2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-7-2006 

# Ley va v . C omput e r S c ie nce P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1622

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L ey va v . C omput e r S c ie nc e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1475. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1475H on. A ni t a B . B r ody , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 1622

M AUR E E N E . L E YVA, A ppel l ant

v. C O M P U T E R S C IE N C E S C O R P O R A T IO N ,

a N evada corpor at i on

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 00002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K entJ or dan

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February28, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and B R O D Y , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 7, 2006) OP I NI ONL eyva’ s t w o ot heral l egat i ons have be en di s m i s s ed and 1 ar e notati s s ue i n t he pr es entappea l . O n M ar ch 4, 2004, the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted C S C ’s M o tio n to D ism iss L e yv a ’s c laim of r et al i at or ydi s char ge i n vi ol at i on of the A D E A . T he part i es s t i pul at ed on O ct ober25, 2004 t hatL eyva’ s cl ai m of cons t ruct i ve di s char ge i n vi ol at i on of the A D E A w as di s m i s s ed w ith p re ju d ic e . Leyva ha s a ba nd on e d h e rs t a t e l a w c l a i m t ha tCSC br eac hed the cove nantof good fa i t h and fa i rdeal i ng byfai l i ng “t o i dent i fyorar gue [the] i s s ue i n h[er ] openi ng br i ef; ” s uch fai l ur e “c ons t i tut es w ai verof thati s s ue on appe al . ” U ni t ed S tat es v . P elullo, 39 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he G l obal T r eas urySy s t em proj ecti nvol ved s el ect i ng, 2 devel opi ng, and i m pl ement i ng a t echnol ogi cal s ol ut i on t o t he 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antM aur een Leyva al l eges thatherform erempl oy er , C om put erSci ence s C orpor at i on ( “C SC ” or“the C om pany ”) , vi ol at ed herr i ght s underthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , 29 U . S. C . § 621, ets eq . ( “A D E A ”) , and br eac hed the i m pl i ed covena ntof good fa i t h and fa i rdeal i ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed C SC ’ s M ot i on for 1 S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t w ith re s p e c t to b o th o f th e s e c la im s . L e yv a tim e ly ap p e a le d . I. L eyva w or ked forC SC as a D evel operfr om A ugus t4, 1997 t o J une 19, 2002; s he w as an at - w i l l empl oy ee. L eyva’ s per form ance r evi ew s thr oughoutherempl oym ent p eriod w ere g en era ll yp o sit ive, bu t she h ad a h ist o ryo f straine d relati o n s w ith su p erv isors and co-w orkers . B yt he Spr i ng of 2002, t he pr oj ectt o w hi ch Leyva w as as s i gned as an “A ppl i cat i on A rc h itec t”( th e “ G T S p rojec t” ) b e g a n m o v in g f ro m its “ d e v e lo p m e n t” p h a se to its 2accou nti ng need s of D uP on t , on e of C S C ’s cust om ers . L eyva agr eed w i t h R ees e’ s as s es s m entof w hatL eyva 3 s houl d do t o i m pr ove herw or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps , and admi t t ed t h a th e rwo r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s we r e “ n o tg o o d i n s o me in sta n c e s” a n d w e re in n e e d o f im p ro v e m e n t. 3 “s uppor t ” phas e. C SC i nform ed Leyva thatherdevel opm ents ki l l s s oon w oul d no l onger b e n e e d e d o n th e G T S p rojec t an d tra n sf e rre d K e rri S ier s to th e p rojec t u n d e r th e tit le

“ A p p lic a tio n S u p p o rt A rc h ite c t.” A t a m e e tin g C S C c o n v e n e d o n A p ril 1 2 b e tw e e n L e yv a a n d h e r m a n a g e rs to addr es s L eyva’ s conce r ns aboutt he addi t i on of Si er s t o t he pr oj ect , J ane Rees e, one of L eyva’ s m anage r s , t ol d L eyva thats he coul d r emai n on the pr oj ect“bey ond t he J ul y/ A ugus tt i m efr ame, ” butt hats he w ant ed t o s ee i m pr ovement s i n L eyva’ s w or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps . R ees e t ol d L eyva thatthe i nt erper s onal r el at i ons hi ps betw een he rand 3 ot her s on t he G T S pr oj ectw er e “una cce pt abl e. ” A pp. at134, 284. I n r es pons e t o L eyva’ s r eques tforexampl es of how herw or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps had been “un accep t able” and w hat types of i m provem ents w ere expected of h er “i f [she w as] t o s t ayw i t h t he [G T S pr oj ect ] bey ond t he J ul y/ A ugus tt i m efr ame, ” a s econd meet i ng w as pl anned f

