The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0863n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 18, 2007 No. 07-5181 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT KA RENJ. MY ERS , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. UNI TED STATES CEL LULAR CORPORATI ON, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

BEFORE: BOGG S, Chief Judge; McK eague, Circ uit Jud ge; and COHN, DistrictJudge. * AVERN COHN, Distr ict Judge
. Th is i s a se x disc ri min atio n c a se un de r T itl e VI Iof the Civ il Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e e t seq. Plaintiff-Appellant Ka ren Myers ( “My ers” ) appe als from the dismissal of her c omplaint ag ainst Defe ndant-Appe llee United States Cellular Corpor ation (“U SCC ”). Myers c laims that USCC discriminated ag ainst her on the ba sis of her se x by terminatingher a

nd failingto transfe r/demote he r in lieu of ter mination. The district court g ra nte d U SCC’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n th e g ro un ds that Mye rs fa ile d to make out a prima fa cie c ase of

sex di scrimination on either ba sis and that even if such a showinghad bee n made, she failed to e stablish pretext. For the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM the dec ision of the district court.Un de r a n A g re e d Pr ote c tiv e Or de r, “ any pe rs onne l in fo rm atio n o r d oc ume nts re latin gto 1 Def endants’ c urre nt or forme r employees who are not parties to this lit iga tion” was de emed confide ntial and filed unde r sea l. As a re sult, portions of My ers’ s response to USCC’s motion for summary

judgme nt, including e x hibits, were f iled under se al. This resulted in the pa rties and the dis tr ic t c ourt

ide nti fy ingc e rt a in U SCC e mpl oye e s u sin gthe fo llo wi ngde signatio n: “Employ ee N o. __.” F or example, Gar naoui is identified as “ Employ ee N o. 1.” B rian B eele r, My ers’ s co-wor

ker w ith whom she did not ge t along , is identified as “Employ ee N o. 2.” Portions of My ers’ s brief on a

ppeal a nd the joint appendix (Volume I V) have also be en filed unde r sea l. For clar ity , we have re fer

red to Ga rnaoui a nd Be eler by name. 2 I. BACKG ROUND My ers be g an wor

king f or USCC in 1994 as a Data Ser vice Eng ineer . USCC, which has
many loc atio ns a c ro ss t

he c ountr y , is in t he bu sin e ss o f s e lli ngc e llu lar p ho ne s a nd monthl y c e llu lar s e rv ic e . M y e rs wo rk e d at a USC C st or e loc ate d in

Kn oxvil le , T e nn e sse e wh e re sh e he ld
sever al positions over the y ear s. In 1997, My ers r ece ived ratings of “ Meets Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations” in eve ry cate g ory of her employ ee e valuation. In 1998, she re ceive d “Exceeds Expectations” r ating s in every cate g ory with an over all ratingof “ER,” indicatingthat she excee ded job re quirements on a c onsistent basis. The followingy ear she re ceive d an “E R+” rating . DuringMy ers’ s annual pe rfor mance revie w for 2002, she rec eived positive per formanc e evaluations, including the hig hest rating , an “F E” or “ Fa r Exceeds” rating . These r ating s were g iven by Hichem Ga

rnaoui (“ Gar

naoui”) , My ers’ s ultim ate supe rvisor. In 2002, Gar naoui g ave 1 out only two “F E” ra

tings, to My ers a

nd another

fema le employ ee, Ma

rianne Infantino.
In May 2003, My ers’ s direct supe rvisor, Ke nt L ee ( “L ee” ) and L ee’ s supervisor, G ar n a o u i , j o i n t l y

p r o m o t e d

M y e r s t o th e p o s i t i o no f

S u p e r v i s o r 1 x D at a E n h an c e d

S e r v i c e s . In J uly 2003, Gar

naoui aske d My ers to assume the position of Manag er of Data Ser vices on a n int e ri m ba sis wh ile the pr e se nt m ana g e r, a ma le , w a s o n le ave . In s o d oin g , G arn a ou i c ho se3

My ers ove r anothe r male supe rvisor. On De cembe r 16, 2003, Ga rnaoui off icially promoted My ers to Mana g er of

