tex t fo r re talia tio n , this cou rthas refused t o all ow even “‘verycl ose’ t em po ral proxim i tyt o o perat e as a p ro x yfo r t h [ e ] e v id e n tia ry re q u ir e m e n t” th a t th e p la in tiff d e m o n s tr a te p re te x t. An n e t tv . Un i v . o f

Ka n . , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ; M e d i n a v . I n c o me Suppor tD i v. , 413 F. 3d 1131, 1138 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “[Tem por al pr oxi m i ty ] i s not al one s uffi ci entt o defe ats um m aryj udgm ent . ”) ( quot at i ons om i tt ed) . T o r ai s e a fac ti s s ue of pr et ext , M et zl erm us tt her efor e pr es entevi dence of t empora l pr oxi m i t ypl us ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of r et al i at or ym ot i ve. See, e. g. , Pas tr an v. K - M ar tC orp. , 210 F. 3d 1201, 1206- 07 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . H er e, M et zl err el i es on the five o ther p iece s o f c ir cu m stan ti al ev iden ce to d em o n str ate tha t FH L B ’s al l eged e xpl anat i on forhert erm i nat i on, i n addi t i on t o the t empora l pr oxi m i tyofMe t z l e ra l l e g e s t h a th e rt h r e e n e w d u t i e s r e l a t e d t o D T S p a c k a g e s . We 5 no t e t hat these al l eged l ynew du t i es and tasks m erel yrequi red M et zl er t o u se m or e adva nced featur es of ce r t ai n t ool s t han s he ac know l edged pr evi ous l yus i ng a s a DB A. I ti s t h e r e fo r e n o tc l e a rt h a th e ra s s i g n me n t s we r e a c tu a l l y“ n e w. ” At h e r d e p o sitio n , M e tzle r a d m itt e d th a t th e re o rg a n iza tio n sh if ted th e re sp o n sib ili ty forw r i t i ng and document i ng appl i cat i on- r el at ed D T S package s fr om t he (c o n tin u e d ...) - 17 - h er term ination an d ex erc ise o f p rotec ted righ ts, w as a p retex t fo r retal iat o ry di s char ge. 2. A pat t ern of ret al i at ory cond uct R el y i ng on ourdeci s i on i n M ar x v. Schnuck M arket s , I nc. , 76 F. 3d 324 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), M etzler co n tend s tha t FH L B en g ag ed in a p att ern o f re tal iat o ry conductbegi nni ng s oon aft ers he r etur ned on r educe d s chedul e FM L A l eave , w h ich s h e a rgu es d em o n str ates p retex t. S p ec ifi ca ll y , M etzler all eg es th at pa tt ern began w i t h FH L B i s s ui ng t he O ct ober9 couns el i ng document ; cont i nued w hen F H L B a ss ig n e d n e w jo b d u ties to M e tzle r, fa iled to g iv e h e r a d e q u a te tra in in g to per form t hos e new dut i es , t hen i m pos ed unr eas onabl e dea dl i nes forcompl et i on of t hos e dut i es ; and ul t i m at el ycul m i nat ed i n t erm i nat i ng herempl oym ent . A l though a p att ern o f re tal iat o ryac ti o n s tak en b ya d efen d an t m ayp rec lud e su m m ary j ud gm ent, i d. at32 9, M et zl er has not es t abli shed a p at t ern of co nd uct gi ving ri se to a n in fe re n c e o f

re ta lia to ry a n im u s . E v e n a ss u m in g M e tzle r w a s a ss ig n e d n e w d u ties u p o n h e r re tu rn f ro m f u llt i m e FM L A l eave , r athert han upon the I T s ect i on’ s r eor gani zat i on, t her e w as no 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 pr ogr amm er s t o M et zl erand A ni t a W r i ght , w ho w er e partof the new Pr oj ect s and S u p p o rt g ro u p . - 18 - e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e d u t i e s wer e a s s i g n e d t o h e ri n r e t a l i a t i o n fo rt a k i n g FM LA l eave . M et zl ert her efor e fa i l ed t o s etfor th, bys uffi ci entaff i davi t s orother e v i d e n c e , t h a ts h e was a s s i g n e d n e w du t i e s i n r e t a l i a t i o n fo re x e r c i s i n g FM LA ri g h ts . A d d iti o n a lly , the re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt h e r c laim th a t F H L B fa iled to p ro v id e s u ffic ie n t tr a in in g a n d re s o u rc e s re g a rd in g th e s e a lle g e d ly n e w d u tie s . M e tzle r’s jo b d e sc rip tio n e x p licitlysta ted th a t sh e w a s e x p e c ted to b e a b le to qui ckl yas s i m i l at e and us e new t echnol ogyr equi r ed t o per form her r es pons i bi l i t i es . M et zl eracknow l edged thatD T S w as a s t andar d D B A t ool and t hatt he us e of thatt ool forappl i cat i ons coul d be l earned fr om m anual s and onl i ne hel p r es our ces avai l abl e t o M et zl er . T hus , M et zl erhas al s o notr ai s ed a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng w hetherthe tr ai ni ng orr es our ces pr ovi ded by F H L B s u g g e s ts p re te x t. F in a lly , n o th in g a b o u t th e tim e e stim a tes w ith in w h ich M e tzle r w a s to compl et e the new j ob dut i es s ugges t s pr et ext . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe deadl i nes i m pos ed on M et zl erw er e deve l oped byM i l l er( w ho M et zl erdes cr i bes as havi ng atl eas ts om e bac kgr ound i n SQ L s erver s ) , and w er e r evi ew ed by M i chae l Sm i t h ( an out s i de cons ul t antw i th D B A expert i s e) and B i l l M cSpadden- 19 -