orJ une 14, 2002 betw een Leyva, R ees e, and M aur een Summ er s ( a H um an R e so u rc e s e m p lo y e e a n d m a n a g e r o n th e G T S p rojec t). In th e in ter im , L e yv a sp o k e w ith R ees e’ s bos s and t ol d hi m s he w ant ed t o s t ayon t he G T S pr oj ect“t o atl eas tm ake [ her pens i on] ves t i ng [dat e] . ” A pp. at187. A tt he J une 14 meet i ng, R ees e t ol d L eyva thats he di d not“pos i t i vel yaff ect o th e rs,” “ c o u ld n ’t w o rk w ith o th e rs,” “ w a ste d p e o p le’ s tim e ,” a n d d id n o t co m m u n ica te4

ef fe cti v elyw ith o thers o n the p rojec t, p rese n ti n g sev era l em ail s as e x am p les o f L ey v a’s behavi or . A pp. at286. T her e w as no deadl i ne s etfori m pr ovement s and Leyva thanked R ees e and Summ er s fort hei rr ecomm endat i ons and obs ervat i ons . T he part i es agr ee that L eyva w as neverpr es s ur ed t o r es i gn dur i ng the J une 14 meet i ng, and thatnobodyatt he m e e tin g to ld h e r s h e w a s b e in g f ir e d . L at ert hataft ernoon, L eyva ca l l ed Sum m er s fr om herhom e and t ol d Sum m er s t hat s he fe l tt he meet i ng had bee n a “bl i s t er i ng at t ack” on her , A pp. at290, and thats he w as goi ng aw ayforthe w eeke nd t o r ecupe r at e. T her e i s a di s put e as t o w hetherL eyva r es i gned dur i ng t hi s conver s at i on, a di s put e w e nee d notr es ol ve. L eyva ar gues t hatbeca us e s he “be l i eved [ C SC w as ] fi r i ng [her ] ” atthe J une 14 m e e tin g , L e yv a to ld S u m m e rs d u rin g th e ir p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n th a t sh e “ w a s g o in g to dr op off [ her ] comput erand badge on M onday . ” A pp. at291. I ti s undi s put ed thaton Sunday , J une 16, 2002, L eyva w entt o C SC t o dr op off he rhom e- us e w or k comput erand, acc or di ng t o her , t o “pi ck up s om e pape r s and thi ngs that[s he] had atthe off i ce, ” goi ng o n S u n d a yb e c a u se sh e d id n ’t w a n t to se e a n y o n e in th e o f f ice . A p p . at 2 9 2 . S e c u rity per s onnel pr event ed herfr om ent er i ng the bui l di ng. L eyva l eftherC SC i dent i fi cat i on badge a nd hercomput erw i t h t he s ecur i t yoffi cerbeca us e i t“w as us el es s , beca us e they w o u ld n ’t le t m e in .” A p p . a t 2 9 5 . L e yv a d id n o t re tu rn to w o rk o n M o n d a y , Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 b e c a u se sh e w a s “ to tally exhaus t ed. ” Thatday , Sum m er s cal l ed Leyva t o as k how s he fe l tand r eques tthatL eyva s end an e m ai l t o C SC ; L eyva di d notdo s o. O n T ues daym orni ng, J une 18, L eyva ca l l ed5

S u m m ers a n d told h er tha t she “n ee d ed to tak e a leav e o r som e ti m e o ff;” S u m m ers s u g g e s te d th a t L e yv a c o n ta c t th e E m p lo y e e A s s is ta n c e P ro g ra m (E A P ). A p p . a t 2 9 4 . E A P t ol d L eyva s he w as notel i gi bl e. She al s o cal l ed herm anage r s , i ncl udi ng R ees e and Sum m er s , and l eftvoi cemai l m es s ages as ki ng them t o “pl eas e” l ethers t ayon l ong e n o u g h to “ g e t [ h e r] v e s tin g .” A p p . a t 1 8 8 . L eyva neve rr etur ned t o C SC . O n W ednes day , J une 19, 2002, Sum m er s cal l ed L eyva an d tol d h er t o sub m i ta res i gn at i on l ett er byfi ve o ’cl ock that aft ernoon becau se th e m a n a g e m e n t w a s m e e tin g th e f o llo w in g d a y . L e yv a a sk e d w h e th e r sh e c o u ld su b m it a re sig n a tio n e f