Data Ser vices. My ers wa s responsible for planning , org anizing, and manag ing D ata Ser

vices pe rsonnel, a sta ff of 24 people. As Manag er of

Data Ser vices, My ers r eporte d to L ee, who in turn repor ted to Gar naoui. In Se pte mbe r 2 00 4, L e e le ft the c omp any , a ft e r whic h G arn a ou i de c ide d to re str uc tur e his te am, inc lud ingthe Data

Se rv ic e s D e pa

rtme nt. At

that ti me , M y e rs be g an r e po rt ingdir e c tly to Gar naoui. She continued to do so until November 2004, when Willi am Heilenba ch (“ He ile nb a c h” ) b e c ame the Di re c tor of the Ne tw or

k O pe ra tio ns Ce nte r. He ile nb a c h r e po rt e d to Mike Irizarry

(“Irizarry”), the Ex ecutive V ice Pre sident of Eng ineer ing a nd Chief Tec hnical Of fi c e r. Al tho ug h th e hie ra rc hy is unc le ar, Ga

rn a ou i st ill ha d a

uth or ity ov e r M y e rs . Se ve ra l mo nth s a ft e r b e ingpr omo te d, in S e pte mbe r 2 00 4, Ga rn a ou i me t w ithMy e rs to discuss conce rns about My ers’ s ability to be an e ffe ctive lea der. H e spec ifically counsele d My ers to confront B rian B eele r (“ Be eler ”), a n employ ee w ith whom My ers did not g et along
. Appar ently , My ers led B eele r to believe that his perfor mance was satisfa ctory ; however , My ers told her super

visors that it was not. Duringthe meeting , My ers wa s introduced to Senior Associate Re lations Manag er, Rober ta Fr ank-B ohm, to help guide My ers in the a rea s where she was lac king a

nd help her

to communicate be tter with her te am. That same da

y , Gar naoui met with Be eler

individually

and tog ether

with My ers. Ga rn a ou i a dd

re sse d “ te am w or

k” and “ su pp or tin gon e ano the r” wi th b oth of the m. G arn a ou i a lso told My ers to make an asse ssment of her te am and the positions they curr ently held in light of the4

reor g anization. Garna oui informed both My ers a nd Be eler that their positions would be chang ed duringreor g anization and that they would both be place d on a Perf ormanc e Improvement Plan (“PI P”). Afte r the mee ting c oncluded, Ga rnaoui privately

told My ers that he would help and support her a

nd that “he w anted he r to be succ essful.” Myers a lso testified at deposition that afte r the mee ting, she knew that Ga rnaoui wa s not happy

with her pe rfor

mance or B eele r’s perf ormanc e. My ers’ s PI P indicated def iciencie s in the are as of “ Coaching , Communi cation, Te am Ef fe c tiv e ne ss, B us ine ss P ro c e ss Impr ov e me nt, and L e a de rs hip .” Th e se de fi c ie nc ie s r e late d to her issues with B eele r. Ac cordingto My ers, Ga rnaoui g ave he r positive fee dback but mentioned that sh e ne e de d im

pr ov e me nt i n g ivi nghe r e mpl oye e s h on e st f e e db a c k r e g ard ingthe ir pe rf or manc e . T he PI P no te d th at th is r e su lte d in mis -c omm

un ic atio n a s w e ll a s d ama g e to

“ tr us tin gand

re sp e c tf ul r e latio ns hip s” be c a

us e “ [l]ea de rs hip los e s c re dib ili ty and the te am f

e e ls
re se ntf ul. ” Ga rn a ou i e xpla ine d to My e rs that sh e wa s r e sp on sib le fo r i nit iatin ga pp ro pr iate action, includingtermination, if she be lieved an e mploy ee unde r her supervision had perf ormanc e issues. Af te r b e ingpla c e d o n th e PI P, M y e rs a sk e d G arn a ou i f or a “ le ss[e r] p os iti on ,” e ff

e c tiv e ly a demotion. B eele r also aske d to return to his prior position, which too constituted a demotion. Gar naoui appa