(FH L B ’s app l i cat i on s developm ent m anag er w ho al so had som e exp eri ence a s a D B A ) . T he r ecor d al s o i ndi cat es thatboth Sm i th and M cSpadden a s s ur ed M i l l er t hathert i m e es t i m at es fort he as s i gnm ent s w er e r eas onabl e, and thatM i l l er a dju s te d th e o n e tim e e s tim a te b ro u g h t to h e r a tte n tio n b yM e tz le r a s m is ta k e n . T h u s, n o thing in the rec o rd su g g ests that the d ea d li n es im p o sed o n M etzler w ere g e n e ra llyu n re a so n a b le o r th a t an ym ista k e in th e tim e e stim a tio n s w a s th e re su lt of r et al i at i on r athert han over s i ght . E . E . O . C . v. Fl as herC o. , I nc. , 986 F. 2d 1312, 1322 n. 12 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( “[A ] m i s t aken be l i ef c an be a l egi t i m at e r eas on foran e m p lo ym e n t d e c is io n a n d is n o t n e c e s s a ri ly p re te x tu a l.” ). T hi s l eave s onl yt he O ct ober9 couns el i ng document . A s i ngl e eve ntcannot l ogi cal l ycons t i tut e a pa t t ern of r et al i at oryconducts uffi ci entt o r ai s e an i nfer ence of pr et ext . I n anyevent , w e not e thatFH L B expr es s ed s om e conc ern about M et zl er ’ s per form ance and att i tude befor e s he t ook FM L A - pr ot ect ed l eave , w hi ch w ea k en s the relev an ce o f th e tem p o ral pro x im ityb etw ee n the O ctob er 9 c o u n s e lin g d o c u m e n t a n d th e p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. S e e S m ith v . A lle n H e a lth S y s ., I nc. , 302 F. 3d 827, 834 ( 8t h C i r . 2002) ( “Evi dence thatthe empl oy erhad bee n c o n c e rn e d a b o u t a p ro b lem b e fo re th e e m p lo y e e e n g a g e d in th e p ro tec ted a c tiv ity under cut s t he s i gni fi canc e of the t empora l pr oxi m i ty . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , M et zl erhas notdemonstr at ed a pa t t ern of r et al i at or yconductbegi nni ng s oon aft ers he- 20 -

engage d i n pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand cul m i nat i ng i n hereventual di s char ge thatgi ves ri s e to th e in fe re n c e th a t h e r t e rm in a tio n w a s re ta lia to ry.

3. F H L B ’ s pri or t reat m ent ofM et zl er M et zl eras s ert s , as hert hi r d pi ece of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence demonstr at i ng pr et ext , t hatFH L B ’ s t r eatm entof heraft ers he i nvoked herFM L A r i ght s di ffe r ed fr om FH L B ’ s pr i ort r eatm entof her . M et zl ercont ends t hat , pr i ort o O ct ober8, s h e h a d n e v e r r e c e iv e d a w ri tte n c o u n s e lin g s ta te m e n t f ro m a n yo f

h e r m a n a g e rs . A d d iti o n a lly , M e tzle r re c e iv e d o v e ra ll p e rfo rm a n c e ra tin g s o f “ M e e ts E xpect at i ons ” on herper form ance eval uat i on i n 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 ( herfi nal y earr evi ew ed) . Foreac h of thes e y ear s , M et zl eral s o r ece i ved r at i ngs of “Succ es s ful ” i n t he ar eas of “W or ks W el l W i th O ther s ” and “ W or ks E ffi ci ent l y . ” A ft erherr educe d l eave s chedul e bega n, M et zl err ece i ved the O ct ober9 couns el i ng document , w as r equi r ed t o att end atl eas tt w o couns el i ng m eet i ngs ( N ovember7 and N ovember11) , and w as t hen di s char ged on N ovember 15 forpoorper form ance and att i tude. M et zl ercl ai m s t hatt hi s evi dence r ai s es an in fe re n c e o f

re talia to rym o tiv e u n d e r o u r h o ld in g in S im m s v . O k lah o m a e x re l. D e p t. o f M e n ta l H e a lth , 1 6 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W hi l e “[ e] vi dence of pr et extm ayi ncl ude . . . pr i ort r eatm entof pl ai nt i ff, ” id. at1 3 2 8 ; see a lso G arrett , 3 0 5 F . 3 d at 12 1 7 (sam e), th e re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rt M et zl er ’ s cl ai m t hathereval uat i ons aft erO ct ober8 di ffe r ed mat er i al l yi n anIn re g a rd to M e tzle r’s jo b sk ill s, h e r a n n u a l ev a lu a tio n s c o n tain 6 su g g esti o n s fo r area s o f im p rov em en t suc h as: “[ c]o n ti n u e to s tr ive to learn m o re aboutt he B ank’ s bus i nes s ”; “[c ] ont i nued gr ow th of t echni cal s ki l l s t hr ough s peci al i zed tr ai ni ng”; “w or k on y ourgener al N T and netw or k know l edge. ” A d d iti o n a lly , in r e g a rd to h e r a tti tu d e , h e r 2 0 0 0 e v a lu a tio n sta tes “ try in g to m a in ta in a p o s itiv e a n d a c c e p tin g a ttitu d e to w a rd te a m m a te s a n d c o w o rk e rs . . . . [T]he r e ar e t i m es w hen y ou s eem t o become di s s at i s fi ed . . . . I ’ m conce rned that y ours om et i m es - negat i vi s m i s caus i ng other s . . . t o fee l y ou unappr oacha bl e at t i m es . . . . ” - 21 - u n ex p lai n ed w ay fro m h er ev alua ti o n s b efo re that d ate. Instea d , the re co rd 6 i ndi cat es t hatM et zl er ’ s l as tt hr ee a nnual eval uat i ons cont ai ned nega t i ve comm ent s aboutherj ob s ki l l s and/ oratt i tude. A ddi t i onal l y , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es that m u lt iple F H L B m an ag ers o r co n su lt an ts ex p resse d d o u b ts ab o u t M etzler’s p e r fo r ma n c e mon t h s b e fo r e t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d h e ri n v o c a t i o n o f FM LA ri g h ts. F o r ex am p le, in M arc h o f 2 0 0 2 , B rad H o d g es (IT D ir ec tor A n d russ ’s s upervi s or ) s t at ed, i n a mem o t o A ndrus s , t hathe bel i eved M et zl erhad “r et i r ed on th e jo b ” a n d su g g e ste d th a t sh e b e a sk e d to re sig n to “ re p lac e [ th e ] p o sitio n w ith neede d s ki l l s et . ” A ndrus s des cr i bed M et zl eras “on the bubbl e” a nd i n need of i m m edi at e i m pr ovementof hers ki l l s et , and r ecomm ended, i n a r eportdat ed A ugus t19, 2002, t hatM et zl erbe puton an ei ght - w eek pr obat i on s o that“[a ] re c o m m e n d a tio n w ill b e d e v e lo p e d to e ith e r re tain N a n c yo r if sh e is u n a b le to adj us tt o t he new r epor t i ng s t ructur e and di s ci pl i ne i m pos ed . . . s he w i l l be r epl ace d. ”- 22 -

A ddi t i onal l y , peopl e out s i de the cha i n of comm and atFH L B expr es s ed conce r n aboutM et zl er . I n A pr i l orM ay2002, M i chae l Sm i th, w ho w as hi r ed by FH L B as an out s i de managercons ul t ant , i nt ervi ew ed ea ch of the empl oy ees of the I T D epart m enti n an att empt t o as s es s w her e theym i ghtfi ti n a r eor gani zed d ep artm en t. A fter h is i n terview w ith M etzler, h e stated in h is Jun e 2 0 0 2 rep o rt th a t: I have s t ruggl ed fort he pas tcoupl e of mont hs t o exami ne the futur e of N ancy[M et zl er ] w i t h FH L B . . . . I fee l thathers ki l l s ar e ade quat e, but n o t ex c e p tio n a l. I b e liev e th a t N a n c yc a n d o th e jo b th a t sh e is re sp o n sib le fo r, b u t I a m n o t su re h o w d e d ica ted sh e is to th a t effo rt.