f e c tiv e A u g u st 6 , h e r p e n sio n v e stin g d a te. S u m m e rs to ld h e r “ th a t if [s he] s ubm i t t ed a r es i gnat i on l et t er , [s he] coul d be al l ow ed t o w r ap up thi ngs w i t h t he cl i entand kee p [her ] ves t i ng. ” A pp. at296. B as ed on thi s i nform at i on, L eyva bel i eved t hat“w hen [s he] s i gned the r es i gnat i on l ett er[s he] w oul d be gett i ng the ves t i ng. ” A pp. at 312. T hats ame day , L eyva s entan emai l t o Sum m er s s t at i ng: T hank y ou fory ourvoi cemai l t odayt o m yhom e w hi ch i ncl uded the i ndi cat i on th a t a n ‘e f

f e c tiv e d a te ’ c o n s id e ra tio n c o u ld b e p re s e n te d to th e M a n a g e m e n t T e a m . B el ow i s t he R es i gnat i on l et t erw i t h [ sic ] h a s th e e f f e c tiv e d a te to b e p re se n ted to th e M a n a g e m e n t T e a m . . . . I s ubm i tm yr es i gnat i on as Seni orM emberof the Pr ogr amm i ng St aff fr om C om put erSci ence s C orpor at i on w i t h an ef fec t i ve dat e of A ugus t6 , 2002. th M y5-y ear vest i ng date atC S C i s A ug ust4, 20 02 , and that i s the reason fo r fi rs t w e e k o f A u g u st e f

f e c tiv e d a te r e q u e st. A pp. at69- 70. T he fol l ow i ng day , the C SC m anage m entt eam cons i der ed the l et t erand ac ce p ted L ey v a’s resig n ati o n ef fe cti v e Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , the d ate o f h er resig n ati o n let ter, ra th e r t h a n o n th e d a te s h e h a d re q u e s te d .6

L eyva fi l ed hercompl ai ntagai ns tC SC and, aft erdi s coveryw as concl uded, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed C SC ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d that L eyva had notm ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e ther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hethers he had s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym ent act i on . Itcon cl ud ed thatL eyva h ad “rai sed no m ore than a sci nti l l a of e vidence” ag ai nst “a w eal t h of evi dence overw hel m i ngl ydemonstr at [i ng] that[s he] r es i gned on [J une] 14t h. ” M or eover , i tnot ed that“[e ] ven as s um i ng . . . thatan i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t ed as t o w hether[Leyva] r es i gned on J une 14 , i ti s uncont es t ed thats he s enta r es i gnat i on th let ter t o [C S C ] on W ed n esd ay , Ju n e 1 9 , an d that is dispo sit ive” b ec au se “ [a ]n th empl oy er ’ s deci s i on t o acc epta r es i gnat i on i m m edi at el y , r atherthan ac cept i ng an empl oy ee’ s r eques tt hatt he r es i gnat i on be ef fec t i ve ata futur e dat e, does notcons t i tut e an adver s e empl oym entact i on. ” A pp. at21- 23 ( ci t i ng W ynn v. Par agon Sy s . , 301 F. Supp. 2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 4 (S . D . G a. 20 0 4 )). II. W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, a p p lyin g th e s a m e s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d . M B IA Ins. C o rp. v. R o y al Ind em . C o . , 4 2 6 F . 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m ary j ud gm ent s ho uld be aw arded w hen “t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he af fi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W e r evi ew al l evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o, and7