rently ag ree d to both requests but emphasized that they would both have to wor

k as a te am until the completion of the re org anization.
De sp ite the PI P, the pr ob le ms b e tw e e n B e e le r a nd My e rs c on tin

ue d. Ga rn a ou i a lso5

lear ned that My ers wa s “bad- mouthing” le ader ship and underminingmanag ement, including him . M ye rs ’s c ri tic ism

of Ga rn a ou i st e ms f

ro m a Se pte mbe r 2 00 4 ma

na g e me nt m e e tin gin Galena , I llinois , wher e Ga rnaoui a ppare ntly ref err ed to his supervisor, Irizarry , as “c razy” or “ bad g randmother ” and “ the white ele phant in the room.” Myers attended the mee ting a nd hear d the comments. A fe w months later, in Dec ember 2004, My ers told Irizarry about Gar

naoui’s
rema rks about him duringa ca r ride to a n airport. Af

ter this conver sation, Irizarry contac ted Tom L ovett (“L ovett”), Ma

nag er of Surveillance for USCC, about what Ga rnaoui wa s alleg ed to have said about him at the Ga lena mee ting. L ovett, althoug h reluc tant, confirme d that Gar naoui had made de rog atory

comments about Irizarry
. Duringthis same time, Heilenbac h rec eived c omplaints from My ers a bout Garna oui’s manag ement style. Heilenba ch also re ceive d complaints from My ers’ s subordinates about he r leade rship. As a re su lt, He ile nb a c h h e ld m e e tin g s w ithMy e rs in D e c e mbe r 2 00 4 a nd Janu ary 20 05 to discuss how she could be tter run he r g roup. They discussed the e nvironment she had c reated throug h her on- g oing pr oblems with Bee ler a s well as g ossiping issues. He ilenbach g ave Myers the same ins tr

uc tio ns that G arn a ou i ha d p re vio us ly g ive n h e r, wh ic h w e re to d isc ha rg e B e e le r i f she fe lt that he was unde rmining he r. In e ar l y J anu ar

y 2 0 0 5 , Ir i z ar

r y s ays h e c o n f

r o n t e d G ar n a o u i a b o u tth e d e r o g at o r

y comments at the Ga lena mee ting. Ga rnaoui, howe ver, de nies any such conf

rontation took place
. In the middle of January , Gar naoui told Heilenbac h that he dec ided to terminate Myers6

and B eele r for

their “c ontinued sniping” at one a nother. Ga

rnaoui a lso discussed terminating My ers a nd Be eler with the Direc tor of Human Re source s for the Ea st Region, Janet J ung claus (“Jungc laus”) a

nd Associate Re lations Manag er, L awr ence Br ewe r. B oth confirmed that no trainingcould re medy

the beha vioral issues pre viously

identified for

My ers. How ever , acc ording to My ers, Jungc laus stated that she be lieved that My ers wa s not give n the coa chingand guidance that was ne eded a

nd that My ers wa s not treated pr operly . My ers a nd Be eler wer e both terminate d on J anuar y 31, 2005. Gar

naoui made the termination dec ision.

II. AN AL YSI S A. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Th is c ourt

re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo. Leary v. Daesc hener , 34 9 F .3 d 8 88 , 8 96 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) . Summa ry jud g me nt i s p ro pe r “ if

the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to i nte rr og ator ie s, and a dmi ssi on s o n f

ile , to g e the r w iththe a ff

ida vit s, if
any , s ho w that th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and tha t th e mov ingpa

rt y is entitled to a judg ment as a matter of law .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
B. T ITLE VI I Un de r T itl e VI I , a

n e mpl oye r c ann ot “ fa il o r r e fu se to h ir e or to d isc ha rg e any ind ivi du a l,
or oth e rw ise dis c ri min ate a g a ins t any ind ivi du a l w ithre sp e c t to his c omp e ns atio n, te rm s, conditions, or privileg es of e mploy ment, beca

use of suc h individual’s . . . sex . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e -2 (a )( 1) . B e c a

us e My e rs ha s n o d ir e c t e vid e nc e of se x disc ri min atio n, My e rs is r e qu ir e d to7

follow the McD onnell Douglas/Burdine burden- shifting f rame work. See Mitchell v. Toledo Ho sp ., 96 4 F .2 d 5 77 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) . U nd e r t his te st, My e rs mus t f

ir st m ake out a

pr ima fa c ie
case by producingevidenc e that (1) she is a member of a pr otected c lass; (2) she suf fer ed a
mate ri a lly

a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n; ( 3) at th e tim e of the a dv e rs e a c tio n, sh e wa s o the rw ise qu a lif ie d f or he r p os iti on ; and