. . . O v e ra ll, I fe e l th a t N a n c yis a p o ss ib le fit fo r F H L B . W ith B ill [ M o n tg o m e ry ’s] e v a lu a tio n a s s h e re p o rts to h im , F H L B w ill b e a b le to k n o w if N a n c y ’s s k ills w ill b e a g o o d fit fo r t h e b a n k . T hus , as t he di s tr i ctcour tfound, “the document at i on of pl ai nt i ff’ s j ob s ki l l s and at t i tude pr i ort o O ct ober8 i s nots o di s t i nct i vel ydi ffe r entfr om document at i on of t he s ame aft ert hatdat e . . . . ” A l t hough M et zl er ’ s eval uat i ons befor e herFM L A l eave ar e t o s om e ext ent s i m i l art o hereval uat i ons aft erherl eave , w e have pr evi ous l yhel d thatpr i or negat i ve comm ent s on t hei row n do notaut om at i cal l ynegat e an i nfer ence of pr et ext . See G arr et t , 305 F. 3d at1218- 19 ( s t at i ng that“the mer e fa ctt hat[the empl oy ee’ s ] eval uat i ons bearevi dence of pas tcr i t i ci s m of hi s w or k habi t s does n o t n e g a te th e p o s s ib ility th a t th e ju s tific a tio n s g iv e n fo r [ th e e m p lo y e e ’s ] . . . negat i ve eva l uat i ons . . . ar e pr et extual . A j urycoul d r eas onabl yi nfert hat[the- 23 -

empl oy ee’ s ] s upervi s or s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m byi nfl at i ng and exa gger at i ng l ong- s t andi ng cr i t i ques of hi s per form ance as a means of exe r ci s i ng r aci s tand a g e ist a n im u s to w a rd s h im ” ). H o w e v e r, th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th is c a se to sugg estt hat FH L B ’s cri t i ci sm of M et zl er w as “i nflat [ed] and exag gerat [ed]” as a m eans of r et al i at i ng agai ns tM et zl er . I ns t ead, the evi dence i ndi cat es thatany change i n FH L B ’ s t r eatm entof M et zl ercoi nci ded w i th herpl ace m entundera new s upervi s or— M i l l er— aft ert he r eor gani zat i on. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hata pl ai nt i ff mays how pr et extby“pr ovi di ng evi dence t hathe w as t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om others i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed empl oy ees w ho vi ol at ed w or k rul es of compar abl e s er i ous nes s . ” K endr i ck v. Pens ke Tra ns p. Ser vs . , I nc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1230 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . I n thi s cont ext , w e have defi ned s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed empl oy ees as “thos e w ho deal w i th the s ame supe r vi s or and ar e s ubj ectt o t he s ame st andar ds governi ng per form ance eval uat i on and d isci p li n e.” R ivera v . C ityan d C o u n tyo f D en v er, 36 5 F . 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 2 2 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B as ed on thi s defi ni t i on, w e have hel d thatpr et ext cannotbe i nferr ed w her e, forexampl e, one s upervi s ortr eat s one empl oy ee one w ayand anothers upervi s ort r eat s anotherempl oy ee a di ffe r entw ay , r eas oni ng t hat“‘ [d] i ffe r ents upervi s or s w i l l i nevi t abl yr eac tdi ffe r ent l yt o empl oy ee in s u b o rd in a tio n .’” Id . (q u o tin g K e n d ri c k , 2 2 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 3 ).O th e r c o u rts h a v e sim ilarlyh e ld th a t d ra w in g a n in fe re n c e o f p re tex t “is 7 even l es s perm i s s i bl e w hen a ne w s upervi s ori s appoi nt ed, w ho i s ent i t l ed t o s et hi s ow n s t andar ds and age nda. ” V al di vi a v. U ni v. of K an. M ed. C tr . , 24 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1174 ( D . K an. 1998) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o R oj as v. Fl or i da, 285 F. 3d 1339, 1343 ( 11t h C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatdi ffe r ence s i n the eva l uat i on of an em ploy ee’s perform ance d o n ot es t abli sh a gen uine i ssue on p ret ext because “[d] i ffe r ents upervi s or s m ayi m pos e di ffe r ents t andar ds of beha vi or , and a ne w s upervi s orm aydeci de t o enfor ce pol i ci es t hata pr evi ous s upervi s ordi d not cons i deri m por t ant ”) ; R odr i guez- C uervos v. W al - M ar tSt or es , I nc. , 181 F. 3d 15, 20 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( fi ndi ng t hatt he evi dence fai l ed t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pr et ext aft er not i ng t hat “[t ]he problem w i th . . . rel y i ng on [t he em ploy ee’s ] past per form ance eval uat i ons ” i s t hati t“fa i l s t o t ake i nt o acc ountt he fa ctt hat[the empl oy ee] w as w or ki ng i n di ffe r entcapa ci t i es atdi ffe r ents t or es , underdi ffe r ent s upervi s or s w i t h di ffe r entexpec t at i ons ” and di s r egar ds t he fa ctt hatt he new supervi sor “m ayhav e had differ ent expectat i on s for [the em ploy ee], even i f t ho se e x p e c t a t i o n s we r e c o n t r a r yt o t h o s e o f . . . p r i o rs u p e r v i s o r s ” ) ; Or i s e k v . Am. I ns t . of A er onaut i cs and A s t r onaut i cs , 938 F. Supp. 185, 191 ( S. D . N . Y . 1996) (st ati n g that “[ a] n ew m an ag er is all o w ed to ap p raise an em p loy ee ’s w o rk ac co rdin g to h is or h er o w n ex p ec tat ion s, ev en if th o se e x p ec tat ion s are co n tr ary t o a pr i orm anage r ’ s expec t at i ons ”) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B uts ee Thom as v. (c o n tin u e d ...) - 24 - A l t hough M et zl erdoes notcl ai m thats he w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan other FH L B empl oy ees , s he does as s ertthatFH L B ’ s tr eatm entof herpr i ort o t aki ng F M L A le a v e d iffe re d f ro m F H L B ’s tr e a tm e n t o f h e r a f te r t a k in g s u c h le a v e . A ppl y i ng t he appr opr i at e ana l og fr om cas es l i ke K endr i ck and Ri ver a, w e do not i nferpr et extfr om FH L B ’ s di ffe r enttr eatm entof M et zl erw her e the al l eged di ffe r entt r eatm entw as i nfl i ct ed bydi ffe r ents upervi s or s — thati s , tr eatm entby h e r p re -re o rg a n iza tio n su p e rv iso rs ( M o n tg o m e rya n d G ro te) a s c o m p a re d to t r eatm entbyherpos t - r eor gani zat i on s upervi s or( M i l l er )