d r a w a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f

e r e n c e s i n f

a v o ro f , th e n o n - mo v i n g p a r t y( i . e . , L e yv a ) . M BI A, 426 F. 3d at209. T he exi s t ence of a “ m er e s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n s uppor tof [a ] n o n m o v a n t’ s p o s itio n w ill b e in s u f f ic ie n t” to w ith s ta n d a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . A nder s on v. L i ber t yL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 252 ( 1986) . H ow ever , i n det erm i ni ng w hetherm or e than a s ci nt i l l a i s ext ant , a courtm us t“notw ei gh the evi dence orm ake cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ; t hes e t as ks ar e l eftt o t he fa ct - fi nder . ” B oy l e v. C ount yof A l l eghenyPa. , 139 F. 3d 386, 393 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; acc or d M B I A , 426 F. 3d at209. T h e A D E A p ro h ib its a n e m p lo y e r f ro m “ d isc rim in a t[ in g ] a g a in st a n yin d iv id u a l w i t h respectt o h i s com pen sat i on , t erm s, con dit i on s, or pri vil eges of em ploym ent, becau se of s uch i ndi vi dual ’ s age. ” 29 U . S. C . § 623( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, a pl ai nt i ff doe s not have di r ectevi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on, w e empl oya thr ee- s t ep bur den- s hi ft i ng a p p ro a c h u n d e r M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). F a k e te v . A e tn a , In c ., 308 F. 3d 335, 337- 38 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . L eyva mustfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on bys how i ng t hat : ( 1) s he w as atl eas tfor t yy ear s of age atthe t i m e s he w as a lleg e d lyd isc h a rg e d ; (2 ) sh e w a s q u a lifie d f o r th e p o sitio n f

ro m w h ich sh e w a s a lleg e d ly di s char ged; ( 3) s he s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on ( e. g. , di s char ge) ; and ( 4) her

“ e m p lo y e r r e ta in e d s o m e o n e s im ila rl ys itu a te d to [ h e r] w h o w a s s u f f ic ie n tly y o u n g e r.” M onaco v. A m er i can G ener al A s s ur ance C o. , 359 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I f Leyva m ak es h er p ri m a f

ac ie sh o w ing , the b u rde n sh ift s to C S C to “p rof fe r a n o n d iscri m inato ry re a s o n f o r i ts a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n .” S h e ri d a n v . E .I. D u P o n t d e N e m o u rs a n d C o ., 100 F. 3d 1061, 1084 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( en banc ) . I f C SC m eet s thi s bur den,8

[Leyva may ] defe ats um m aryj udgm ent. . . [by ] poi nt [i ng] t o s om e evi dence , di r ectorci r cumst ant i al , fr om w hi ch a f act fi ndercoul d r eas onabl yei t her( 1) di s bel i eve the empl oy er ' s ar t i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons ; or( 2) bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng or det erm i nat i ve ca us e of the empl oy er ' s act i on F u en tes v . P ersk ie, 3 2 F . 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n t h e p r e s e n tc a s e , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e l d th a tLe yv a h a d n o tma d e o u ta p r i ma fac i e ca s e bec aus e ther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hethers he had s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on. I ndeed, the ques t i on of w hetherL eyva has es t abl i s hed the thi r d and fourt h pr ongs of herpr i m a fa ci e ca s e r emai ns di s put ed bythe part i es. H ow ever, assum i ng arguen do that Ley va h as m ade a su ffi ci ent pr i m a facie cas e t o s u r v i v e s u mm a r yj u d g me n t , s h e f a i l e d t o me e th e rb u r d e n u n d e rF u e n t e s t o s h o w a g e n u in e iss u e o f

f a c t th a t C S C ’s s tate d re a so n s f o r h e r te rm in a tio n w e re p re tex tu a l. C S C h as p rof

fe red as it s leg it im ate, no n -discrim inato ryrea so n s fo r L ey v a’s d ep arture th e f

o ll o w ing : ( 1 ) L ey v a’s strained interpe rson al relat ion s w ith h er c o -w o rke rs (a n d f a ilu re p ro m p tlyto se e k f e e d b a c k a b o u t th is p ro b lem ), (2 ) L e yv a ’s in a b ili ty eff ect i vel yt o t r ans ferknow l edge t o otherm ember s of the G T S pr oj ect , and ( 3) the fa ct th a t th e G T S p rojec t w a s m o v in g in to a “ su p p o rt” p h a se in w h ich h e r “ d e v e lo p m e n t” sk ill s w e re n o lo n g e r n e e d e d . T h e re f o re , w e re v iew w h e th e r L e yv a h a s m e t h e r b u rd e n to c re a te a tr ia b le is s u e th a t C S C ’s le g itim a te re a s o n s f o r d is c h a rg in g h e r w e re p re te x tu a l. U n d er the firstF u en tes p ron g fo r de term ining p retex t, L ey v a c lai m s tha t th ere are w eakne s s es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i es i n C SC ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons fori t s adver s e empl oym ent act i on. H ow ever , t her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o r eas onabl yes t abl i s h s uchForexampl e, L eyva unper s uas i vel ycl ai m s : ( 1) thather 4 one r eques tforfee dback— on J une 14, 2002— demonstr at es that C S C ’s g e n e ra l as se rtio n sh e f a iled to se e k f