(4 ) s he wa s r e pla c e d a

nd /or tr e ate d le ss f

avo ra bly tha n s imi larl y situated male e mploy ees. Mi tc he ll , 964 F.2d at 582-83. On c e My e rs e sta

bli sh e s a pr ima fa c ie c a se , th e burd e n o f p ro du c tio n s hif ts t o U SCC to “ar ticulate some leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son” for

terminatingthe plaintiff. Te x a s D e p 't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981) ( internal quotation make s omitt ed). An d if USC C c an o ff

e r at le a st o ne su c h r e a so n, the burd e n o f p ro du c tio n s hif ts b a c k to My e rs to show that ea ch prof

fer ed re ason is mere ly

a pre text for illeg al discrimination. Id . at 253. B e c a us e a jur y c a nn ot r e je c t an e mpl oye r’ s p ro ff

e re d r atio na le “ un le ss t

he re is a su ff ic ie nt b a sis in the evidenc e for

doing so,” Manzer v . Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co. , 29 F.3d 1078, 1083 (6 th C ir . 1 99 4) , M y e rs mus t de mon str ate “ e ith e r ( 1) that th e pr of fe re d r e a so ns ha d n o b a sis in fac t, (2) that the pr offe red r easons did not ac tually motivate . . . discharg e, or ( 3) that they wer e insufficient to motivate dischar g e.” Id . at 1084 (interna l quotation marks and empha ses omitted).

1. Whether M yers Was Qualif ied F or HerP osition USCC arg ues that My ers f ailed to establish a pr ima fac ie ca se of se x discrimination beca use she f ailed to show that she wa s qualified for her position at the time she wa s terminated. USCC s ay s that the rec ord shows My ers wa s not meeting perf ormanc e standa

rds in the manag ement position and was ther efor e unqualifie d. The district cour t, relying on this Court’s8

decision in W

exle r v. W hite’s Fine Furniture, Inc . 317 F.3d 564 ( 6th Cir. 2003) ( en banc ), conclude d otherwise, r easoningthat My ers’ s “excellent per formanc e history and prior e x perie nce demonstrate that she had suff icient objective c riteria to c onsider her qualified for

the manag ement position.” J .A. at 616.
In W exle r , the en banc c ourt

e xpla ine d: At the pr ima

fa c ie sta g e , a

c ourt sh ou ld f oc us on a pla int if f’ s o bje c tiv e qu a lif

ic atio ns to deter mine whether

he or she is qualified for the rele vant job. The prima f acie burden of showing that a plaintiff is qualified c an ther efor e be me t by prese nting c redible e vidence that hi s o r h e r q

ua lif ic atio ns are a

le a st e qu iva le nt t o th e min imum ob je c tiv e c ri te ri a re qu ir e d f or e mpl oy me nt i n th e re le va

nt f ie ld. Al tho ug h th e sp e c if

ic qu a lif ic atio ns wi ll vary dependingon the job in question, the inquiry should focus on cr iteria such a s the plaintiff’s educ ation, experience in the rele vant industry , and demonstrated possession of the re quired g ener al skills. Id . at 575-76 (e mphasis and interna l citations omit ted). We agree with the district court that under W exle r , My ers wa s qualified for the job. She held seve ral diff ere nt positi ons over the year s and had a history of re ceivinghigh r ating s in every cate g ory of the pe rfor

mance evaluations. Her perf ormanc e couple d with her e x perie nce obje ctively qualified he r for

the manag ement position. Thus, My ers ha s met the qualification prong of the prima f acie test. 2. Whether M yers Established a Prim a F acie Case Based on H er Te rm ination