— beca us e anydi ffe r ence m ay be t he r es ul t of di ffe r ent s upervi s or ’ s r eac t i ons . C ons i der i ng thatone of the 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 E as t m an K odak C o. , 183 F. 3d 38, 62 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( fi ndi ng thatthe empl oy ee m e t h e r b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g p re tex t w h e re th e e m p lo y e e ’s s c o re s d ro p p e d sh a rp ly aft ers he bega n w or ki ng undera new s upervi s or , w i thouti ndi cat i on thatthe new s upervi s orw as s i m pl ya “t ough gr ader , ” es peci al l yw her e the empl oy ee’ s s cor es a p p e a r e d l o w wh e n c o mp a r e d t o th e s c o r e s o f o th e re mp l o y e e s u n d e rth e s a me n e w s u p e rv is o r) . - 25 - m aj orr eas ons forr eor gani zi ng t he I T D epart m entw as t o have “ a t eam i n pl ace t hataffor ds a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyof s ucce s s ” i n effect i vel ydevel opi ng and im p lem en ti n g F H L B ’s “tech n o log yp lan,” the im p o sit ion o f stri cter w o rk sta n d a rd s is re a so n a b le. T h u s, e v e n if th e O c to b e r 9 c o u n se lin g d o c u m e n t re flec ts t hes e s t r i ct ers t andar ds orhi gherexpec t at i ons bya new m anage r , i tdoes not cons t i tut e evi dence t hatM i l l er ’ s — orthe otherFH L B s upervi s or s ’ , forthat m a tter— a p p lica tio n o f th o se sta n d a rd s w a s p re tex tu a l. U lti m a telyth e n , o n th is r ecor d, M et zl erhas notes t abl i s hed thatthe cha nge i n FH L B ’ s tr eatm entof M et zl erw as bas ed on heri nvocat i on of FM L A r i ght s r atherthan the i m pos i t i on of d iffe ren t st an d ard s o f b eh av ior an d p erfo rm an ce b yh er n ew su p erv isor.

4. F H L B ’ s act i on cont rary t o hand book p ol i cy M et zl ercont ends t hat , acc or di ng t o the FH L B E m pl oy ee H andbook, i tw as w ritten c o m p a n yp o licyth a t “a n e m p lo y e e w ill b e in fo rm e d if c o rre c tiv e a c tio n is nece s s aryas s oon as pos s i bl e af t eranydefi ci encyi n s t andar d of beha vi oror per form ance has been i dent i fi ed. ” W e agr ee thatdemonstr at i ng that“the defe ndantact ed contr aryt o a w r i t t en companypol i cypr es cr i bi ng the ac t i on t o beT he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatFH L B ’ s E m pl oy ee H andbook does not 8 r equi r e FH L B t o pr ovi de s uch a w arni ng t o M et zl er . T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded t hatFH L B compl i ed w i t h t he Em pl oy ee H andbook byi nform i ng M et zl eri n the O c to b e r 9 c o u n s e lin g d o c u m e n t o f d e fic ie n c ie s in h e r b e h a v io r a n d p e rfo rm a n c e . - 26 - t aken byt he defendantundert he ci r cumst ance s ” mayi n an appr opr i at e ca s e gi ve r i s e t o a fa cti s s ue r egar di ng pr et ext . K endr i ck, 220 F. 3d at1230. H ow ever , the fa c ts o f th is c a s e d o n o t s u p p o rt s u c h a c o n c lu s io n . Her e , e v e n i f

FHLB’ s Emp l o y e e Han d b o o k i s i n t e rp r e t e d t o r e q u i r e FHLB t o w arn empl oy ees t hat i dent i fi ed defi ci enci es coul d r es ul t i n t erm i nat i on, r ather 8 t han mer el yr equi r i ng FH L B t o i nform empl oy ees of the def i ci enci es , t he uncont es t ed fa ct s s how t hatFH L B pr ovi ded s uch a w arni ng t o M et zl er . T he O c to b e r 9 c o u n se lin g d o c u m e n t, w h ich M e tzle r a d m its re c e iv in g , ex p licitly w arned that“i f [c ert ai n defi ci enci es ] do notdr amat i cal l yi m pr ove w i thi n the next 2 w eeks orot herdeadl i nes es t abl i s hed, y ou w i l l be couns el ed further , up t o and in c lu d in g ter m in a tio n .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). F H L B th e re fo re c o m p lied w ith its E m pl oy ee H andbook pol i cy . M et zl ert her efor e has notr ai s ed a ge nui ne fa cti s s ue re g a rd in g w h e th e r F H L B c o m p lied w ith th e w ritten c o m p a n yp o licie s in its E m p lo y e e H a n d b o o k .

5. F H L B ’ s docum ent at i on ofM et zl er’ s fi l e i n anti ci pat i on of l i t i gat i on T h e fif th p iec e o f

c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e u p o n w h ich M e tzle r re lies to s how pr et extcons i s t s of FH L B “document i ng [M et zl er ’ s ] fi l e ‘ i n ant i ci pat i on of- 27 -

l i t i gat i on. ’ ” W e have pr evi ous l yhel d thata r eas onabl e j urym i ghtcons i der t es t i m onyt hatdocument s w er e pr epar ed i n ant i ci pat i on of l i t i gat i on as ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of r et al i at orym ot i ve. Pas tr an, 210 F. 3d at1206. M et zl er as s er t s t hatt hi s cas e i s anal ogous t o Pas tr an bec aus e M i l l eracknow l edged i n a N o v em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 m em o that sh e w as to “d o cu m en t pro b lem s [w ith M etzler] enough s o t he B ank w as notatr i s k of l os i ng a l aw s ui tforunj us t i fi ed t erm i nat i on, ” and be caus e s he di d i n fac ts o documentthe fi l e w i th the as s i s t ance o f A n d ru s s a n d C o x . W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on t hatPas tr an, as w el l as other appel l at e dec i s i ons r ecogni zi ng document at i on i n ant i ci pat i on of l i t i gat i on as evi dence of pr et ext , ar e di s t i ngui s habl e fr om thi s cas e. I n Pas tr an, the empl oy ee cal l ed hi s empl oy ert o as k w hetherhe had l os thi s j ob. 210 F. 3d at1204. A ft er r epl y i ng t hathe w as nots ur e, t he managercons ul t ed w i th hi s s upervi s orand the em ploy er’ s l egal departm ent abou tprepari ng st at em ents regar ding past empl oym entact i on t aken i n r el at i on t o the empl oy ee. I d. T he s us pi ci ous t i m i ng o f th a t d o c u m e n tatio n — a f ter th e fa c t an d in a n ticip a tio n o f lit ig a tio n — re a so n a b ly g a v e r i s e t o a n i n fe r e n c e o f p r e t e x t . I d . a t1 2 0 6 ; c o mp a r e W a l t o n v . Na l c o Ch e m. C o ., 2 7 2 F .3 d 1 3 , 2 3 -2 4 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t a “ju ryre a so n a b lyc o u ld have found t hat[the empl oy er ] or ches tr at ed [the empl oym entdocument ] as p re te x tu a l s u p p o rt fo r i ts [ d is c ri m in a to ry] d e c is io n to d is c h a rg e [ th e e m p lo y e e ],”- 28 -

w her e the documentw as pr epar ed onl yaft erthe empl oy err ece i ved not i fi cat i on fr om t he empl oy ee’ s at t or neycl ai m i ng age di s cr i m i nat i on) ; Sant i ago- R amos v. C ent enni al P. R . W i r el es s C orp. , 217 F. 3d 46, 56 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( s t at i ng t hat p retex t m ayb e e stab li sh ed w ith ev iden ce that “n o n d iscri m inato ryrea so n s w ere aft er - t he- fac tj us t i fi cat i ons , pr ovi ded s ubs equentt o the begi nni ng of l egal act i on”) , w i t h Shor ett e v. R i t e A i d of M ai ne, I nc. , 155 F. 3d 8, 17 ( 1s tC i r . 1998) ( hol di ng t hatt he empl oy ee fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe empl oy er ’ s r eas ons for demot i ng t he empl oy ee w er e pr et extual w her e ther e w as no evi dence that m anage m entnot es w er e pr oduced a ft erthe empl oy ee f i l ed s ui ti ns t ead of c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly w ith th e e m p lo y e e ’s tr a in in g ). H er e, M i l l ert es t i fi ed thats he document ed the per form ance of M et zl er , and a ll o f h e r o th e r s u b o rd in a te s , c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly w ith h e r d e a lin g s w ith th e m . A nd no evi dence s ugges t s ot herw i s e. A l though M i l l er ’ s s t at ementi n her N o v e m b e r 1 1 m e m o th a t p a rt o f h e r g o a l w a s to d o c u m e n t M e tzle r’s file to a v o id t he “r i s k of l os i ng a l aw s ui tforunj us t i fi ed t erm i nat i on” bec aus e FH L B “may h av e a law su itp rob lem w ith [M etzler]” g ives ri se to an infere n ce o f re tal iat o ry m o tiv e , “w e d o n o t u n d e rsta n d w h yit i s im p ro p e r fo r a n e m p lo y e r to m a in tain r ecor ds r egar di ng an empl oy ee’ s conducteven i f i tr ecogni zes thatthe r ecor d m ay be us eful i n defe ns e aga i ns ta di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . I ndeed, i tw oul d be expe ct ed t hatan empl oy erw oul d do exac t l ythat . ” B i l l etv. C I G N A C orp. , 940 F. 2d 812,- 29 -

826 ( 3d C i r . 1991) , overrul ed i n parton othergr ounds bySt . M ary ’ s H onorC tr . v. H icks , 5 0 9 U . S . 5 0 2 (19 9 3 ), an d b yO ’C o n n o r v. C o n so li d ated C o in C aterers C o rp., 5 1 7 U . S . 3 0 8 (19 9 6 ). W e the refo re c o n clud e tha t FH L B ’s c o n t e mpo r a n e o u s d o c u me n t i n g o f M e t z l e r ’ s fi l e d o e s n o ts u g g e s tt h a tFHLB cr eat ed the document s as pr et extual s uppor tforherr et al i at oryt erm i nat i on, even if th e d o cu m en ts w ere in p art crea ted to av o id o r de fe n d ag ains t po ssible f u ture l i t i gat i on. 6. P roof t hat F H L B ’ s exp l anat i on i s unw ort hy ofcre dence R el y i ng on R eeve s v. Sander s on Pl um bi ng Pr ods . , I nc. , 530 U . S. 133 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e fi n a l p i e c e o f c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a tM e t z l e rc l a i ms demonstr at es a pr et extual expl anat i on forhert erm i nat i on cons i s t s of “pr oof that [FH L B ’ s ] expl anat i on i s unw or t hyof cr edenc e. ” Speci fi cal l y , M et zl err el i es on th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt’s e x p lan a tio n th a t: I n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , the tr i erof fa ct can r eas onabl yi nferfr om t he fa l s i t yof th e ex p l anat i on thatthe empl oy eri s di s s embl i ng t o cover u p a d iscri m inato ryp u rpo se. . . . M o reo v er, on ce the e m p loy er’s j ust i fi cat i on has been el i m i nated, dis cri m i nati on m ay w el l be the m ost l i kel yal t ernat i ve expl anat i on, es peci al l ys ince the empl oy eri s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o putfor t h the ac tual r eas on fori t s deci s i on. I d. at147 ( 2000) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o K endr i ck, 220 F. 3d at1230 ( “A pl ai nt i ff typi cal l ym akes a s how i ng of pr et ext. . . w i th evi dence t hatt he d e fe n d a n t’ s s ta te d re a s o n fo r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n w a s fa ls e . . . .” ).- 30 -

M et zl eras s ert s t hatFH L B ’ s expl anat i ons of hert erm i nat i on— poor per form ance and poorat t i tude— w er e fa l s e. I n r egar d t o poorper form ance , M et zl erdoes notcontr overtFH L B ’ s evi dence thats he mi s s ed most , i f notal l , of t he dea dl i nes i m pos ed forhert as ks fr om O ct ober9 t o the dat e of he rt erm i nat i on. Instea d , M etzler ag ain a rgu es th at sev era l of M il ler’s t im e e sti m ates w ere unr eas onabl e and thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d thus i nfera r et al i at or ym ot i ve for F H L B ’s te rm in a tio n o f h e r e m p lo ym e n t. M e t z l e r ’ s me r e a l l e g a t i o n th a tM i l l e rd i d n o th o n e s t l yb e l i e v e h e rt i me es t i m at i ons w er e r eas onabl e, w i t houtanys uppor t i ng evi dence , does notr ai s e a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial fa c t, es p e c iallyin lig h t o f o th e r u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . S e e C o n e v . L o n g m o n t U n ited H o sp . A ss ’n , 1 4 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “ a lle g a tio n s a lo n e w ill n o t d e fe a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t” ). S p e c i fi c a l l y , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s th a tM i l l e rd e l i v e r e d t o M e t z l e rth e t i me es t i m at es forheras s i gnm ent s onl yaft ers he had them re vi ew ed bySm i th and M c S p a d d e n , b o th o f