e e d b a c k is p re tex tu a l; and ( 2) t hatC SC ’ s cl ai m thatL eyva’ s i nt er act i on w i t h cow or ker s i nvol ved t oo m uch unnec es s aryexpl anat i on and not e n o u g h e x p lan a tio n w h e re it w a s a c tu a llyn e e d e d is “ lo g ica lly in c o n s is te n t.” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 9 -2 0 . 9 im p lau sib ili ty . (S e e g e n e ra llyA p p e llee ’s B r. 1 8 -2 1 , 2 8 -2 9 .) L e yv a a lso p re se n ts 4 i ns uffi ci entevi dence of pr et extunderFuent es ’ s s econd pr ong— i . e. , thatdi s cr i m i nat i on w a s m o re lik e ly th a n n o t a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r f o r h e r d is c h a rg e . L eyva makes t w o ar gum ent s underthe s econd Fuent es pr ong. Fi r s t , L eyva ar gues t hatt he fa ctt hats he w as t erm i nat ed s i x w eeks s hyof herves t i ng dat e i s evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on. H ow ever , underC SC ’ s pl an, the ves t i ng of an e m pl oy ee’ s pens i on depende d on t he empl oy ee’ s compl et i on of fi ve y ear s of s ervi ce a tC SC , notage. A s t he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed, “B eca us e age and y ear s of s ervi ce a r e ana l yt i cal l ydi s t i nct , an empl oy ercan t ake a ccountof one w hi l e i gnor i ng the other , and thus i ti s i ncorr ectt o s ay t h a ta d e c i s i o n b a s e d o n y e a r s o f s e r v i c e i s n e c e s s a r i l y‘ a g e b a s e d . ’ ” Ha z e n P a p e rCo . V. B i ggi ns , 507 U . S. 604, 611; s ee a l s o A r m endar i z v. Pi nker t on T obacc o C o. , 58 F. 3d 144, 152 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hatt he cons i der at i on of “f as tappr oachi ng el i gi bi l i t yfor r et i r ementbenef

i t s ” i n m aki ng a t erm i nat i on deci s i on i s notage di s cr i m i nat i on) ; Sul l i van v . S ta n d a rd C h lo ri n e , 8 4 5 F . S u p p . 1 6 7 , 1 8 1 n . 1 2 (D . D e l. 1 9 9 4 ), a f f ’d w ith o u t o p . N o . 9 4 -72 2 0 , 1 9 9 5 U . S . A p p . L E X IS 5 1 2 2 (3d C ir . F eb . 2 4 , 1 9 9 5 ). U n d er the sec o n d F u en tes p ron g , L ey v a a lso a rgu es “ that [C S C ] trea ted o ther, s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed per s ons notof h[e r ] pr ot ect ed cl as s m or e fa vor abl y . ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3dI n t he tw o ot herevent s s he r efe r ence s conce r ni ng the 5 second F uen t es prong , L eyva w as nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he y oungerempl oy ees i n ques t i on. Fi r s t , s he ar gues thats he w as t r e a t e d d i f

f e r e n t l yt h a n y o u n g e rwo r k e r s i n t e r ms o f “ c o mp t i m e. ” She ar gues t hatw hi l e y oungerco- w or ker s w er e al l ow ed comp t i m e t o have Fr i day s off, w or k par tt i m e, ort ake on- l i ne c o u rse s, sh e w a s o n lya llo w e d tw o d a y s o f f f o r C h ristm a s in 2001 des pi t e the fa ctt hats he r eques t ed thr ee a nd w as never offe r ed comp t i m e foran on- s i t e r es i dencyforw hi ch s he expende d vaca t i on day s . O n i t s fac e, thes e w er e nots i m i l ar s i tuat i ons . T her e i s no evi dence thatL eyva w oul d have be en t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yt han the y oungerw or ker s i f s he had a s ked for comp t i m e forcompar abl e r eas ons . Second, L eyva ar gues that C SC ’ s s crut i nyof hert i m e managementexce eded i t s s crut i nyof J ul i e M el us key , a y oungerco- w or ker , beca us e Leyva w as cr i t i ci zed f