a. Whether M yers Was Re placed By A Male Em ployee
T h e d is tr ic t c o urt d e te r

mi n e d th at M y e r s w a s n o t “ r e p la c e d ” b y a ma le e mp lo y e e . We
a g re e . T his Cir c uit

ha s h e ld t

hat “ a pe rs on is n ot r e pla c e d whe n a

no the r e mpl oye e is a ssi g ne d to perf orm the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the wor k is redistributed among9

other e x isting employ ees a lrea dy perf orming related work. Aperson is re place d only when another employ ee is hire d or re assig ned to per form the plaintiff’ s duties.” Gros je an v . F irs t En e rg yCor p ., 349 F.3d 332, 336 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks omitted).
Her e, shortly

afte r My ers’ s termination, her r esponsibiliti es we re split amongthree
curr ent employ ees a fter the reor g anization. “Spreadingthe forme r duties of a terminated employ ee a

mong the rema ining e mploy ees doe s not constitute replac ement.” Lill yv . B TM Cor p ., 958 F.2d 746, 752 ( 6th Cir. 1992). Although U SCC eventua lly hired a male, Kur

t J ohnson (“Johnson”), into a new se nior manag ement position which assumed the r esponsibiliti es My ers had, the r ecor d is unclear as to when Johnson was hired. More over, the position J ohnson assumed wa s a newsenior mana g ement position that My ers a dmits di ffe red f rom the position she held. As such, Myers ha s not established that she wa s replac ed by a male e mploy ee. b. Whether A Sim ilarly Situ ated Male Em ployee Was Treat ed More F avorably After deter mining that My ers wa s not replac ed by a male e mploy ee, the district court considere d whether

a similarly

situated male e mploy ee w as treated more f avora bly than My ers. The district cour

t concluded that My ers ha d not made such a showing
. In order for two or

more e mploy ees to be simil arly situated, My ers ha s the burden of provingthat she is simil arly situated to them “in all respe cts.” Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 583. Also,

“ the ind ivi du a ls w ithwh om t he pla int if

f s e e ks to c omp are his /he r t re atme nt m

us t ha ve de a lt w ith the same su

pe rv iso r, have be e n s ub

je c t to the same sta

nd ard s a nd have e ng a g e d in

the same c on du c t w ith out su c h d if

fe re nti atin gor

mit ig atin gc ir c ums tanc e s th at w ou ld d ist inguis h th e ir conduct or

the employ er’ s treatment of them for it.” Id.10

My ers sa y s that she is simil arly

situated to Garna oui and L ovett beca use both wer e males wh o “ ba d- mouthe d” le a de rs hip but w e re no t f ir e d. Th e re c or d s ho ws oth e rw ise . A s to Ga rn a ou i, he did not hold the same title, or eve n the same le vel position, as My ers. Ga rnaoui wa s two levels above My ers a

nd had the a

uthority to discipline and terminate Myers. More over, the
re c or d d oe s n ot s ho w that G arn a ou i ha d th e same pe rf or manc e iss ue s a s Mye rs in d e a lin gwi th subordinates nor w as he pla ced on a PI P. My ers is there fore not simi larly situated to Garna oui. T h e d i s tri ctco urtwa s co rr ec ti ns o fi n d i n g. As to L ovett, at the time Irizarry questioned him about the der og atory comments made by Ga rn a ou i, L ov e tt w a s a

Re g ion a l Sw itc h M ana g e r. He no lon g e r r e po rt e d to Ga rn a ou i or to Irizarry . There is also no evidence that L ovett’s position was simil ar to My ers or that he wa s on a PI P for per formanc e issues. Althoug h My ers a nd L ovett wer e both at the same par ty wher e the y he ard Ga rn a ou i’ s d e ro g ator

y c omm e nts a

bo ut I ri zar ry , th e ir sit uatio ns are dis tin g uis ha

ble beca use My ers willing ly

told I rizarry

about the comments whe rea s L ovett answe red I rizarry ’s questions reg ardingthe situation. L ovett, unlike My ers, r equeste d specific assura nces that he would not be subject to any adver se ac tion by