w h o m a s s u re d M ille r t h a t th e tim e e s tim a te s w e re re a s o n a b le . T he fa ctt hatt he t i m e es t i m at es m ayhave be en i ncorr ectdoes notgi ve r i s e t o an i n fe r e n c e t h a tM i l l e r , S mi t h , o rM c S p a d d e n d i d n o th o n e s t l yb e l i e v e M i l l e r ’ s t i me es t i m at i ons w er e r eas onabl e bec aus e “a m i s t aken be l i ef c an be a l egi t i m at e r eas on foran empl oym entdeci s i on and i s notnece s s ar i l ypr et extual . ” Fl as her , 986 F. 2d at1322 n. 12; s ee a l s o M cK ni ghtv. K i m ber l yC l ark C orp. , 149 F. 3d 1125, 1129W e not e thati n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , an empl oy ercan be hel d l i abl e for 9 a s ubor di nat e empl oy ee’ s pr ej udi ce e ven i f the dec i s i on- m akerl acke d the r equi r ed i nt entw her e the dec i s i on- m akerfai l ed t o i ndepende nt l yi nves t i gat e the s ubor di nat e’ s compl ai ntagai ns tt he form erempl oy ee a nd i ns t ead mer el yfol l ow ed t he bi as ed r ecomm endat i on of the s ubor di nat e. See Engl i s h v. C ol o. D ept . of Co r r . , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 1 1 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( r e fe rr i n g t o t h i s a s a “ c a t ’ s p a w” t heory ) . T he di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed t o cons i dert hi s t heory , how ever , aft er c o n c lu d in g th a t M e tzle r ra ise d it fo r th e first tim e in h e r su m m a ryju d g m e n t re p ly b ri ef w ith o u t eve r raisi n g itin h er init ial resp o n se to F H L B ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . M et zl erhas notr ai s ed thi s i s s ue on appe al , and w e ther efor e nee d not d eterm ine w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyd isr eg ard ed it . S ee S tat e F arm F ir e & C a s . C o . v . M h o o n , 3 1 F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n .7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). - 31 - ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( expl ai ni ng t hatthe t es tforconvert i ng an art i cul at ed mot i vat i ng re a s o n in to p re te x t is “ g o o d fa ith b e lie f” ). Fur t herm or e, t he ac tual deci s i on t o t erm i nat e herw as m ade byC ox, A ndrus s , H odges , and A ndr ew J ett er , FH L B ’ s Pr es i dent . A l though the evi dence i ndi cat es t hatdeci s i on w as bas ed on M i l l er ’ s N ovember11 m emo out l i ni ng M et zl er ’ s per form ance and att i tude pr obl ems and he rfai l ur e t o m eetpr oj ect d ea d li n es, th ere is no ev iden ce to su p p o rta c lai m that the F H L B d ec isi o n -m ak ers d id n o t h o n e stlyb e liev e th e re a so n s s tate d in M ill e r’s N o v e m b e r 1 1 m e m o . T h is 9 i s i m por t antbeca us e w e have hel d that“a c hal l enge of pr et extr equi r es us t o l ook a t th e fa c ts a s th e ya p p e a r to th e p e rso n m a k in g th e d e c isio n to ter m in a te pl ai nt i ff. ” K endr i ck, 220 F. 3d at1231; s ee a l s o Pas tr an, 210 F. 3d at1206 ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[t ] he pert i nentques t i on i n det erm i ni ng pr et exti s notw hethert he empl oy erw as r i ghtt o t hi nk t he empl oy ee e ngaged i n m i s conduct , butw hether- 32 -

t hatbel i ef w as genui ne orpr et extual ”) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W i thoutevi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatt hes e dec i s i on- m aker s di d nothones t l ybel i eve the r eas ons expr es s ed i n M i l l er ’ s N ovember11 m emo, M et zl erhas notr ai s ed a ge nui ne i s s ue o f m a ter ial fa c t re g a rd in g F H L B ’s e x p lan a tio n th a t M e tzle r w a s te rm in a ted , in p a rt , b e c a u s e s h e re p e a te d ly m is s e d d e a d lin e s . FH L B al s o cl ai m s t hati tt erm i nat ed M et zl erbeca us e of he rpooratt i tude and fa i l ur e t o m ai nt ai n adequa t e j ob- r el at ed s ki l l s . M et zl ergener al l ydi s put es t hatheratt i tude w as as FH L B des cr i bes and thatherknow l edge a nd per form ance w er e as FH L B as s es s ed. E ven as s um i ng M et zl ers ubj ect i vel ybel i eved s he di d not h av e a p o o r att itu d e o r th at he r kn o w ledg e a n d p erfo rm an ce w ere u p to p ar, “[i]t i s t he manager ’ s per cept i on of the empl oy ee’ s per form ance thati s r el evant , not pl ai nt i ff’ s s ubj ect i ve eva l uat i on of [he r ] ow n r el at i ve per form ance . ” Furrv. Seagat e Tech. , I nc. , 82 F. 3d 980, 988 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . N o evi dence s ugges t s t hat M i l l er , ort he FH L B deci s i on- m aker s , di d notgenui nel yper cei ve M et zl eras havi ng a pooratt i tude and i nadequa t e j ob s ki l l s . A ccor di ngl y , M et zl erhas not r ai s ed a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng FH L B ’ s expl anat i on thatM et zl er w as t erm i nated, i n p art , becau se of a p oo r att i tud e and l ack o f ade qu at e j ob ski l l s.

D . C oncl usi on- 33 -

W hi l e evi dence of t empora l pr oxi m i tyi n combi nat i on w i th addi t i onal ci r cumst ant i al evi dence m aygi ve r i s e t o an genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t r egar di ng w hetheran empl oy eroffe r ed a pr et extual r eas on fort erm i nat i ng an empl oy ee, s ee M ar x, 76 F. 3d at329, the r ecor d i n thi s cas e i ndi cat es thatM et zl er w as t erm i nat ed forherfai l ur e t o m eetdeadl i nes and otherpoorj ob per form ance , poorat t i tude, and fa i l ur e t o m ai nt ai n adequa t e j ob- r el at ed s ki l l s . W i thout evidence to dem on strat e t hat FH L B ’s given reasons for t erm i nati ng her ar e so w e a k , im p lau sib le, in c o n sis ten t, i n c o h e re n t, or c o n tra d icto rya s to su p p o rt a r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hatFH L B di d notactforthos e r eas ons , s ee M edi na, 413 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 8 , w e c o n c lu d e th a t M e tzle r h a s fa iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n to demonstr at e pr et ext . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof F H L B o n M e tz le r’ s F M L A re ta lia tio n c la im . II . In te r fe r e n c e o r E n title m e n t C la im T he FM L A guar ant ees t he s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s of up t o tw el ve w eeks of u n p a id lea v e fo r e lig ib le e m p lo y e e s o f c o v e re d e m p lo y e rs fo r se rio u s h e a lth condi t i ons and r ei ns t at ementt o the form erpos i t i on oran equi val entone upon r etur n fr om t hatl eave . 29 U . S. C . §§ 2612( a) ( 1) , 2614( a) . U ndert he FM L A , an empl oy erm aynot“i nt er fer e w i t h, r es tr ai n, ordenyt he exe r ci s e of ort he att empt to e x e rc ise , an yrig h t p ro v id e d u n d e r [ th e F M L A ].” I d . § 2 6 1 5 (a )(1 ). T o p re v a il on an i nt er fer ence orent i t l ementt heory , t he pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e: “( 1) t hat- 34 -

he [ors he] w as ent i t l ed t o FM L A l eave , ( 2) thats om e adve r s e ac t i on bythe empl oy eri nt er fer ed w i t h hi s [orher ] r i ghtt o t ake FM L A l eave , and ( 3) thatthe e mpl o y e r ’ s a c t i o n was r e l a t e d t o th e e x e r c i s e o ra t t e mpt e d e x e r c i s e o f h i s FM LA r i ght s . ” J ones , 427 F. 3d at1319. U nderthi s theory , a deni al , i nt er fer ence , or r es t r ai ntof FM L A r i ght s i s a vi ol at i on r egar dl es s of the empl oy er ’ s i nt ent , B ones v. H oneyw el l I nt ’ l , I nc. , 366 F. 3d 869, 877 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Sm i th, 298 F .3 d a t 9 6 0 ), an d th e M c D o n n e ll D o u g las b u rd e n -sh if tin g a n a ly sis d o e s n o t ap p ly t o i nt er fer ence cl ai m s , Sm i t h 298 F. 3d at963. Sect i on 2615( a) ( 1) i s neverthel es s nota s tr i ctl i abi l i tys t atut e. See 29 U . S. C . § 2614( a) ( 3) ( B ) ( “N ot hi ng i n thi s s ect i on s hal l be cons trued t o ent i t l e any r es t or ed empl oy ee t o . . . anyr i ght , benef i t , orpos i t i on of empl oym entotherthan anyr i ght , benef

i t , orpos i t i on t o w hi ch the empl oy ee w oul d have be en ent i t l ed had t he empl oy ee nott aken the l eave . ”) ; 29 C . F. R . § 825. 216( a) ( “A n empl oy ee ha s no gr eat err i ghtt o r ei ns t at ementort o ot herbenef i t s and condi t i ons of empl oym entt han i f the empl oy ee ha d been c ont i nuous l yempl oy ed dur i ng t he FM L A l eave per i od. ”) ; s ee a l s o Sm i th, 298 F. 3d at960 ( “[A ] n empl oy ee w ho r eques t s FM L A l eave w oul d have no gr eat erpr ot ect i ons agai ns thi s orher em ploym ent bei ng t erm i nated for r easons n ot r el at ed to hi s or herF M L A request t han he o r s he d i d b efore subm i t t i ng the requ est . ”) ( qu otat i on s om i t t ed). T hu s, “a n em p loy ee m ayb e d ism issed , p rev en ti n g h er f rom ex erc isi n g h er statutoryT he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed FH L B ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton 10 M e tzle r’s in ter fe re n c e c laim b a se d , in p a rt, o n its c o n c lu sio n th a t, “[ b ]yfa ili n g to m ake a nys ubs t ant i ve ar gum ent s conce rni ng hert heor i es r egar di ng new j obs and fai l ur e t o t r ai n, pl ai nt i ff . . . w ai ved them as i ndepende nt[i nt er fer ence ] cl ai m s . ” M e tzle r d o e s n o t co n ten d th a t sh e d id in fa c t ar g u e n e w d u ties a n d fa ilu re to tra in as i ndepende ntt heor i es of i nt er fer ence i n the br i ef s he s ubm i t t ed t o the di s tr i ct cour t , nordoes s he cha l l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thats he w ai ved t hes e theor i es as i ndepende ntcl ai m s . I ns t ead, M et zl erpr oper l yfocus es her (c o n tin u e d ...) - 35 - r i ghtt o FM L A l eave [orr ei ns t at ementaft erl eave ] . . . i f the di s m i s s al w oul d have occurr ed r egar dl es s of the empl oy ee’ s r eques tforort aki ng of FM L A l eave . ” S m ith , 2 9 8 F .3 d a t 9 6 1 (c iti n g G u n n e ll, 1 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 2 ). T h e b u rd e n to demonstr at e that“an e m pl oy ee, l ai d off dur i ng FM L A l eave , w oul d have be en d ism iss e d re g a rd les s o f th e e m p lo y e e ’s r e q u e st fo r, o r ta k in g o f, F M L A lea v e ” is o n t h e d e fe n d a n t - e mp l o y e r . I d . a t9 6 3 ; s e e a l s o 2 9 C. F . R. § 8 2 5 . 2 1 6 ( a ) ( “ An empl oy erm us tbe abl e t o s how t hatan empl oy ee w oul d nototherw i s e have been e m p lo y e d a t th e tim e re in sta tem e n t is re q u e ste d in o rd e r to d e n yre sto ra tio n to e m p lo ym e n t.” ). FH L B s t i pul at ed thatM et zl erw as ent i t l ed t o FM L A l eave fora s er i ous m e d ic a l c o n d itio n , th e re b ye s ta b lis h in g th e fir s t e le m e n t o f h e r p ri m a fa c ie c a s e . In re g a rd to th e se c o n d e lem e n t, M e tzle r c o n ten d s th e d e fe n d a n t in ter fe re d w ith herFM L A s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s byw r ongful l yt erm i nat i ng herempl oym entfor d efici en tl yp erfo rm ing n ew job d u ti es, w h ich w ere assig n ed to h er u p o n h er return f r o m F M LA a n d fo rwh i c h F HLB fa i l e d a d e q u a t e l yt o t r a i n h e rt o p e r fo r m. By 10( . . . cont i nued) 10 i nt er fer ence cl ai m on hert erm i nat i on, r atherthan the al l eged a s s i gnm entof new dut i es orfai l ur e t o adequa t el yt r ai n hert o per form thos e dut i es , beca us e onl yher term ination ca u sed h er to su ffer lost co m p en sati o n an d o ther a ctua l m o n etary losse s. S ee W alke r v. U n it ed P arc el S erv . , Inc . , 2 4 0 F . 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“ S e c tio n 2 6 1 7 (a )(1 ) d o e s n o t p ro v id e fo r c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s in gener al , buti s i ns t ead e xpr es s l yl i m i t ed t o l os tcompensa t i on and otheractual m o n e tar ylo ss e s.” ). W h e th e r n e w d u ties a n d fa ilu re to tra in c o n stitu te i ndepende nti nt er fer ence cl ai m s i s ther efor e notbefor e us , and w e ther efor e foc us onl yon M et zl er ’ s t erm i nat i on t heory . M hoon, 31 F. 3d at984 n. 7. T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatM et zl er ’ s i nt er fer ence cl ai m ar i s i ng 11 fr om hert erm i nat i on theoryw as pr oper l yanal y zed a s a r et al i at i on cl ai m notan in ter fe re n c e c laim , an d it th e re fo re ru led th a t M e tzle r fa iled to sta te a v iab le i nt er fer ence cl ai m . B as ed on the al l egat i ons i n thi s cas e, w e di s agr ee w i th that concl us i on. See Sm i t h, 298 F. 3d at961- 62 ( aff i r m i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of the empl oy er ’ s m ot i on forj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctw her e the e mp l o y e e p r o p e r l ya l l e g e d a n d p r o v e d a n i n t e r fe r e n c e b yt e r mi n a t i o n c l a i m; s t at i ng “[t ] he fa ctt hatt he i nt er fer ence / ent i t l ementt heoryand the re talia tio n /d isc rim in a tio n th e o rya re re c o g n ize d a s s e p a ra te th e o rie s m a k e s it e v id e n t . . .th a t r e ta lia tio n is n o t th e o n ly im p e rm is s ib le re a s o n fo r d is m is s a l” ). - 36 - ter m in a tin g M e tzle r’s e m p lo ym e n t, F H L B in ter fe re d w ith h e r rig h t to tak e u p to t he tw el ve w eeks t o w hi ch s he w as ent i t l ed under§ 2612( a) ( 1) and deni ed hert he ri g h t t o b e re instated to h er fo rm er p o sit ion o r an eq u ivalen t on e u p o n h er return t o f u l l - t i me wo r k , t h e r e b ye s t a b l i s h i n g th e s e c o n d e l e me n to f M e t z l e r ’ s p r i ma fac i e i nt er fer ence cl ai m . T he cr i t i cal i nqui ry , t hen, i s w hetherM et zl erhas 11 al l eged a nd pr es ent ed evi dence thatt her e i s a ca us al connec t i on betw een he r t e r mi n a t i o n a n d h e re x e r c i s e o f F M LA r i g h t s — th e t h i r d e l e me n to f h e rp r i ma fac i e ca s e.A s not ed ea r l i er , Sect i on 2615( a) ( 1) i s nota s tr i ctl i abi l i tys t atut e. See 12 29 U . S. C . § 2614( a) ( 3) ( B ) ; 29 C . F. R . § 825. 216( a) ; s ee a l s o Sm i th, 298 F. 3d at 960. E ven i f M et zl eres t abl i s hed herpr i m a fa ci e ca s e of s how i ng a ca us al r el at i ons hi p betw een he rcl ai m of FH L B benef i t s and hert erm i nat i on ( w hi ch s he d i d n o ts h o w) , s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n FHLB’ s fa v o ri s s t i l l a p p r o p r i a t e i f FHLB demonstr at es t hats he w oul d have be en di s m i s s ed “r egar dl es s of [he r ] r eques tfor o r t a k in g o f

F M L A le a v e .” S m ith , 2 9 8 F .3 d a t 9 6 1 . F H L B h a s m e t th is b u rd e n . A s not ed i n ouranal y s i s of M et zl er ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m , t he r ecor d i n thi s cas e, even w hen vi ew ed i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M et zl er , i ndi cat es t hatFH L B had pr evi ous l ygi ven M et zl eratl eas tone w arni ng— the O ct ober9 couns el i ng (c o n tin u e d ...) - 37 - M et zl ercont ends t hata ca us al connec t i on exi s t s bas ed on the fol l ow i ng chai n of eve nt s : M et zl ert ook r educe d l eave , as a r es ul tFH L B adj us t ed herdut i es butfai l ed t o adequa t el yt r ai n herforthem, as a furtherr es ul ts he per form ed the d u tie s d e fic ie n tly, a n d a s a n u ltim a te re s u lt F H L B te rm in a te d h e r e m p lo ym e n t. Fat al l y , how ever , i n herdepos i t i on M et zl ercoul d nots t at e herFM L A l eave as t he rea so n F H L B assig n ed n ew d u ti es to h er. T h is co n ce ssion b rea k s M etzler’s al l eged c aus al chai n. A ccor di ngl y , “anyr eas on fort erm i nat i ng [her ] empl oym ent w oul d noti nvol ve FM L A , and cons equent l ythats t atut e ca n offe r[her ] no r el i ef” o n h er interfe ren ce claim . G u n n ell , 1 5 2 F . 3 d at 12 6 2 (affirm ing su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof empl oy eron empl oy ee’ s i nt er fer ence cl ai m , w her e the e mpl o y e e s p e c i fi c a l l yr e f u s e d t o a r g u e th a ts h e was fi r e d b e c a u s e o f h e rFM LA r eques tand, cons equent l y , empl oy ee fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatherFM L A l eave w as connec t ed t o hert erm i nat i on) . Sum m aryj udgm enton M et zl er ’ s i nt er fer ence cl ai m w as t her efor e appr opr i at e. 12( . . . cont i nued) 12 document

— t hatt he fa i l ur e t o i m pr ove heratt i tude and meeti m por t antdeadl i nes coul d l ead t o hert erm i nat i on. M et zl erdoes notdenythats he s ubs equent l yfai l ed t o m eetdeadl i nes , w hi ch w er e i m pos ed byheri m m edi at e s upervi s orand det erm i ned r eas onabl e byot her s w i thi n and out s i de FH L B . T he evi dence t her efor e s uppor t s FH L B ’ s cl ai m thatM et zl erw oul d have be en t erm i nat ed for fa ilu re to m e e t d e a d lin e s re g a rd les s o f h e r F M L A lea v e . S e e B o n e s, 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 8 7 7 -78 (affirm ing su m m aryjud g m en t fo r th e e m p loy er o n em p loy ee ’s i nt er fer ence cl ai m w her e the evi dence demonstr at ed thatt he empl oy ee ha d a hi s t or yof t ar di nes s and non- compl i ance w i th the abs ent ee pol i cy ; t he empl oy er had pr evi ous l ygi ven the empl oy ee w arni ngs t hatherfai l ur e t o not i fyher s upervi s orof herabs ence s w oul d l ead t o hert erm i nat i on; and the empl oy ee fai l ed to c o m p ly w ith th e p o lic yo n th e d a te s fo r w h ic h s h e w a s te rm in a te d ). A ccor di ngl y , FH L B i s ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton M et zl er ’ s i nt er fer ence cl ai m des pi t e the fa ctt hati tt erm i nat ed herw hi l e s he w as on FM L A l eave . - 38 - CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof FH L B on both M et zl er ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m and her i n t e r fe r e n c e c l a i m.