orus i ng heremai l acc ounti nappr opr i at el y , w her eas M el uskeyw as notcr i t i ci zed f or“forbei ng on t he phone a l otand havi ng fr i ends vi s i ther . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18 ( ci t i ng A pp. 302- 3 0 3 ). T h is co m p arison fa il s b ec au se th e tw o co -w o rke rs w ere nots i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed: C SC r epr i m anded Leyva forone in d isc re tio n a n d f

a iled to re p rim a n d M e lu sk e yf o r a n e n tirely di f f er ent i ndi s cr et i on. I n i t s br i ef, C SC poi nt s t o r ecor d evi dence sh o w ing that L ey v a’s a ll eg ati o n s o f d iscri m inato rytr ea tm en t are i nacc ur at e. L eyva h ers el f po i nts t o tes t i m on ythat C S C al so 6 exper i ence d del ay s i n updat i ng comput ers oftw ar e fory oung e m p lo y e e s . (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 2 (c itin g A p p . 4 1 1 -1 2 ).) 10 a t 7 6 5 . H o w e v e r, L e yv a p o in ts to n o , o r, at m o st, d e m in im u s, e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th is ar gum ent . She ci t es onl yt w o event s i n w hi ch s he w as s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o a co- w or ker y oungert han s he, and nei t hers uppor t s hercl ai m thatC SC w as bi as ed aga i ns theron t he 5 b a sis o f a g e . F irst, L e yv a a rg u e s th a t sh e w a s n o t g iv e n a “ ro b u st” e n o u g h c o m p u ter to do her w ork. A l t ho ug h L eyva’s com pu t er di d h ave an olderop erat i ng sy st em than tho se of thr ee of

hery oungerco- w or ker s , s he eve ntual l yw as gi ven a ne w comput er . Second, 6 L eyva poi nt s t o evi dence t hatR ayN et t a, a y oungerco- w or ker , w as gi ven s uppor ts t aff7 M or eover , L eyva has notpr ovi ded anyevi dence t o r ebut C S C ’s asse rt ion that b u d g etaryco n str aints, a n o n -discrim inato ry m ot i ve, pr event ed i tfr om pr ovi di ng s uppor tt o empl oy ees ot her th a n N e tta . I n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , the D i s t r i ctC our tfound 8 s u p p o r ti n L e yv a ’ s s t a t e m e n t s t o a p r i v a t e p s yc h i a t r i c f a c i l i t y, w her e s he w entforps y chol ogi cal hel p, that“s he r es i gned fr om herj ob”and thats he “qui tFr i day . ” A pp. at462, 463. T he par t i es gave c ons i der abl e att ent i on t o w hetherthi s evi dence w as pr oper l ycons i der ed. B eca us e w e do notr el yon t hatevi dence , w e n e e d n o t d is c u s s th a t is s u e . 11 w hi l e s he w as not . T hi s s i ngl e i ns t ance of fa vor abl e tr eatm entgr ant ed t o onl yone y oungerco- w or ker( L eyva has notal l eged othery oungerco- w or ker s w er e pr ovi ded s uppor ts t aff

) , i s w eak e vi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on. T her e i s nothi ng t o s how that 7 C SC t r eat ed herdi ffe r ent l yt han s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed y oungerempl oy ees i n t hes e mi nor resp ec ts be ca u se o f a g e. In sh o rt , L ey v a d id n o t pro v ide a su ff ici en t bas is fo r a rea so n ab le fa ct-find er to d eterm ine “ that an inv idiou s d iscri m inato ryrea so n w as m o re l i kel yt han nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e [of L eyva’ s di s char ge] . ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at764. 8 W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o C SC on t he gr ounds t hatL eyva has fai l ed t o cr eat e a tr i abl e i s s ue thatC SC ’ s l egi t i m at e, nond isc rim in a to ryre a so n s f o r d isc h a rg in g h e r w e re p re tex tu a l.