answe ringthe questions.
B e c a us e ne ith e r L ov e tt n or

Ga rn a ou i w e re sim ila

rl y sit uate d to My e rs , s he ha s f

a ile d to make out a pr ima fac ie ca se of se x discrimination arisingfrom her termination. 3. Whether M yers Established a Prim a F acie Case Based on a Failure to De m ote My ers a lso claims that USCC discriminated ag ainst her be cause she should have be en a l l o w e d t o a c c e p ta

d e m o t i o nb y

tr an s f e r r i n gt o an o th e r

p o s i t i o ni n s t e a d

o f b e i n gt e r m i n at e d
. In order to establish a prima fa cie c ase of sex di scrimination based on a failure to transfe r/demote,11

My ers must show that: (1) she was a member of

a prote cted c lass; (2) at the time of her termination she wa s qualified for other available positions within the corporation; (3) the
e mpl oye r d id n ot o ff

e r s uc h p os iti on s to he r; and (4 ) a sim ila rl y sit uate d e mpl oye e wh o is no t a member of

the protec ted class wa s offe red the opportunity to transfe r to an available position, or other dire ct or c ircumstantial evidenc e supportingan infe renc e of discr imination. Ercegov ich v. Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. , 154 F.3d 344, 351 ( 6th Cir. 1998).
T h e d i s tri ctco urtre

j ec t eds u ch a c l ai m , ex p l ai n i n g: Plaintiff has prese nted no evidenc e of a n available position for which she wa s qualified at the time of her te rmination. Whi le plaintiff conte nds that a position ex isted beca use she wa s supposed to be par t of the re org anization, she has not identified what specific position was available but de nied to her. I n addition, plaintiff has not shown that sim ila rl y sit uate d ma le e mpl oye e s w e re g ive n th e op po rt un ity to t ra ns fe r t o a n ava ila ble position whil e she w as not. Althoug h plaintiff has named seve ral e mploy ees who wer e allowed to tra

nsfer to lesser positions, there is no showingthat these male employ ees wer e similarly

situated to her in all re levant aspe cts or that they wer e g iven the opportunity

to transfe r in lieu of ter

mination. There is no e vidence that these e mploy ees had compa

rable positions t o plaintiff, that they had the same per formanc e issues, that they wer e subjec t to a PI P, or that they wer e known to have “badmouthed” or cr iticiz ed company leade rs. Fur

ther, Employ ee N o. 1 testified that he ha d terminated f or perf ormanc e issues three other male employ ees be sides Employ ee N o. 2 without offer ing a demotion as a

n alternative.
J .A. at 621. We agree . My ers ha s not identified what “lowe r leve l” position was available for which she w as qualified. H er r efe renc e to a possible position after the company ’s re org anization in “application development . . . . [d] oing WAN pe rfor mance statistics” is not sufficient. Moreove r, the re cord c lear ly shows that Be eler , a male, w as treated the same way —he wa s t e r m i n at e d an d n o tg i v e nth e o p p o rtun i ty t o tr an s f e r t o a l o w e r p o s i t i o n . M ye r s , h o w e v e r , s ays that sever al other e mploy ees, ide ntified as Employ ee N o. 3, Employ ee N o. 4, Employ ee N o. 5,12

Employ ee N o. 6 and Employ ee N o. 7, wer e all per mitted to be demoted af

ter having “per formanc e diffic ulties.” My ers’ s identification of these employ ees f alls short beca

use she doe s no t pr ov ide any

e vid e nc e a s to the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he ir de mot ion s o r t

hat th e y are oth e rw ise sim ila rl y sit uate d to he r. Un de r t

he se c ir c ums tanc e s, My e rs ha s f a ile d to make out a

pr ima fa c ie
case of sex discrimination based on a fa ilure to transfe r/demote. 4. Whether M yers Established Pre text My ers a lso challeng es the district cour t’s finding that she fa iled to establish pretext. A plaintiff meets he r burde n to show pretext by producing“suff

icient evidenc e fr om which the jury may rea sonably

reje ct the employ er’ s expl anation.” W ar fie ld v . Le ba no n Co rr. In st ., 181 F.3d 7 2 3 , 7 3 0 (6 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Manzer , 2 9 F .3 d at 10 83 )) . With r e g ard to p re te xt, th is C ir c uit has stated: To raise a g enuine issue of materia l f act on the validity of an employ er’ s explanation for an adver se job a ction, the plaintiff must show, ag ain by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e, either (1) that the pr offe red r easons ha d no basis in fac t ; (2) that the pr offe red r easons did not actua lly motivate the ac tion; or (3) that they wer e insuffic ient to motivate the action. Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc ., 97 F.3d 876, 883 ( 6th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “To prove pr etext, the plaintiff must i ntroduce admissible evidence to show ‘that the prof fer ed re ason was not the true rea son for the e mploy ment decision’ a

nd that [di scriminatory] animus was the true motivation driving the employ er’ s determination.” Ba rn es v . U nite d Parc e l Se rv ., 36 6 F. S u p p . 2 d 6 1 2 , 6 1 6 (W
. D. T en n . 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hic ks , 509 U.S. 502, 508 (1993))
.13

My ers’ s main argument to establish pretext is t hat USCC’s reasons for her te rmination have c hang ed over

time. “An employ er’ s chang ing r ationale f or makingan adve rse e mploy ment decision ca

n be evide nce of

prete x t.” Cicero v. Borg- W arner Auto., Inc ., 28 0 F .3 d 5 79 , 5 92 (6 th Cir. 2002) (interna l quotation marks omitted). In Cic e ro , th e de fe nd ant s tate d in ans we rs to int e rr og ator ie s th at pl a int if f w a s f ir e d f or po or pe rf or manc e . Adif

fe re nt r e a so n w a s g ive n at a de po sit ion . Y e t ano the r r e a so n w a s g ive n at th e summa ry jud g me nt s ta g e . U nd e r t he se circ umstances, the pa

nel in Cic e ro c on c lud e d th at “ [w]he n th e jus tif ic atio n f or an a dv e rs e employ ment action cha

ng es duringlitigation, that inconsistency raises a n issue whether

the proff ere d rea son truly

motivated the def

endant’ s decision.” Id
. As noted above , Gar

naoui explained to My ers that she was be ing te rminated for“badm o u th i n g ” l e a d e r s h i p a s w e l l a s h e r i n a b i l i ty t o e f f e c t i v e l y d e a l w i thh e r

s u b o r d i n at e s . In USC C’ s p os iti on

state me nt t

hat w a s su

bmi tte d to the Te nn e sse e Hu man Ri g hts Commis sio n, it stated: [B ]othMs. My e rs a nd [B e e le r] c on tin

ue d to dem e an an d cr iti c ize on e ano the r b e hin d th e ir backs. [Gar

naoui] also discovered that Ms. My ers still was not fulfilling her lea dership duties and th at sh e a lso wa s “ ba d mo uth ing ” and un de rm ini ngmana g e me nt, and e sp e c ia lly [Garnaoui] himself.
In its brief in support of summary judgme nt and on appe al, USCC articulates the sam e re as o n for My ers’ s termination: Unfortunately , both My ers a nd [B ee l er] continued to demea n and cr iticiz e one a

nother. [Garnaoui] also discovere d that My ers was still not fulfilling her lea dership duties and that s h e a ls o w a s “ b a d

mo uth in g ” an d

un d e r mi n in gma

n a g e me n t, in c lu d in g[G ar n a o u i]
. J .A. at 23.14

In her r esponse to USCC’s motion for summary judgme nt, My ers de scribed the deposition testimony

of seve ral USCC employ ees which conf irms these re asons for he r termination. For

instance, Myers sa

y s that Heilenba ch testified that Ga rnaoui told him he was terminatingMy ers f

or “c ontinued sniping.” J .A. at 196. She also say s that J ung claus “ rec alled g ener ally that [Garnaoui] told her it had to do with the behavior pr oblems prior to the termination” Id . My ers f

urther sa y s that L awr ence Br ewe r, an e mploy ee in the H uman Relations Depa rtment, “re called [Gar

naoui‘s] ex act e x planation to him being that Be eler and My ers we re ‘under mining’ le ader ship.” Id . My ers’ s own descr iption of this deposit ion testimony shows that Ga rn a ou i g ave the va

ri ou s huma

n r e so ur c e pr of

e ssi on a ls v e ry

sim ila r r e a so ns fo r h is d e c isi on

to terminate Myers. Unlike in Cic e ro , the re asons for Myers’ s termination did not chang e. My ers, howe ver, sa

y s that there w as a shift in the re ason g iven for he r termination base d on testimony

from Irizarry

wher e he sa

y s that Garna oui told I rizarry the termination wa s based on pe rf or manc e -r e late d is su e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th at w he the r o r n ot G arn a ou i to ld Iri z arry th atth e t erm i n at i o nwa s re l at edt o p er fo rm an ce d o es n o ts h o w o r i n fe r t h atGa rn ao u i 's motivation was based on se x discrimination. We ag ree . As the district court e x plained:

Whether Employ ee N o. 1 told I rizarry that plaintiff’s ter

mination was for no np e rf or manc e do e s n ot p la c e the tr uth fu lne ss o f t

he re a so ns art ic ulate d b y

de fe nd ant i n doubt. Plainti ff ha s admitted that she cr iticiz ed Employ ee N o. 1 and that she told Irizarry about the der og atory

comments. Her

conduct wa s sufficient to wa rra nt dismi ssal. Whether or not Employ ee N o. 1 told I rizarry the termination wa s relate d to perfor mance do e s n ot s ho w o r i nf

e r t hat se x disc ri min atio n w a s th e re a l mo tiv e . Ce rt a inl y , th e re is ample docume ntation in the rec ord fr om plaintiff’s PI P to jus tify dismiss al for perf ormanc e re lated issues. Stating that plaintiff’s termination wa s perf ormanc e re lated does not amount to shifting justifications as de scribed in Cice ro. It is at most a collatera l rea son for the te rmination, but it does not dim inish the sufficienc y of the re asons g iven for de fenda

nt’s employ

ment action.15

J .A. at 625-26. Put si mply , USCC has not chang ed its position t hat My ers wa s terminated f or “ba dmouthing” le ader ship, breakingtrust with Garna oui, and for he r beha vioral issues with Be eler
. USC C ha s n ot m ate ri a lly

sh if te d it s ju sti fi c atio ns . B e c a us e My e rs is una

ble to e sta

bli shpr e te xt, the district court prope rly g rante d summary

judgme nt on this ground.
5. Whether M yers’ s Assert ion of Im proper Training i s Evid ence of Sex Discrim ination In h e r c o m p l a i n t , M ye r s m a d e a l l e g at i o n s o f d i s c r i m i n at i o nb a s e d

o ni n t e r i mp ay, vacation tim e, and tr aining . At the summary judgme nt stag e, My ers e x plained that such alleg ations were rele vant bac kg round evide nce to support he r cla ims of sex discrimination. On
a pp e a l, M y e rs argue s th at G arn a ou i’ s f a ilure to p ro pe rl y

tr a in h e r e vid e nc e s a

n inte nt t o discriminate; she doe s not mention int erim pay or vac ation time issues. Appare ntly , Gar naoui put to g e the r a

le a de rs hip pla

n f or ano the r e mpl oye e , A nd

re w Sp e nc e and

no te d th at U SCC neede d to help newly

promoted lea ders to be suc cessf ul. The district court r ejec ted the notion that th is f a c t sh ow e d a

n in fe re nc e of

se x disc ri min atio n b e c a

us e the re wa s n o in dic atio n a s to whether Spence w as similarly

situated. We ag ree . More importantly , the fa ct that USCC mi g ht have ne e de d a

de ve lop me nt p lan to tr a in i ts e mpl oye e s f or le a de rs hip po sit ion s, “ do e s n ot s e t a background of se x discrimination nor raise a mater ial issue of fa ct conc erningthe re asons for plaintiff’s ter

mination.” J .A. at 628.
III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt .