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

### F e b r u ary26,2007 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
RA M ON Z AM OR A, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. E L IT E L O G IS T IC S , IN C ., D efe ndant- A ppel l ee.

_______________________________ KANS AS HI S P ANI C & L AT I NO AM ERI CAN AFF AI RS C O M M IS S IO N ; H IS P A N IC M I NI S T RY F OR T HE AR CH DI OC E S E OF KANS AS CI T Y, K A N S A S ; E L C E N T R O , IN C .; AP OYO T RA BA J ADOR DE LAW REN CE/ M I GR AN T W OR KER SOLI DA RI TY O F LAW REN CE; HARVES T AM ERI CA CO RP OR AT I ON; NAT I ONAL I M M I GR ATI ON LAW CEN TER, EL CEN TRO , I NC . ; I NTER FAI TH W OR KER J USTI CE; I NT E RN AT I ONAL BR OT HE RH OOD OF TEAM STERS ; KA NSA S CI TY W OR KER J USTI CE PROJ ECT; L AB OR E RS I NT E RN AT I ONAL UNI ON OF NOR T H AMER I CA ; NA TI ON AL C OU NC I L OF LA RA ZA; SERVI CE EM PLOY EES I NTER NA TI ON AL U NI ON ; UN I TED F OOD AN D C OM M E RC I AL WORKE R’ S UNI ON, N o. 04- 32052

A m i ci C ur i ae.

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 of

K ansas ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV- 2 2 3 0 - J W L) C hr i s t opherH o, T he Legal A i d Soci ety - E m pl oym entL aw C ent er , San Fr anci s co, C a lifo rn ia ( W ill iam N . N g u y e n a n d S h a ro n T e rm a n , T h e L e g a l A id S o ciety -E m p loy m en t L aw C en ter, S an F ran cisco , C ali fo rnia, an d A ldo C all er, L aw O ffi ces of A l do C . C al l er , Shaw nee M i s s i on, K ans as , w i t h hi m on t he b ri e fs ), fo r P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t R a m o n Z a m o ra . R y an B . D enk ( C ar l A . G al l agher , w i t h hi m on t he br i efs ) , M cA nany , V an C l eave & P hil l i ps, P . A . , K ansas C i t y , K ansas, for D efen dan t -A pp el l ee E l i t e L og i st i cs, In c . M ar i el ena H i ncapi e, N at i onal I m m i gr at i on L aw C ent er , L os A ngel es , C al i forni a, o n th e b ri e f

fo r A m ic i C u ri a e N a tio n a l I m m ig ra tio n L a w C e n te r; E l C e n tr o , In c .; H ar ves tA m er i ca Corpor at i on; I nt er fai t h W or kerJ us t i ce; I nt ernat i onal B roth erh o o d o f T ea m sters; K an sas C ityW o rke r Jus ti ce P rojec t; L ab o rers I nt ernat i onal U ni on of N or t h A m er i ca; N at i onal C ounci l of La R aza ; Ser vi ce E m p lo y e e s In te rn a tio n a l U n io n ; U n ite d F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o rk e rs U n io n . B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HOLL OW AY , EBEL , KELLY , HENR Y , B RI S CO E , LU CE RO , M UR P HY , HA RTZ , O’ BRI EN , M c CO NNELL , TY M KOVI CH , GORS UCH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.

P lai n ti ff-A p p ell an t R am o n Z am o ra su ed h is fo rm er e m p loy er, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee El i t e Logi s t i cs , I ncorpor at ed ( “El i t e”) , underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct , al l egi ng E l i t e di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tZ amora beca us e of hi s r aceJ udges T acha , K el l y , H ar t z, O ’ B r i en, M cC onnel l , T ym kovi ch and G or s uch 1 v o t e t o A F F I R M o n t h e s u s p e n s i o n c l a i m . J u d g e s H o l l o w a y, E b e l , H e n r y, B ri s c o e , L u c e ro , M u rp h ya n d H o lm e s v o te to R E V E R S E . J udges T acha , E bel , K el l y , H ar t z, O ’ B r i en, M cC onnel l , T ym kovi ch, 2 Go r s u c h a n d Ho l me s v o t e t o AFF I RM o n t h e t e r mi n a t i o n c l a i m. 3 and nat i onal or i gi n 1) bys us pendi ng Z amora fr om w or k unt i l he pr es ent ed document at i on es t abl i s hi ng hi s r i ghtt o w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es ; and 2) t hen, aft err ei ns t at i ng Z amora , fi r i ng hi m aft erhe r eques t ed an a pol ogy . T he di s t r i ct c o u rt g ra n ted E lit e su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n b o th c laim s. S e e Z a m o ra v . E lit e L o g istics , In c ., 3 1 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 7 (D . K a n . 2 0 0 4 ). A d iv id e d p a n e l o f th is cour tr ever s ed thatdeci s i on. See Zam or a v. E l i t e Logi s t i cs , I nc. , 449 F. 3d 1106 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . A ft err ehea r i ng t hi s appea l en banc , t hi s cour tV A C A T E S t he panel ’ s deci s i on. See 10th C i r . R . 35. 6. A s t o Z amora ’ s fi r s tcl ai m i nvol vi ng Z a m o ra ’s s u sp e n sio n , b e c a u se th e e n b a n c c o u rt is e v e n lyd iv id e d , w e sim p ly A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n g ra n tin g E lit e su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A s to 1 the s ec o n d claim inv o lving Z am o ra’s term ination , a m ajorityo f th is co u rt A F F IR M S su m m aryjud g m en t i n E li te’s fa v o r. 2 I . BA CKGROUND V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o Z amora , s ee M et zl erv. F e d . H o m e L o a n B a n k , 4 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 6 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd e sta b lish e d th e fo llo w in g : E lit e o p e ra tes a g ro c e ryw a re h o u se in K ans as C i t y , K ans as . I n J une 2000, E l i t e nee ded t o hi r e an a ddi t i onal 300T he I N S no l ongerexi s t s . I n M ar ch 2003, i t s dut i es w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he 3 D e p a rt m e n t o f

H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. Y e rk o v ic h v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 1 F .3 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 1 n .2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n J anuary2002, one of the i ndepende ntcontr act or s , D at as our ce, r epor t ed 4 t o El i t e t h a ta M a n u e l Do mi n g u e z , wh i l e wo r k i n g i n Ca l i fo r n i a , h a d u s e d t h e s a me s oci al s ecur i t ynum beras Z amora . E l i t e then as ked the s econd i ndepende nt co n tr ac tor, V erificati o n s, Inc . , to rec h ec k Z am o ra’s so cial sec u ri tyn u m b er. I n (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 w o rk e rs in ju st a fe w w e e k s’ tim e . In d o in g so , E lit e fa iled to v e rif yth a t all o f

its n e w e m p lo y e e s w e re a u th o ri z e d to w o rk in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A y earl at er , i n A ugus t2001, E l i t e hi r ed Zam or a. A tt hatt i m e, Z amora w as a M exi can c i t i zen w ho had bee n a perm anentl egal r es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es s i nce 1987. A s par tof the hi r i ng pr oces s and i n compl i ance w i t h t he I m m i gr at i on R eform and C ont r ol A ctof 1986 ( “I R C A ”) , Z amora s how ed El i t e hi s s oci al s ecur i t ycar d, w hi ch he ha d had s i nce 1980 or1981, and hi s al i en r egi s t r at i on card. Z am ora al so fi l l ed o ut an I -9 form t ruthfu l l yi nd i cat i ng t hat he w as a M e x ic a n c itiz e n a n d a la w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . F o u r m o n th s a f

ter h irin g Z a m o ra , in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 , E lit e re c e iv e d a tip th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice (IN S ) w a s g o in g to in v e stig a te 3
w ar ehous es i n t he ar ea. E l i t e w as par t i cul ar l yconce r ned abouts uch an i nves t i gat i on i n l i ghtof i t s ear l i erhi r i ng pr act i ces i n J une 2000. E l i t e, t her efor e, hi r ed tw o i ndepende ntcontr act or s t o chec k t he s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber s of al l 650 E li te em p loy ee s. T h is i n v esti g ati o n ind icated that so m eo n e o ther tha n Z am o ra had bee n us i ng t he s ame soc i al s ecur i t ynum bert hathe w as us i ng. T he 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 M ar ch 2002, V er i fi cat i ons , I nc. r epor t ed t o E l i t e thata M anuel D om i nguez ha d a ls o u s e d th e s a m e n u m b e r t o o b ta in c re d it. M os tof thes e thi r t y - fi ve empl oy ees , w hen as ked fort hi s document at i on, 5 just qu it . O n lyZ am o ra e v en tuallyp rov ided p ap erw o rk v erify ing h is r igh t t o w o rk in th e U n ite d S ta te s . 5 i nves t i gat i on tur ned up s i m i l arpr obl ems w i t h t hi r t y - fi ve otherempl oy ees ’ s oci al s e c u ri ty n u m b e rs . O n M ay1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , there fo re, E li te’s hu m an reso u rce s m an ag er, L arry T u c k e r, m e t s p e c ific a lly w ith Z a m o ra a n d g a v e h im a n “ Im p o rt a n t M e m o ra n d u m ,” w ritten in S p a n ish a n d E n g lish , g iv in g h im ten d a y s to p ro d u c e a d e q u a te d o c u m e n tatio n o f

h is rig h t to w o rk in th e U n ited S tate s. T u c k e r fo llo w e d th is sa m e p ro c e d u re w ith th e o th e r th irty -fiv e e m p lo y e e s w h o se so c ial s e c u rity num ber s r ai s ed conc erns . T he mem or andum T uckergave Zam or a and the other 5 a ffe c ted w o rk e rs r e a d :

I ti s r equi r ed byfede r al l aw t hatal l empl oy ees pr oduce document s , w hi ch es t abl i s h t hei ri dent i t yand/ orempl oym ent e lig ib ility to le g a lly w o rk in th e U n ite d S ta te s w h e n th e ya re h ir e d . T h is e lig ib ili tyc a n b e e sta b lish e d w ith a U S P a ss p o rt, a C e rtific a te of C i t i zens hi p orN atur al i zat i on; orw i t h a combi nat i on of other document s , s uch as a s t at e’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, s t at e orfede r al I D car d, U S Soci al Secur i t ycar d and/ ora ce r t i fi ed copyof a bi r t h cert i fi cat e, is s u e d b ya s ta te o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . I thas come t o ourat t ent i on t hatt he document s y ou pr ovi ded us pr evi ous l yar e ques t i onabl e. T her efor e, w e ar e as ki ng t haty ou o b tain p ro p e r d o c u m e n tatio n , o r y o u m a yn o t b e p e rm itt e d to c o n tin u e w o rk in g h e re . P lea se b rin g p ro p e r e v id e n c e o f y o u r id e n tity and empl oym entel i gi bi l i t yno l at ert han 5: 00 p. m . on M onday , M ayU ni on s t ew ar d R ayPuent es w as att hi s m eet i ng betw een Tuckerand 6 Z a m o ra a n d a c te d a s a tr a n s la to r b e tw e e n th e tw o . Z a m o ra tes tifie d a t h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e h a d h a d h is s o c ial s e c u rity 7 num beronl ys i nce 1980 or1981. Y ett hi s earni ngs s t at ement s how ed w ages (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 20, 2002, t o t he D epart m entof H um an R es our ces , ory ou m aybe te rm in a te d . T h a n k y o u . A t th e b o tto m o f

th is m e m o ra n d u m th e re w a s a p lac e w h e re Z a m o ra in d ica ted th a t I under s t and and a gr ee thatunt i l and i f I pr ovi de document s , w hi ch e sta b lish m yid e n titya n d /o r e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili tyto leg a llyw o rk in t he U ni t ed St at es , E l i t e Logi s t i cs m aynotbe abl e t o cont i nue p e rm itt in g m e to w o rk . I als o u n d e rsta n d a n d a g re e th a t I h a v e u n til 5 :0 0 p .m . o n M o n d a y , M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , to p ro d u c e th is d o c u m e n ta tio n . Z a m o ra sig n e d a n d d a ted th a t se c tio n o f th e m e m o ra n d u m . Z a m o ra tes tifie d in h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e u n d e rsto o d a t th a t ti m e th a t h e n e e d e d to b rin g in a v a lid s oci al s ecur i t ycar d and document s es t abl i s hi ng t hathe had a r i ghtt o w or k i n t he U n ite d S ta te s . Z a m o ra c o n tin u e d w o rk in g d u ri n g th is te n -d a yp e ri o d . Z amora di d notpr es entE l i t e w i t h anyof the r eques t ed document s byM ay 20, 2002. T her efor e, T uckeragai n m etw i t h Z amora and, acc or di ng t o Z amora , 6 T u c k e r to ld h im th a t h e c o u ld n o t “c o m e to w o rk a n ym o re u n til y o u g o t a di ffe r entSoci al Secur i t ynum ber . ” Zam or a l eftT ucker ’ s offi ce a nd r etur ned that s ame dayw i t h a documentfr om t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on s how i ng w age e a rn in g s fo r th e y e a rs 1 9 7 8 -8 5 fo r a n “ R . Z a m o ra ” u n d e r Z a m o ra ’s s o c ial s e c u rity num ber . T hi s document had bee n m ai l ed t o an addr es s i n W as hi ngt on, w hi ch

7( . . . cont i nued) 7 e a rn e d b e g in n in g in 1 9 7 8 . A t h is d e p o sitio n , Z a m o ra a c k n o w led g e d th a t th is e a rn in g s in fo rm a tio n w a s in c o rre c t, bu t ex p lain e d th a t w h e n h e h a d o b tain e d th is e a rn in g sta tem e n t a fe w y e a rs e a rlier , h e h a d th e n c o n tac ted th e S o c ial S e c u rity A d m in is tr a tio n to c o rr e c t th is e rr o r. 7 Z a m o ra h a d s c ra tc h e d o u t a n d re p la c e d w ith h is th e n -c u rr e n t M is s o u ri a d d re s s . M o re p ro b lem a tic, h o w e v e r, w a s th a t th e d a te o f b irth fo r R . Z a m o ra o n th is earni ngs s t at ement w as di ffe r entt han the dat e of bi r t h R amon Z amora had gi ven E l i t e att he t i m e El i t e hi r ed hi m . A ft err evi ew i ng t he ea r ni ngs s t at ement , T ucker beca m e conc erned thaty eta thi r d i ndi vi dual had bee n us i ng Z amora ’ s s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber . T her efor e, T uckeri nfor m ed Zam or a thatt hi s earni ngs s t at ement w as not“ac cept abl e. ” N ei t herw as an I N S docum entZ amora s how ed Tuckert hat in d ic a te d th a t Z a m o ra h a d p re v io u s ly ap p lie d to b e c o m e a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . A ts om e poi nt , Z amora al s o s how ed Tuckerhi s natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e, i ndi cat i ng t hatZ amora had i n fac tbecome a natur al i zed c i t i zen of t he U ni t ed S ta te s . B u t T u c k e r r eje c te d th a t d o c u m e n t a s w e ll. T he nextday , M ay23, Z amora br oughtT uckera s t at ement fr om t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on i ndi cat i ng t hatt he s oci al s ecur i t ynum berZ amora had g iv e n E lit e w a s in fa c t h is n u m b e r. T u c k e r th e n to ld Z a m o ra th a t “[ w ]e w ill chec k t hi s outour s el ves . A nd i f i tchec ks out , y ou can c om e bac k t o w or k. ” T ucker ’ s as s i s t antver i fi ed thi s document ’ s authent i ci t yand then ca l l ed Zam or a, a s k in g h im to re tu rn to w o rk o n M a y2 9 .4 2 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e to 2 0 0 0 e -1 7 . 8 8 O n M a y2 9 , h o w e v e r, in ste a d o f re tu rn in g to w o rk , Z a m o ra w e n t to T ucker ’ s offi ce a nd handed hi m a l et t ers t at i ng t hat“[b] efor e I coul d cons i der g o ing b ac k to w o rk I n ee d fro m y o u tw o thing s: 1) an ap o log yin w ri ti n g , an d 2 ) a c o mp l e t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f wh yI wa s t e r mi n a t e d . P l e a s e s e n d a r e s p o n s e t o my hom e. ” T uckerr efus ed t o apol ogi ze. T uckerm ayt hen have t ol d Z amora t o get o u t o f T u c k e r’s o ffice o r th e b u ild in g , o r to “ [j]u st g e t th e h e ll o u t.” A c c o rd in g to Z a m o ra , T u c k e r a ls o to ld h im h e w a s fir e d . Z am ora sued E l i t e, al l eging t he co m pan yviol at ed T i t l e V II byfi rs t 8 s us pendi ng and then fi r i ng Z amora beca us e of hi s r ace and nat i onal or i gi n. See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 2( a) ( 1) . T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed El i t e s um m aryj udgm enton b o th c la im s . S e e Z a m o ra , 3 1 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 1 . Z a m o ra a p p e a le d . I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T hi s cour tr evi ew s s um m aryj udgm entdeci s i ons de novo, vi ew i ng t he e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty ; in th is c a se , in Z a m o ra ’s fa v o r. S e e M e tzle r, 4 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 6 n .1 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e onl y“i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ).M cD o n n ell D o u g las C o rp. v. G ree n , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -04 (19 7 3 ). 9 9 I I I . DI S CU S S I ON I n al l egi ng t hatE l i t e di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m on t he bas i s of hi s r ace and nat i onal or i gi n, Z amora chal l enges t w o s epar at e i nci dent s : 1) E l i t e’ s s us pendi ng Z a m o ra f

ro m w o rk u n til h e w a s a b le to p ro d u c e d o c u m e n tatio n e sta b lish in g h is ri g h t t o w o rk in the U n it ed S tat es; an d 2 ) af ter E li te reinstated h im , E li te’s deci s i on t o fi r e Zam or a af t erhe r eques t ed an e xpl anat i on and an a pol ogy . See Z a m o ra , 3 1 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 1 1 4 . A . Suspensi on Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d El i t e s u mma r yj u d g me n to n t h e s u s p e n s i o n c l a i m, aft erappl y i ng M cD onnel l D ougl as ’ s bur den- s hi ft i ng anal y s i s and conc l udi ng t hat 9 Z amora had es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , butt hatE l i t e had pr offe r ed a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fors us pendi ng Z amora , and Z am o ra h ad fa il ed to cre ate a tr iable issu e o f fac t as t o w h ethe r or n o t E li te’s pr offe r ed j us t i fi cat i on w as m er el ya pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. See Zam or a, 316 F. Supp. 2d at1116- 21. A di vi ded pane l of thi s cour tr ever s ed thatdeci s i on, det er m i ni ng t hatZ amora had pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a tr i abl e fa ct a s to w h e th e r E lit e ’s s tate d re a so n fo r re q u irin g Z a m o ra to p ro d u c e th is document at i on–t hatE l i t e w as t r y i ng t o avoi d I N S sa nct i ons –w as m er el ya pr et ext fo r r a c e a n d n a tio n a l o ri g in d is c ri m in a tio n . S e e Z a m o ra , 4 4 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 2 -1 3 .10

A ft err ehea r i ng en banc , t hi s cour ti s evenl ydi vi ded on thi s i s s ue. For t hat r eas on, w e s i m pl yV A C A T E t he ea r l i erpanel opi ni on and A FFIRM t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng E l i t e s um m aryj udgm enton t hi s cl ai m . See Peopl es v. C C A D et ent i on C t r s . , 449 F. 3d 1097, 1099 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( percur i am), cert . deni ed, 127 S. C t . 664, 687 ( 2006) ; Z uni Pub. Sch. D i s t . N o. 89 v. U ni t ed St at es D ep’ tof E duc. , 437 F. 3d 1289, 1290 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( percur i am), cert . gr ant ed, 127 S. C t . 36 (20 0 6 ). B . T erm i nat i on Z a m o ra a lso a lleg e d th a t E lit e d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im o n th e b a sis o f h is ra c e a n d n a tio n a l o ri g in w h e n E lite fir e d Z a m o ra a f te r h e re q u e s te d a n a p o lo g y . S ee Z am o ra, 31 6 F . S u p p . 2 d at 11 1 4 , 1 1 1 9 . T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o E l i t e on thi s cl ai m , aft erconcl udi ng thatZ amora had es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , butt hatE l i t e had pr offe r ed a l egi t i m at e, n o n d iscri m inato ryrea so n to fir e h im , an d that Z am o ra h ad fa il ed to as sert s uffi ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a tr i abl e i s s ue as t o w hetherornotE l i t e’ s pr offe r ed r eas on w as m er el ya pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. See i d. at1119- 21. A m aj or i t yof th e e n b a n c c o u rt a g re e s . F o rp u rp o s e s o f

h i s a p p e a l , we a s s u me t h a tZa mo r a d i d e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fac i e di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . See A nnet tv. U ni v. of K an. , 371 F. 3d 1233, 1235, 1237 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( as s um i ng, w i t houtdeci di ng, t hatpl ai nt i ff ha s es t abl i s hed p rim a fa c ie r e talia tio n c laim a c tio n a b le u n d e r T itl e V II); s e e a lso M c C o w a n v . A ll11

S tar M ainten an ce , Inc . , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). F u rth er, Z am o ra conce des t hatE l i t e as s er t ed a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on forfi r i ng Z amora –i t s hum an r es our ces m anage r , T ucker , bel i eved thatZ amora w oul d not return to w o rk u n less T u ck er a p o log ized , an d T u ck er ref u sed to ap o log ize. E li te’s p ro ffe re d ju stifica tio n w a s s u fficie n t fo r E lit e to m e e t it s “ e x c e e d in g lylig h t” bur den underM cD onnel l D ougl as and s hi ftt he bur den bac k t o Z amora t o s how t hatE l i t e’ s pr offe r ed j us t i fi cat i on w as m er el ya pr et extforr ace and nat i onal o rig in d isc rim in a tio n . G o o d w in v . G e n . M o to rs C o rp ., 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 1 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “A p lain tiff d e m o n stra tes p re tex t b ysh o w in g e ith e r th a t a d iscri m inato ryrea so n m o re li k elym o ti v ated the e m p loy er o r th at th e e m p loy er’s pr offe r ed expl anat i on i s unw or t hyof cr edenc e. ” St i nnet tv. Safew ay , I nc. , 337 F .3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Z amora ar gues t hatE l i t e’ s pr offe r ed r eas on fort er m i nat i ng Z amora w as not w o rth yo f b eli ef

b ec au se T u ck er c o u ld n o t hav e re aso n ab lyb eli ev ed that Z am o ra h ad ac tuallyco n d it ion ed h is r eturn to w o rk o n Z am o ra a p o log izi n g . “In d e t e r mi n i n g wh e t h e rt h e p r o ffe r e d r e a s o n fo ra d e c i s i o n wa s p r e t e x tu a l , we exami ne the fa ct s as t heyappea rt o t he per s on m aki ng t he dec i s i on. ” W at t s v. C i t yof N or m an, 270 F. 3d 1288, 1295 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( emphasi s added; quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o K endr i ck v. Pens ke Tra ns p. Ser vs . , I nc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1231 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . A nd t he undi s put ed evi dence i n t hi s cas e es t abl i s hes that, alt h o u g h E li te i n fo rm ed Z am o ra h e c o u ld return to w o rk o n M ay2 9 , Z am o raA tvar i ous pl ace s i n t he r ecor d, Z amora as s er t s t hathe w oul d, and thathe 10 w o u ld n o t, h av e re turn ed to w o rk e v en w ith o u t T u ck er’s ap o log y . B u t Z am o ra’s su bjec tiv e in ten t is n o t re lev a n t to th e q u e stio n o f h o w th e fa c ts o bjec tiv e ly appea r ed t o T ucker , as t he dec i s i onm aker . See W at t s , 270 F. 3d at1295. “The per t i nentques t i on i n det erm i ni ng pr et exti s notw hethert he empl oy erw as ri g h t . . . b u t w h ethe r th at be li ef w as g en u ine o r pre textu al. ” P astran v . K -M art C o rp ., 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e d istric t co u rt a c tu a lly d isr eg ard ed Z am o ra’s affid av it , fil ed af ter his de p o sit ion , ind icati n g Z am o ra w oul d have c ont i nued w or ki ng even w i t houtan apol ogy . See Zam or a, 316 F. Supp. 2d at1113 n. 4. T hi s aff i davi tcontr adi ct ed Zam or a’ s ear l i erdepos i t i on te s tim o n yth a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e re tu rn e d to w o rk w ith o u t a n a p o lo g y . 12 d id n o t r e tu rn to w o rk b u t in s te a d w e n t to T u c k e r’ s o ffic e a n d g a v e h im th e le tte r. A n d th a t lette r sp e c ifica llysta ted th a t “[ b ]e fo re I c o u ld c o n sid e r g o in g b a c k to w o rk I n e e d f

ro m y o u tw o th in g s: 1 ) a n a p o lo g yin w riting , an d 2 ) a c o m p lete expl anat i on of w hyI w as t erm i nat ed. Pl eas e s end a r es pons e t o m yhom e. ” ( E m phas i s added) . Fur t her , beca us e Zam or a had a s ked thatT ucker ’ s w r i t t en ap o log yb e se n t t o h is ho m e, T u ck er c o u ld h av e re aso n ab lyb eli ev ed that Z am o ra w as notgoi ng t o r etur n t o w or k on M ay29, as E l i t e had r eques t ed. B as ed upon t hes e undi s put ed fa ct s know n t o T ucker , he coul d r eas onabl yhave be l i eved that Z amora w as notgoi ng t o r etur n t o w or k unl es s T uckerapol ogi zed. See 10 K endr i ck, 220 F. 3d at1230- 32 ( hol di ng t hat , al t hough t her e w as a di s put ed i s s ue o f fa c t as to w h e th e r o r n o t th e ter m in a ted e m p lo y e e h a d a c tu a llyp u sh e d h is s uper vi s or , t he t erm i nat ed empl oy ee ha d fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatt hi s pr offe r ed r eas on forhi s fi r i ng w as a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on w her e the dec i s i onm akerhad n o ev iden ce co n tr ad ict ing the re p o rtthat the e m p loy ee d id p u sh h is sup erv isor);13

G earhar tv. Sear s , R oebuck & C o. , 27 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 1276- 77 ( D . K an. 1998) ( hol di ng t hat , even i f ther e w as a di s put ed i s s ue of factas t o w hetherornott he e m p lo y e e in ten d e d to re sig n , su m m a ryju d g m e n t fo r th e e m p lo y e r w a s a p p ro p ria te w her e the empl oy er“r eas onabl ybel i eved thatempl oy ee r es i gned, and empl oy ee fai l ed otherw i s e t o offe rs uffi ci entevi dence t hatempl oy er ’ s as s er t ed r eas on w as p re te x tu a l) , a ff ’d , 1 9 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 (T a b le ) ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). Z am o ra a rgu es th at T u ck er’s str o n g rea cti o n to Z am o ra’s req u est fo r a w r i t t en apol ogyand expl anat i on i ndi cat es thathi s pr offe r ed r eas on for term inating Z am o ra w as a p retex t fo r his tru e d iscri m inato rym o ti v e. Z am o ra t es t i fi ed thatw hen he ga ve Tuckert he l et t err eques t i ng a w r i t t en expl anat i on and apol ogy , T uckergr abbed i toutof Zam or a’ s hand and t ol d Z amora he w as fi r ed “bec aus e [Tucker ] w as notapol ogi zi ng t o anybody . ” B utt her e i s s i m pl yno evi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hatT ucker ’ s r eac t i on w as beca us e Zam or a w as a M exi can- bor n H i s pani c. I n fac t , t he evi dence i ndi cat es j us tt he oppos i t e. O nce Z am o ra p rov ided E li te w ith d o cu m en tat ion ind icati n g that h e w as e li g ible to w o rk i n the U nit ed S t at es, and t hat the social securi t ynu m ber he w as usi ng w as hi s, T uck er offered Z am ora hi s j ob back . If Tu cker w as di scr i m i nati ng against Z amora bas ed upon hi s r ace ornat i onal or i gi n, T uckerw oul d nothave r ei ns t at ed hi m . C f. A nt oni o v. Sy gm a N etw or k, I nc. , 458 F. 3d 1177, 1183 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng “w her e the empl oy ee w as hi r ed and f i r ed byt he s ame per s on w i t hi n a r el at i vel ys hor tt i m e s pan, t her e i s a s t r ong i nfer ence t hatt he empl oy er ’ s s t at ed14

r eas on foract i ng agai ns tt he empl oy ee i s notpr et extual ; ” not i ng, how ever , t hatan empl oy ee c an s t i l l “pr es entcount er vai l i ng evi dence of pr et ext ”) ( quot at i on, footnot e omi t t ed) . T her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges tt hatT uckerw as not goi ng t o perm i tZ amora t o r etur n t o w or k on M ay29; i n fac t , t he undi s put ed evi dence i ndi cat es t hatZ amora coul d have r etur ned t o w or k t hatday . U ndert he fa c ts o f th is c a se , the n , T u c k e r’s su sp e n d in g Z a m o ra a n d h is la ter d e c isio n to te rm in a te Z a m o ra ’s e m p lo ym e n t m u s t b e v ie w e d a s d is c re te , s e p a ra te e v e n ts . T uckerdi d nott erm i nat e Zam or a unt i l Z amora r eques t ed a w r i t t en expl anat i on and apol ogyas a condi t i on forhi s r etur ni ng t o w or k. A nd even Zam or a conc edes that E li te h ad n o lega l o b li g ati o n to ap o log ize. W e a g ree w ith that. N o r i s the re anys ugges t i on t hatT uckerhad eve rt r eat ed s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed empl oy ees w ho w er e notH i s pani c orM exi can- bor n anydi ffe r ent l y . See gene r al l yK endr i ck, 220 F. 3d at1230 ( not i ng t hatone w ayan empl oy ee mi ghtpr ove pr et exti s t o s how t hat the em ploy er treat ed si m i l arl ysi tuated em ploy ees di fferent l y ). B ecause Z amora fai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence es t abl i s hi ng a genui nel ydi s put ed i ssue of fac tas t o w hetheror not Eli t e’s proffered reason fo r fi ri ng Z am ora w as a p re tex t fo r d isc rim in a tio n , su m m a ryju d g m e n t fo r E lit e w a s w a rra n ted o n th is c la im .15

I V. CO NC L US I ON For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e V A C A T E t he ea r l i erpanel deci s i on, 449 F . 3 d 1 1 0 6 , an d A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n g ran ti n g E li te su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n b o th c la im s .0 4 -32 0 5 - Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , Inc.

HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng, j oi ned byT ym kovi ch, C i r cui tJ udge. I jo in Ju d g e E b e l’s o p in io n . I co n tin u e to b e liev e th a t w e sh o u ld n o t ap p ly t he fr amew or k of McD onnel lD ougl as , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 (19 7 3 ), to rev iew a su m m ary ju d g m e n t w h e n th e e x is te n c e o f a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e is n o t d is p u te d . See Wel ls v. C olo. D ept. of Trans. , 3 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 2 1 -2 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( H a rt z , J ., co n cu rri n g ). A p p ly ing that fra m ew o rk is inco n sist en t w ith S u p rem e C o u rt authori t y , add s unn ecessarycom plexi t yt o the analy si s, and i s t oo l i kelyt o cau se us t o r eac h a r es ul tcontr aryt o w hatw e w oul d deci de i f w e foc us ed on “the ul t i m at e ques t i on of di s cr i m i nat i on velnon . ” U. S. P ost al Serv. B d. of G overno rs v. A i kens , 460 U . S. 711, 714 ( 1983) . N ei t herpar t y , how ever , has s ugges t ed that w e notappl yt he McD onnel lD ougl as f ra m e w o rk , so th is is n o t th e a p p ro p ria te c a s e to a d d re s s th e is s u e .Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , 0 4 -3 2 0 5 .

M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng and conc ur r i ng i n t he j udgm ent , j oi ned b y KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udges , j oi ned by GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge, exce ptfort he l as tpar agr aph of Sec t i on I I I , and j o i n e d i n S e c t i o n V b y HO LM ES , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff Ram on Z amora pr es ent s t w o cl ai m s of empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on, b o th a risin g o u t o f

h is e m p lo y e r’s e ffo rts to e n su re th a t ev e rym e m b e r o f its w o rkfo rce w as leg all yau tho ri ze d to w o rk in the U n it ed S tat es. M r. Z am o ra’s firstclaim relates to h is th ree -da ysu sp en sion , w h ich o cc u rred af ter M r. Z am o ra fai l ed t o r es pond t o t he empl oy er ’ s not i ce of appar entpr obl ems w i t h hi s Soci al Secur i t ynum ber( “SSN ”) . T he s us pens i on cont i nued af t erhe pr es ent ed an a d d iti o n a l S o c ial S e c u rityd o c u m e n t co n tain in g y e t an o th e r d isc re p a n c y— a b irth d ate d iffe ren t from the o n e h e h ad ea rl ier repo rt ed to the em p loy er. M r. Z am o ra’s s econd c l ai m r el at es t o hi s di s m i s s al , w hi ch occ ur r ed af t erhe obt ai ned and p ro v id e d d o c u m e n tatio n f ro m th e S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n v e rif y in g h is SSN , butal s o demanded an apol ogybefor e r etur ni ng t o w or k. T he maj or i t yof t his C ou rtho l ds that the seco nd cl ai m cann ot s urvi ve sum m aryj ud gm ent because M r . Z amora fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence s ugges t i ng t he t er m i nat i on w as m ot i vat ed byhi s nat i onal or i gi n. I bel i eve the s ame r eas on compel s aff i r m ance of s um m aryj udgm enton hi s s us pens i on cl ai m . I t her efor e conc uri n t he r es ul tof t h e e q u a l l y - d i v i d e d Co u r tr e g a r d i n g t h i s c l a i m a n d wr i t e s e p a r a t e l yt o e x p l a i n my re a s o n s .- 2- I. Be c a u s e t h i s c a s e a r i s e s o n a p p e a l f r o m a g r a n to f

s u mm a r yj u d g me n t , we m u st view the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the n o n -m o v ing p arty , M r. Z amora . T hatdoes notm ean, how ever , t hatw e maydi s r egar d undi s put ed evidence thatfavo rs t he m ov i ng part y . T he d i ssent i ng op i nion dep i ct s a hapless empl oy ee r epea t edl yoffe r i ng s ound document at i on of hi s w or k s t atus , and j us tas o f ten b e in g se n se les sly(o r in v id io u sly ) re b u ffe d . T h a t is sc a rc e lya fa ir des cr i pt i on of w hatoccurr ed. I n J une 2000, E l i t e Logi s t i cs , I nc. , ( “El i t e”) confr ont ed a w or kers t r i ke that nece s s i t at ed the rus hed hi r i ng of aboutt hr ee hundr ed r epl ace m entempl oy ees for i t s K ans as A venue gr oceryw ar ehous e i n K ans as C i t y , K ans as . I n t he cour s e of th is s c ra m b le, E lit e fa iled to o b tain f ro m its n e w h ire s th e e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili ty document at i on r equi r ed byt he I m m i gr at i on R eform and C ont r ol A ctof 1986 (“ IR C A ” ). See 8 U . S. C . § 1324a( b) . I n A ugus t2001, aft ert he cr i s i s had pas s ed a n d n o rm a l h irin g p ra c tice s re su m e d , E lit e h ire d M r. Z a m o ra , w h o p re se n ted E lit e w ith h is al ien re g istrati o n an d S o cial S ec u ri tyca rds a n d sign ed an I-9 E m p lo ym e n t E lig ib ility V e ri fic a tio n fo rm , a s re q u ir e d b yIR C A . Za m o ra v . E lit e Logis t i cs , Inc. , 3 1 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 1 (D . K an . 2 0 0 4 ). Four m ont hs l at er , i n D ece m ber2001, E l i t e l earned of a pos s i bl e i ns pect i on of the K ans as A venue faci l i t ybyt he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) . R ecogni zi ng t hati t s pos t - s t r i ke hi r i ng fr enzym i ghthave c om pr om i s edM r . T ucker ’ s depos i t i on i s found i n t he A ppel l ant ’ s Suppl ement al 1 Ap p e n d i x a tp a g e s 4 5

– 8 2 . M r . Za mo r a ’ s d e p o s i t i o n i s fo u n d i n t h e s a me appendi x atpages 30–44.

- 3- E li te’s IR C A co m p li an ce , the c o m p an y ’s hu m an reso u rce m an ag er, L arryT u ck er, d e c i d e d t o v e r i f

y t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e r s o f e v e r y w o r k e ra tt h e fa c i l i t y, a p p ro x im a tely6 5 0 in to tal. M r. T u c k e r h ire d tw o in d e p e n d e n t ag e n c ies to per for m t hes e ver i fi cat i ons . B etw een J anuaryand M ar ch 2002, E l i t e r ece i ved r epor t s t hat35 t o 40 empl oy ees had pr obl ems w i t h t hei rSSN s . T hes e empl oy ees i n c l u d e d M r . Z a m o r a , w h o s e p r o ffe r e d S S N h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n u s e d b y a “M anuel D om i nguez” forempl oym entpurpos es i n C al i forni a i n 1989, 1995, and 1997. A ppel l ee’ s A pp. at94, 96. M r . T uckerr es ubm i t t ed mostoral l t he pr obl emat i c SSN s t o a s econd c om panyforr eche cki ng. T uckerD ep. at32–33, 42–44. I n M ar ch 2002, t hi s s econd c om panyr epor t ed thatM anuel D om i nguez

1 h a d u s e d th is n u m b e r fo r c re d it p u rp o s e s a s re c e n tly a s O c to b e r, 2 0 0 1 . Zam ora , 316 F. Supp. 2d at1111; A ppel l ee’ s A pp. at95, 97. T o eac h empl oy ee w i t h a r epor t ed SSN pr obl em, E l i t e i s s ued a m emora ndum expl ai ni ng t hatfede r al l aw r equi r es “al l empl oy ees pr oduce d o c u m e n ts, w h ich e sta b lish th e ir id e n titya n d /o r e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili tyto leg a lly w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” A ppel l ant ’ s Supp. A pp. at87. T he mem or andum f u rt h e r e x p la in e d th a t “ [ t] h is e lig ib ility c a n b e e s ta b lis h e d w ith a U S P a s s p o rt , a C er t i fi cat e of Ci t i zens hi p orN atur al i zat i on; orw i t h a combi nat i on of other- 4-

document s , s uch as a s t at e dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, s t at e orfede r al I D car d, U S Soci al Secur i t ycar d and/ ora ce r t i fi ed copyof a bi r t h cert i fi cat e, i s s ued bya s t at e of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Id. T he mem or andum t hen i nfor m ed ea ch r eci pi entt hat document s pr evi ous l ypr ovi ded byt he empl oy ee w er e “que s t i onabl e” a nd r eques t ed thatt he empl oy ee pr ovi de “pr operevi dence of . . . i dent i t yand empl oym entel i gi bi l i t y . ” Id. T he mem or andum i s s ued t o M r . Z amora w arned that s u c h d o c u m e n ta tio n m u s t b e p ro v id e d b y“ 5 :0 0 p .m . o n M o n d a y , M a y2 0 , 2 0 0 2 . .

. ory ou m aybe t erm i nat ed. ” Id. M r. T u c k e r p ro v id e d M r. Z a m o ra w ith th is m emora ndum on M ay10, 2002. M r . Z amora s i gned the bot t om por t i on of the m emora ndum , at t es t i ng t hat“I under s t and and a gr ee thatunt i l and i f I pr ovi de d o c u m e n ts, w h ich e sta b lish m yid e n tifya n d /o r e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili tyto leg a lly w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es , E l i t e Logi s t i cs m aynotbe abl e t o cont i nue perm i t t i ng m e t o w or k. ” Id. M r . T uckert es t i fi ed thatof the thi r t y - fi ve empl oy ees w ho r ece i ved the m em o ran d u m , m o st si m p lyd isap p ea red . T u ck er D ep . at 36 , 5 5 . N o n e b u t M r. Z a m o ra e v e r a tte m p te d to p ro v id e d o c u m e n ta tio n . Id. a t 3 6

– 3 7 , 5 4

– 5 5 . A tfi r s t , even M r . Z amora di d notr es pond t o t he mem or andum. O n M ay 22, 2002— t w o day s aft ert he dea dl i ne s peci fi ed forr es pons e— M r . T ucker s um m oned M r . Z amora , al ong w i t h M r . Z amora ’ s uni on s t ew ar d ( w ho al s o s er ved as a tr an slat o r), to h is office . A t th at m ee ti n g , M r. T u ck er info rm ed M r. Z am o ra th a t h e h a d fa iled to p ro d u c e th e re q u e ste d d o c u m e n tatio n a n d su sp e n d e d h imT h e d iss e n t cla im s th a t M r. Z a m o ra p re se n ted h is n a tu ra liza tio n c e rtific a te 2 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- fro m em p loy m en t un ti l suc h d o cu m en tat ion w as fo rth co m ing . T h e u n ion stew ard ac cu sed M r. T u ck er o f p ickin g o n H ispa n ic em p loy ee s, an asse rt ion that b o th M r. T u ck er a n d the d istri ct co u rtassu m ed the s tew ard tr an slat ed o n M r. Z am o ra’s b e h a lf. Id. a t 5 8 ; Zam ora , 316 F. Supp. 2d at1112. W hathappene d nexti s t he s ubj ectof s om e di s put e among t he part i es , but t he d i stri ctcou rtcharact eri zed itas fol l ow s:

O n o r ab o u t M ay2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , p lai n ti ff b rou g h t M r. T u ck er a d o c u m e n t f

ro m th e IN S sh o w in g h e h a d a p p lied fo r n a tu ra liza tio n in 2001. A l ong w i t h t hi s document w er e ea r ni ngs r ecor ds fr om t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on s how i ng the us e of pl ai nt i ff’ s SSN by s om eone na m ed “R. Z amora ” and w hos e dat e of bi r t h w as “2/ 1960. ” T he documentt hatpl ai nt i ff ha d pr ovi ded t o defe ndantw hen he w as h ir ed , h o w ev er, sho w ed h is da te of b irth to b e Ju n e 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 . M r. T uckerbeca m e eve n fur t herconce r ned aboutpl ai nt i ff’ s SSN w hen he no t i ced the differ ent bi rth d at es. M r. T uck er express ed these c o n c e rn s to p lain tiff

a n d in fo rm e d p lain tiff th a t h e w o u ld n e e d to br i ng i n fur t herdocument at i on t o es t abl i s h hi s r i ghtt o w or k. T he IN S fo rm p ro v id e d a c u sto m e r se rv ice n u m b e r, b u t M r. T u c k e r d id n o t call that n u m b er. Pl ai nt i ff t es t i fi ed i n hi s depos i t i on t haton oraboutM ay22, 2002, he pr es ent ed M r . T uckerw i th hi s natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e and told M r. T u ck er h e w as n o w a U n it ed S tat es c it izen . M r. T u ck er, how ever , di d notacc eptt hi s paperw or k as adequa t e. H e t ol d pl ai nt i ff he di d notcar e aboutt hi s buti ns t ead w ant ed s oci al s ecur i t ypaper s or anotherSSN . M r . T uckert ol d pl ai nt i ff nott o come t o w or k unt i l he go ta differ ent SS N . P l ai nti ff t est i fi ed in hi s depo si t i on t hat he al so pr es ent ed M r . T uckerw i t h hi s s oci al s ecur i t ycar d, t hatM r . T ucker t ol d hi m hi s SSN w as s t ol en fr om s om eone e l s e, and thatM r . T ucker tr e a te d h im ru d e ly in reje c tin g h is d o c u m e n ta tio n . Zam ora , 316 F. Supp. 2d at1112–13. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 ata meet i ng s epar at e and a par tfr om t he meet i ng atw hi ch he pr es ent ed the q u e s tio n a b le S o c ia l S e c u ri ty ea rn in g s re p o rt a n d n a tu ra liz a tio n in te rv ie w n o tic e . D i s s ent i ng O p. a t 6 . T h e d iss e n t d o e s n o t ex p lain th e e v id e n tiary ba sis fo r th is in fe re n c e . N e ith e r M r. Z a m o ra n o r M r. T u c k e r m e n tio n e d su c h a m e e tin g in th e ir d e p o s itio n s . M r. T u c k e r d e n ie d re c e iv in g a n a tu ra liz a tio n c e rt ific a te f ro m M r. Z a m o ra . 3 A s he des cr i bed the r el evantevent s , he ca l l ed M r . Z amora i nt o hi s offi ce on M ay 22 t o i nfor m hi m t hathe coul d notcont i nue w or ki ng atE l i t e unt i l he pr ovi ded the document at i on r eques t ed on M ay10. W hen as ked w hetherM r . Z amora br ought anydocument s att hatt i m e, M r . T uckerr es ponded: “N otr i ghtt hen. ” TuckerD ep. at55. M r . T uckerexpl ai ned thatM r . Z amora r etur ned “e i t hert hatdayort he next , ” i d. at66, w i t h ( 1) “document s t hatw er e i s s ued byt he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce” s how i ng t hatM r . Z amora had appl i ed fornatur al i zat i on, an d (2) S o cial S ec u ri tyw ag e re co rds w h ich “ h ad the s am e so cial sec u ri tyn u m b er, buti thad a di ffe r entbi r t hdat e than the one he w as us i ng, ” i d. at61. I tt hus appea r ed t o M r . T ucker“as i f eve n a thi r d empl oy ee ora thi r d i ndi vi dual m ay have be en us i ng t hatnum ber . ” Id. W hen as ked w hetherM r . Z amora br oughtany ot herdocument s dur i ng t hatvi s i t , M r . T uckerr es ponded: “I ti s m yr ecol l ect i on t hatt hi s i s al l he pr es ent ed me w i t h. ” Id. at66. M r . T uckert es t i fi ed thathi s nexti nt er act i on w i t h M r . Z amora occurr ed w h e n th e latte r b ro u g h t in a d o c u m e n t sta m p e d b yth e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on ( di s cus s ed i nfr a ) . W hen as ked w hetherM r . Z amora “br oughtany a d d itio n a l d o c u m e n ts ” to th a t m e e tin g , M r. T u c k e r r e s p o n d e d : “ I d o n o t r e c a ll.” Id
. at69. W hen M r . Z amora ’ s at t or neydi r ect l yques t i oned M r . T uckeraboutt he n a tu ra liza tio n c e rtific a te, th e fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e e n su e d : Q . O k a y . D o y o u re c a ll i f [ M r. Z a m o ra ] e v e r b ro u g h t to y o u a c e rtific a te of natur al i zat i on? A . H e d id n o t. Q . Y o u re c a ll th a t h e d id n o t? A . Y es sir. Id. at90–91.

- 6- E l i t e cont ends t hatt he r ecor d does nots uppor tM r . Z amora ’ s cl ai m t hathe pr es ent ed M r . T ucker w i t h a natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e. E l i t e poi nt s outt hatno 3 s uch ce r t i fi cat e appe ar s i n t he r ecor d; t he onl ydocument i n t he r ecor d r egar di ng- 7-

M r. Z am o ra’s n atura li za ti o n , m ark ed E x h ibit6 , is an IN S n o ti ce ad d resse d to M r. Z a m o ra in s tru c tin g h im to a tte n d a h e a ri n g o n h is a p p lic a tio n fo r n a tu ra liz a tio n . A ppel l ant ’ s Supp. A pp. at 88. M r . Z amora di d, how ever , t es t i fyi n hi s depos i t i on t hathe pr es ent ed a na tur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e t o M r . T ucker . Z amora D ep. at42. B eca us e thi s C our tm us tvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he n o n m o v in g p a rty , an d b e c a u se a p a rty ’s d e p o sitio n tes tim o n y , ev e n if uncorr obor at ed byr el evantdocument s , count s as evi dence , w e mustas s um e for p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l th a t M r. Z a m o ra p re se n ted a n a tu ra liza tio n c e rtific a te to M r . T ucker . H ow ever , not hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s — and, t her efor e, w e nee d notas s um e— t hatt he natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e amel i or at ed M r . T ucker ’ s conce r ns abo ut the p robl em s w i t h M r. Z am ora’ s SS N . Indeed , so far as the record reveal s, Soci al Secur i t ynum ber s do notappea ron natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat es , and w hen ask ed w h ethe r his S S N ap p ea red o n the “ cit izen sh ip p ap ers” h e p rese n ted to M r. T u ck er, M r. Z am o ra resp o n d ed : “I do n ’tthink so . I ca n ’trem em b er. N o , I do n ’t t hi nk s o. ” Id. at11–12. M r . Z amora r etur ned the dayfol l ow i ng hi s s us pens i on w i t h a document f ro m th e S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n (“ S S A ” ), d a ted M a y2 3 , 2 0 0 2 . T h is document s t at ed thatM r . Z amora ’ s SSN w as as s i gned t o an i ndi vi dual named “R amon Z amora Far i as , ” w hi ch corr es ponded w i t h t he name M r . Z amora pr ovi ded to E lit e w h e n o rig in a llyh ire d . M r. T u c k e r in stru c ted h is s e c re tar yto v e rif yth is d o c u m e n tatio n w ith th e S S A a n d to su m m o n M r. Z a m o ra b a c k to w o rk if it- 8-

ch ec k ed o u t. T h e d o cu m en t did c h ec k o u t and , o n M ay2 5 , M r. T u ck er’s s e c re ta ry c a lle d M r. Z a m o ra a n d a s k e d h im to re tu rn to w o rk . Zam ora , 316 F . S up p. 2d 11 13 . T he suspe nsi on t hu s l ast ed ab ou tt hree day s. O n o r ab o u t M ay2 9 , M r. Z am o ra return ed to E li te an d h an d ed M r. T u ck er a l et t erw r i t t en i n E ngl i s h and typed att he off i ce of hi s att or ney . Z amora D ep. at 1 3 . I ts t a t e d : “ Be fo r e I c o u l d c o n s i d e rg o i n g b a c k t o wo r k I n e e d f r o m y o u t wo t hi ngs : 1) an apol ogyi n w r i t i ng, and 2) a compl et e expl anat i on of w hyI w as t er m i nat ed. ” A ppel l ant ’ s Supp. A pp. at101. M r . T uckert es t i fi ed thathe cons i der ed thi s a vol unt aryr es i gnat i on. T uckerD ep. at82. M r . Z amora t es t i fi ed t hatM r . T uckergr abbed the l et t er , s t at ed thathe w oul d fi r e M r . Z amora r ather th a n g iv e a n e x p la n a tio n , a n d to ld M r. Z a m o ra h e w a s fir e d . Z amora D ep. at 34–36. M r . T uckeradmi t t ed thathe mi ghthave t ol d M r . Z amora t o “j us tgett he hel l out . ” TuckerD ep. at96. II. M r . Z amora has s ued underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, w hi ch m akes i tunl aw ful “foran empl oy er. . . t o fai l orr efus e t o hi r e ort o di s char ge a n yin d iv id u a l, or o th e rw ise d isc rim in a te a g a in st a n yin d iv id u a l w ith re sp e c t to hi s compensa t i on, t erm s , condi t i ons , orpr i vi l eges of empl oym ent , beca us e of s u c h in d iv id u a l’ s ra c e , c o lo r, r e lig io n , s e x , o r n a tio n a l o ri g in .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e- 2( a) ( 1) . T i t l e V I I cas es ar e funne l ed thr ough t he oft - r epea t ed Mc D o n n e ll D ou glas b u rd e n -s h if

tin g f ra m e w o rk . See McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een ,J udge H ar t z offer s ar gum ent s agai ns templ oy i ng t he McD onnel lD ougl as 4 fr amew or k i n t he s um m aryj udgm entcont ext . T hos e ar gum ent s w er e notm ade by anypar t yand have notr ece i ved the cons i der at i on of the en banc cour t . N ot hi ng in the o p inion s in this ca se sh o u ld b e interp reted as p rec lud ing p arti es in fu ture cases fr om l i t i gati ng t he is sues Judg e H art z rai ses. I n a di s cr i m i nat or ydi s char ge ca s e, al l a pl ai nt i ff musts how i s : ( 1) he 5 b e lo n g s to a p ro tec ted c las s; (2 ) h e w a s q u a lifie d fo r h is jo b ; (3 ) d e sp ite h is q u a lific a tio n s, h e w a s d isc h a rg e d ; an d , (4 ) th e jo b w a s n o t elim in a ted a f ter h is d is c h a rg e . E ngl is h v. C ol o. D ept . of C or r ect i ons , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 8 (10 th C ir . 2001) . T hi s C i r cui thas hel d t hatt he r equi r ement s fora pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i n a d iscri m inato rysu sp en sion ca se a re d iffe ren t th an tho se fo r a d iscri m inato ry di s char ge ca s e, a di ffe r ence t hatperhaps gi ves t he fi r s ts t ep of the Mc D o n n e ll D ougl as fr amew or k a bi tm or e bi t e i n t he form ercont ext . A pl ai nt i ff a t t empt i ng t o pr ove di s cr i m i nat or ys us pens i on m us ts how t hat( 1) he bel ongs t o a pr ot ect ed cl ass, (2) he suffered an ad verse em ploym ent act i on , and (3) “t he ad verse empl oym entact i on occurr ed underci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” H

ys t en v. B ur l i ngt on N. & Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 296 F. 3d 1177, 1181 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . A l though t he pos tur e of thi s cas e demands t hatw e ana l y ze t he evi dence undert he l at ers t ages of the McD onnel lD ougl as f ra m e w o rk , w ith r egar d t o M r . Z amora ’ s fi r s tcl ai m , i ti s notcl eart hathe pr es ent ed enough evi dence t o pas s even thi s fi r s ts t ep.

- 9- 41 1 U . S . 79 2 (1973 ). U nd er this form ula, a T i t l e V II plai nti ff fir stm ust 4 es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on— a bur den s o l i ghtt hatonl yt he m os tbas el es s of cl ai m s fai l s t o s at i s fyi t . T he hea vyl i ft i ng of pr ovi ng and 5 defe ndi ng a Ti t l e V I I cas e occ ur s i n t he l at ers t ages of the McD onnel lD ougl as a n a lysis . A f ter a p lain tiff

h a s e sta b lish e d a p rim a fa c ie c a se , the b u rd e n “ sh if t[ s] to t he empl oy ert o ar t i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fort he empl oy ee’ s r ej ect i on. ” McD onnel lD ougl as , 411 U . S. at802. I f the empl oy er d o e s s o , the b u rd e n sh if ts b a c k to th e p lain tiff to sh o w th a t th e p ro ffe re d re a so n is- 10-

pret extual . O ne w aya plai nti ff can do so i s bydem on strat i ng “‘s uch w eakn esses , i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n t he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons fori t s act i on t hata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder coul d r at i onal l yfi nd t hem unw or t hyof cr edenc e and he nce i nfert hatt he empl oy erdi d notactfort he as s er t ed non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons . ’ ” D anvi l l e v. R eg’ lLab C or

p. , 292 F. 3d 1246, 1250 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Mo rg a n v . Hilt i, Inc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ) . W hen ana l y zi ng t hi s t ype of evi dence , i tm us tbe kepti n m i nd t hatt he purpos e of the McD onnel lD ougl as f ra m e w o rk is to fe rr e t o u t d is c ri m in a tio n w h e re d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f s u c h is la c k in g . T he fr amew or k al l ow s a fa ct fi ndert o dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e . A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d , “[ i]n a p p ro p ria te ci r cumst ance s , t he tr i erof fa ctcan r eas onabl yi nferfr om t he fa l s i t yof the ex p lana ti o n that the e m p loy er is dissem b li n g to co v er u p a d iscri m inato ry purpos e. ” R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r oducts , Inc. , 530 U . S. 133, 147 ( 2000) . “Thus, a pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, combi ned w i t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd t hatt he empl oy er ’ s as s er t ed j us t i fi cat i on i s fal s e, m ayper m i tt he tr i erof fac tt o concl ude thatt he empl oy erunl aw ful l ydi s cr i m i nat ed. ” Id. a t 1 4 8 . B u t no t al l evid en ce o f p retex t i s su ffici en t t o p rop el a c ase p ast a su m m ary j udgm entchal l enge. Som e ci r cumst ant i al evi dence s i m pl ydoes notpr ovi de enough pr oof t o al l ow a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o dr aw an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. A s t he R eev es C o u rt c a u tio n e d :- 11-

T h is is n o t to sa yth a t su c h a sh o w in g b yth e p lain tiff w ill alw ays be a d e q u a te to su sta in a ju ry ’s fin d in g o f liab ili ty . C e rta in lyth e re w ill b e i n s t a n c e s wh e r e , a l t h o u g h t h e p l a i n t i ff h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma fa cie c ase an d set fo rth su ffici en t evid en ce to rejec t th e d efen d an t’ s expl anat i on, no r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude thatt he ac t i on w as d isc rim in a to ry . F o r in sta n c e , an e m p lo y e r w o u ld b e e n tit led to j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w i f t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l yr e v e a l e d s o me ot her , nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fort he empl oy er ’ s deci s i on, ori f the pl ai nt i ff c r eat ed onl ya w eak i s s ue of factas t o w hethert he empl oy er ’ s r eas on w as unt rue and ther e w as abundantand uncontr over t ed i ndepende ntevi dence thatno di s cr i m i nat i on had occurr ed . . . . T o hol d ot herw i s e w oul d be effec t i vel yt o i ns ul at e an ent i r e ca t egoryof empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas es fr om r evi ew underR ul e 50, and w e have r ei t er at ed thatt r i al cour t s s houl d not tre a t d isc rim in a tio n d iffe re n tlyf ro m o th e r u lti m a te q u e stio n s o f fa c t. Id. at14 8 (i nternal ci t at i on s and q uo t at i on m arks om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, al t hough t he McD onnel lD ougl as fra m ew o rk a ids in the an aly sis of a T it le V II s ui t , i ti s notm eantt o al t ert he purpos e of Ti t l e V I I , nordoes i ti ns ul at e an in su fficie n t ca se f

ro m su m m a ryju d g m e n t, no r d o e s it c h a n g e w h a t a p lain tiff is r e q u i r e d t o s h o w i n p r o v i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e VI I

— n a me l y , d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . As t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n McD onnel lD ougl as itse lf, the p u rp o se o f T itl e V II is “t o assure equali t yof em ploym ent oppo rtun i t i es and to el i m i nate tho se di s cr i m i nat or ypr act i ces and devi ces w hi ch have fos t er ed r aci al l ys t r at i fi ed j ob envi r onm ent s t o t he di s advant age of m i nor i t yci t i zens . ” McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. , 411 U . S. at800. T i t l e V I I i s notm eantt o pr ot ectan empl oy ee’ s j ob s i m pl y“‘ beca us e he i s a mem berof a mi nor i t ygr oup. D i s cr i m i nat or ypr efe r ence foranygr oup, m i nor i t yorm aj or i t y , i s pr eci s el yand onl yw hatC ongr es s has- 12-

pr os cr i bed. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng G r iggs v. D uke Pow erC o. , 401 U . S. 424, 430–31 ( 1971) ) . T hus , t he Mc D o n n e ll D ougl as fr amew or k s houl d notbe appl i ed i n a m annert hatr ender s i tnot hi ng m or e than an e m pt ypl eadi ng for m ul a, al l ow i ng everyal l egat i on of empl oy erdi s cr i m i nat i on t o gett o a j ur y . T he t ouchs t one of t he i nqui r yi s w hethera r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd di s cr i m i nat i on. I f not , t he c laim c a n n o t su rv iv e a m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. III . E l i t e cl ai m s t hati t s r eas on fordemandi ng addi t i onal document at i on fr om M r . Z amora w as a good fa i t h— even i f fl aw ed— at t empt t o compl yw i t h t he I mm i g r a t i o n Re fo r m a n d Co n t r o l Ac to f 1 9 8 6 . I RC A i s r e l e v a n th e r e i n t wo r es pect s . Fi r s t , t he s t atut e pr ohi bi t s t he know i ng empl oym entof unauthor i zed al i ens and pl ace s aff

i r m at i ve bur dens on empl oy er s t o ver i fyt he i dent i t yand e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili tyo f e m p lo y e e s, a t th e h irin g sta g e , b ye x a m in in g c e rta in d o c u m e n ts s p e c ifie d b ys ta tu te a n d re g u la tio n . See 8 U . S. C . §§ 1 3 2 4 a (a )(1 )(A )– (B ), 1 3 2 4 a (b ); 8 C .F .R . § 2 7 4 a .2 (b )(1 )(ii) & (v ). T h e sta tu te pr ovi des t hat , att he t i m e of i ni t i al hi r i ng, compl i ance “i n good fai t h w i t h t he[s e] r equi r ement s . . . w i t h r es pectt o t he hi r i ng . . . forempl oym entof an a l i en i n t he U ni t ed St at es . . . es t abl i s h[es ] an affi r m at i ve defens e that[the empl oy er ] has not v io late d ” th e a b o v e p ro v isio n s. 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a (3 ). IR C A a lso m a k e s it unl aw ful foran empl oy er“t o cont i nue t o empl oy[an] al i en i n t he U ni t ed St at es know i ng t he al i en i s ( orhas become) an unauthor i zed a l i en w i t h r es pectt o s uchI ndeed, M r . T uckerenunci at ed a c oncern verys i m i l art o t hi s i n expl ai ni ng 6 w h yh e sta g g e re d d istrib u tio n o f th e m e m o ra n d a a ler tin g e m p lo y e e s o f th e ir report ed S S N dis crepancies : [W ] e knew t hatonce w e s t ar t ed ca l l i ng t hes e peopl e i n, notonl yt hey butot her s t hatm ayhave ha d s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber s t hatchec ked outw oul d l eave t he w or k for ce a nd t hati f w e had a l ar ge gr oup of w ar ehous e empl oy ees l eave atone t i m e, i tw oul d have be en di s rupt i ve. So w e s etup— or i gi nal l yI w as goi ng t o cal l fi ve i ndi vi dual s i n eac h w eek. B utt he fi r s tw eek, t he fi r s tfi ve I cal l ed i n, t he ya nd a bo utfi ve othe rgu y s j us tdi s a pp e a r e d the ne xtda y . So w e slo w e d th e p ro c e ss d o w n to w h e re w e w e re d o in g lik e tw o to t hr ee e veryot herw eek ors o. T uckerD ep. at37–38.

- 13- empl oym ent . ” Id. § 1324a( a) ( 2) . I ti s t hi s l at t erobl i gat i on— combi ned w i t h t he ra n g e o f c iv il a n d c ri m in a l p e n a ltie s th a t a w a it e m p lo y e rs w h o v io la te IR C A , s ee i d. § 1324a( e) –( f)

— t hatE l i t e cl ai m s pr om pt ed i t s act i ons i n t hi s cas e. Second, I R C A has cr eat ed empl oy eri ncent i ves t o pr ot ectagai ns tt he sig n ifica n t d isru p tio n th a t m a yo c c u r w h e n im m ig ra tio n e n fo rc e m e n t ag e n ts i ns pecta w or kpl ace and fi nd w or ker s outof compl i ance . A s t he then- A ct i ng D eputyD i r ect orof U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces (“ U S C IS ” ) e x p lain e d in re c e n t co n g re ss io n a l tes tim o n y : [O ]ne of the pri m aryreas on s for a hum an resources m anag er t o p ush par t i ci pat i on i n [a vol unt arypr ogr am for e m pl oy ee ve r i fi cat i on] w as t o avoi d t hatm om entw hen the I N S w oul d come i n and r ai d t he pl ace and t ake a w ayhal f the w or ker s , and make i ti m pos s i bl e t o m ake a ny ki nd of pr oduct i on. T hat ’ s t he ki nd of eve ntt hatget s t he human re so u rc e s m a n a g e r fire d , an d th a t’s th e k in d o f e v e n t th a t th e yw o u ld tryto p lan a g a in st. 6O n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rityo fficia ls 7 r ai ded s i x m eatpacki ng pl ant s acr os s t he nat i on i n s ear ch of i l l egal l yempl oy ed i m m i gr ant s . T he ac t i on r es ul t ed i n t he arr es tof 1, 282 w or ker s — near l yt en p e rc e n t o f

th e ta rg e te d c o m p a n y ’s w o rk fo rc e . See R a c h e l L . S w a rn s , Il l egal Immig r a n ts a tCe n t e ro f Ne w I D Th e f tCr a c kd o wn , N . Y . T i m es , D ec. 14, 2006, at A 38. “The act i on t ar get ed the us e of l egi t i m at e Soci al Secur i t ynum ber s by i l l e g a l i mmi g r a n t s — wh a t. . . [ t h e ] s p o k e s wo ma n fo rI mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n fo rc e m e n t[ ] c a lle d ‘a m a s s iv e id e n tity-th e f t s c h e m e .’” N ic o le G a o u e tte , S ix Meat Plants A re R aided i n Massi ve I. D . TheftC ase , l at i m es . com, D ec. 13, 2006, atht tp: // w w w . l at i m es . com/ new s / nat i onw or l d/ nat i on/ l a- nara id 1 3 d e c 1 3 .0 .5 3 0 8 6 9 9 .s to ry? tr a c k = rs s . See a lso S w a rn s , supra ( r epor t i ng t he S e c re tar yo f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity ’s in ten tio n to “ a g g re ss iv e lyp u rsu e d o c u m e n tth e f t rin g s a n d th e ill e g a l im m ig ra n t w o rk e rs w h o u se th e m ,” a n d re p o rtin g h is s t a t e me n tt h a t“ ‘ wh e n we r e mo v e t h e i l l e g a l wo r k e r s , t h e r e ’ s g o i n g t o b e s o me k ind o f slo w d o w n ’”). See I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 8 1996, Pub. L . N o. 104- 208, §§ 401- 404, 110 St at . 3009, 3009- 655 t o 3009- 665; U .S . C itiz e n s h ip & Im m ig ra tio n S e rv s ., U .S . D e p ’t o f H o m e la n d S e c ., R e

p o rt to Co n g r e s s o n th e B a s i c P i l o tP r o g r a m (Jun e 2 0 0 4 ), (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 14- Im m igr antE mpl oym entVer i f i cat i on and Sm al lB us i nes s : Hear i ng B ef or e the Subcom m . on Workf

or ce, E mpow er m ent, & G ov’ tP r ogr am s of the H
. C om m . on Sm allB usi ness , 1 0 9 th C o n g . (20 0 6 ) [h ere inaf ter Ver i f i cat i on Hear i ng ] ( s t at ement of R ober tD i vi ne, A ct i ng D eputyD i r ect or , U SC I S, D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y ) . A s r ece ntevent s ar ound t he countr yi l l us t r at e, t hi s i s notan obl i gat i on t h a t e m p l o ye r s c a n a ffo r d t o t a k e l i g h t l y. 7 O n e o f th e p rin c ip a l m e th o d s o f e n su rin g e m p lo y e e e lig ib ili tyis ver i fi cat i on of Soci al Secur i t ynum ber s . I ndeed, t hi s i s t he keyfea tur e of the fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t’s B a sic P ilo t P ro g ra m — a v o lu n tar ye m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili ty v e rifica tio n sy ste m c re a ted b yC o n g re ss in 1 9 9 7 . E m p lo y e rs w h o p a rticip a te in 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 ht tp: // w w w . us ci s . gov/ fi l es / nat i vedocument s / B as i cFI N A L congr es s 0704. pdf [her ei naft er , U SC I S, R epor tt o C ongr es s ] ; Pi l otPr ogr ams forE m pl oym ent E lig ib ili tyC o n firm a tio n , 6 2 F e d . R e g . 4 8 3 0 9 , 4 8 3 1 1 (S e p t. 15 , 1 9 9 7 ) (“ T h e B a sic Pi l oti nv ol ve s s e pa r a t e ve r i fi c a t i on c he c ks ( i f n e c e s s a r y ) of t he SSA a nd [USC I S] d a ta b a s e s , u s in g a u to m a te d s y s te m s to v e ri f yS o c ia l S e c u ri ty ac c o u n t n u m b e rs . . . and al i en r egi s t r at i on num ber s . ”) . I n 2006, t he U . S. Senat e and H ous e of R epr es ent at i ves eac h pas s ed di ffe r i ng ver s i ons of a bi l l t hatw oul d have made the B a s ic P ilo t P ro g ra m m a n d a to ry fo r a ll U .S . e m p lo y e rs . See B or derPr ot ect i on, A n tit e rro rism , an d Illeg a l Im m ig ra tio n C o n tro l A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , H .R . 4 4 3 7 , 1 0 9 th C o n g . (2 0 0 6 ); C o m p re h e n siv e Im m ig ra tio n R e fo rm A c t o f 2 0 0 6 , S . 2 6 1 1 , 1 0 9 th C o n g . (2 0 0 6 ). I NS p u b l i s h e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s fo rBa s i c P i l o ti n 1 9 9 7 . S u b s e q u e n t l y , I NS 9 t r ans ferr ed fr om t he D epart m entof J us t i ce t o t he D epart m entof H om el and S e c u ri ty, w h e re its f

u n c tio n s a re n o w c a rr ie d o u t b yU S C IS . See 69 Fed. R eg. 75 99 7, 75 99 8 ( D e c . 20 , 20 04 ) . Thus , w he r e t he 19 97 pr oc e du r e s r e fe rt o I N S, t hi s op i ni on s ub s t i tut e s U SCI S.

- 15- B asic P il o t el ec tr o n icall ysu b m itinfo rm ati o n fro m a n ew lyh ir ed em p loy ee ’s I-9 for m — name, dat e of bi r t h, SSN , ci t i zens hi p s t atus ( i f pr ovi ded)

— forcompar i s on w ith in fo rm a tio n o n th e S S A ’s p rim a ryd a tab a se , irres p e c tiv e o f th e fa c ially compl i antdocument s pr ovi ded byt he empl oy ee t o s at i s fyI - 9 r equi r ement s . I f the in fo rm a tio n su b m itt e d b yth e e m p lo y e r m a tch e s S S A d a ta, th e e m p lo y e r is not i fi ed of the empl oy ee’ s ver i fi ed, el i gi bl e s t atus . I f the empl oy er - s ubm i t t ed dat a and SSA r ecor ds ar e i ncons i s t ent , ori f SSA cannoti s s ue ver i fi cat i on for s om e otherr eas on, t he empl oy er - s ubm i t t ed i nfor m at i on i s then che cked by U S C IS. If el i gibi l i tyst i l l cann ot be est abli shed, the g ov ernm ent i ssues a

9 “t ent at i ve nonconf

i r m at i on, ” and the empl oy erm us tnot i fyt he empl oy ee of t he fin d in g . U S C IS , U .S . D e p ’t o f H o m e la n d S e c ., F i ndi ngs of the Basi c Pi l ot- 16-

P r ogr am E val uat i on 42 ( J une 2002) , at h ttp ://w w w . u scis. g o v /fi les/ arti cle/4% 5 B 1 % 5 D . b % 2 0 C

_ II. p d f [ h ere inaf ter U S C IS Fi nd i ng s ] . Em pl oy e e s a r e gi ve n e i gh tfe de r a l w orkd a y s t o c on t a c tU SCI S orSSA and r es ol ve the pr obl em. I f the empl oy ee c hoos es nott o cont es tt he t ent at i ve nonconfi r m at i on, i ti s cons i der ed a “ fi nal nonconfi r m at i on” and the empl oy erm ay t er m i nat e the empl oy ee. I f the empl oy ee doe s choos e t o cont actt he r el evant agenc yand the age ncyr es ol ves t he i s s ue, t he empl oy ee mustnot i fyhi s empl oy er and the empl oy erm us tconfi r m t he new r es ul tt hr ough t he B as i c Pi l otcomput er s y s t em. I f el i gi bi l i t yi s s t i l l notes t abl i s hed af t ert hi s per i od and no furt her v e rifica tio n in stru c tio n s a re p ro v id e d b yth e S S A , the e m p lo y e r is a u th o riz e d to d is c h a rg e th e e m p lo y e e . See U S C IS F in d in g s , supra , at40–44; 62 Fed. R eg. 4 8 3 0 9 , 4 8 3 1 2

– 1 3 . See a lso U S C IS , R e p o rt to C o n g re s s , supra n o te 8, at 2– 3 . If t he empl oy erchoos es nott o t erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee a ft eri s s uance of a f i nal nonconfi r m at i on, i tm us tnot i fyU SC I S. Fai l ur e t o not i fycons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996 and m ayr es ul ti n l egal penal t i es . 62 Fed. R eg. 48309, 48313. C om pl i ance effor t s have s hi ft ed t o Soci al Secur i t ynum berver i fi cat i on beca us e of the ea s yavai l abi l i t yof for ged document s and the pr eval ence of i den t i t yt heft, w hich m ake o t her form s of do cum entat i on l ess r el i able. A ta H ou se su b c o m m itt e e h e a rin g o n p ro p o se d leg isla tio n to m a k e p a rticip a tio n in th e B a sic Pi l otPr ogr am m andat or y , t he C hai rof the H ous e Subcomm i t t ee on W or kfor ce,- 17-

E m pow er m ent , & G overnm entPr ogr ams expl ai ned that“the ea s yavai l abi l i t yof co u n terfeit do cu m en ts ha s m ad e a m o ck eryo f [ IR C A ]. F ak e d o cu m en ts are pr oduced byt he mi l l i ons , and theycan be boughtverychea pl y . ” Ver i f i cat i on Hear i ng , supra (sta tem e n t o f R e p . M a rilyn M u sg ra v e , C h a irm a n ); see also U S C IS F in d in g s , supra , at178, at h ttp ://w w w .u sc is.g o v /files /ar ticle /6 % 5 B 1 % 5 D .a% 2 0 C

_ X I.p d f. (“I n d iv id u a ls w i t houtw or k author i zat i on fr equent l yobt ai n w or k byus i ng count er fei toral t er ed document s . ”) . A n i ncr eas i ngl ycomm on m ethod of ci r cumvent i ng I R C A i nvol ves fl at - outi dent i t yt heft , i . e. , t he “us e [of] r eal document s bel ongi ng t o another per s on. For exampl e, i ndi vi dual s m aybor r ow document s bel ongi ng t o r el at i ves o r f ri e n d s w ith s im ila r c h a ra c te ri s tic s .” U S C IS F in d in g s , supra , at 1 7 9 ; see also Ver i f i cat i on Hear i ng , supra , (sta tem e n t o f Ja c k S h a n d ley, S e n io r V ice P re sid e n t, S w if t & C o .) (“ T h e u n d e rg ro u n d m a rk e t re sp o n d e d [ to a c ra c k d o w n o n c o u n ter fe it document s ] byr epl aci ng count er fei tdocument s w i t h genui ne i dent i fi cat i on d o c u me n t s o b t a i n e d u n d e r f r a u d u l e n t t e r ms . . . . ” ) . Re l i a n c e o n d a t a — S S N, name, bi r t hdat e, as s er t ed ci t i zens hi p s t atus — r athert han document s amel i or at es t h i s p r o b l e m. In h is d iss e n tin g o p in io n , Ju d g e L u c e ro w rites a t len g th a b o u t th e a n tid isc rim in a tio n re q u ire m e n ts c o n tain e d w ith in IR C A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 b (a ), d e sp ite th e fa c t th a t M r. Z a m o ra h a s n o t a lle g e d a v io la tio n o f th o s e p ro v is io n s . See D i s s ent i ng O p. at11–15. C i t i ng t he t ext , l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , and i m pl ement i ng- 18-

r egul at i ons of the I R C A pr ovi s i ons , t he di s s ents eems t o i m pl yt hatour i nt erpr et at i on of Ti t l e V I I oughtt o be gui ded byt hes e pr ovi s i ons . T hat su g g e stio n is u n fo u n d e d b e c a u se — a s th e d iss e n t ac k n o w led g e s— th e IR C A a n tidi s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i ons w er e i nt ended t o “‘ br oaden[ ] t he Ti t l e V I I pr ot ect i ons ag ains t nation al origin d iscri m ination , w h il e n o t bro ad en ing o ther T it le V II pr ot ect i ons . ’ ” Id. at12 ( emphasi s r emoved) ( quot i ng H . R . C onf. R ep. N o. 99- 1 0 0 0 (1 9 8 6 ), r epr i nt ed i n 1986 U . S. C . C . A . N . 5840, 5842) . T hi s cas e ar i s es under T i t l e VI I

— n o tI RC A’ s a n t i - d i s c r i mi n a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s — a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e s we interpre t w il l app lyac ross the b o ard to all T it le V II clai m s. Itw o u ld b e c o n tr ary t o congr es s i onal i nt entforus t o “br oaden” T i t l e V I I byi nt erpr et i ng i tt o coi nci de w ith th e IR C A a n ti-d isc rim in a tio n p ro v isio n s. T o c o n fin e o u r a n a ly sis to T itl e V I I does not“go fa ri n i ns ul at i ng empl oy er s fr om nat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on c la im s ,” a s th e d is s e n t c h a rg e s . Id. at14. I ts i m pl yr es pect s t he di ffe r entr eac h of th e tw o d iffe re n t s ta tu te s . I V. T u r n i n g fi r s tt o M r . Z a mo r a ’ s s u s p e n s i o n c l a i m, I a m a ta l o s s t o s e e h o w a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d cons t rue the s equenc e of e vent s det ai l ed above as d is c ri m in a to ry. T h rou g h M r. Z am o ra’s su sp en sion o n o r ab o u t M ay2 2 , an d u p to M r. T ucker ’ s r ej ect i on of M r . Z amora ’ s pr offe rof a na tur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e w hen he r etur ned l at ert hatdayort he next , E l i t e’ s act i ons ar e fr ee of anyt ai ntof- 19-

di s cr i m i nat i on. W hen the companyl earned of the i m pendi ng I N S i ns pect i on, E lit e u n d e rto o k a n e x a m in a tio n o f th e S o c ial S e c u rityn u m b e rs o f a ll o f its empl oy ees , w i t houtr egar d t o t hei rr ace ornat i onal or i gi n. W hen i tl earned that t hirt y -fi ve em ploy ees had i rr egu l ari t i es r egardi ng t heirS ocial S ecuri t ynu m bers, E l i t e cont act ed al l t hi r t y - fi ve and a s ked al l t hi r t y - fi ve fordocument at i on t hat w oul d cl earup t hes e i s s ues . A l t hough M r . Z amora compl ai ns t hatt he company putt he bur den on the empl oy ees t o pr ove thei ri dent i t yand el i gi bi l i t yr athert han cont act i ng t he r el evantgovernm entagenc i es i t s el f, thi s appr oach w as l aw ful , and m o re im p o rta n tlyw a s a p p lied to a ll affe c ted e m p lo y e e s w ith o u t re g a rd to th e ir rac e o r na ti o n al origin . N o o n e d ispu tes t h at th e c o m p an y ’s ou tsi d e c o n tr ac tors uncover ed evi dence of i r r egul ar i t i es i n M r . Z amora ’ s SSN . N o one di s put es t hat i twa s l a wf

u l fo rt h e c o mp a n yt o a s k M r . Z a mo r a t o c l e a ru p t h e d i s c r e p a n c y . No one di s put es t hatt he companygave M r . Z amora s uffi ci entt i m e— t en day s — t o do s o. A nd no one di s put es t hat , t w el ve day s aft err ece i vi ng not i ce, M r . Z amora had fai l ed t o do anyt hi ng t o cl earup t he pr obl em. A tt he t i m e w hen M r . Z amora w as s us pended f

r om empl oym enton M ay22, t her efor e, no r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d fi nd th a t h e h a d b e e n tre a ted d iffe re n tlyf ro m a n yo th e r e m p lo y e e , o n th e b a sis o f h is n a tio n a l o ri g in . See Zam ora , 4 4 9 F . 3 d at 11 1 8

– 1 9 (E b el, J. , d issen ti n g ). T h e d iscri m inato rysu sp en sion claim arises p ri m aril yfro m M r. Z am o ra’s al l egat i on t hathe l at erpr es ent ed M r . T uckerw i t h a ce r t i fi cat e of na tur al i zat i on, and thatM r . T uckerr efus ed t o acc epti tas s uffi ci entr es ol ut i on of hi s Soci al- 20-

Secur i t ynum beri r r egul ar i t i es . B eca us e M r . Z amora w as t he onl yempl oy ee of t he thi r t y - fi ve pr obl em cas es t o r eac h t hi s j unctur e, one ca nnotdet er m i ne w hether he w as t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om ot herempl oy ees . B utone ca n exami ne the ci r cumst ance s forevi dence t hatw oul d al l ow a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o dr aw an in fe re n c e o f

d is c ri m in a tio n . I fin d n o n e . M r. Z a m o ra a rg u e s th a t o n c e h e p ro d u c e d h is n a tu ra liza tio n c e rtific a te, it s houl d have be en s uffi ci entt o cl eart he companyof anypos s i bl e l i abi l i t yunder IR C A . A n yf

u rth e r re q u e sts fo r d o c u m e n tatio n , h e a rg u e s, w e re in c o n sis ten t w ith the c o m p an y ’s st ated rati o n ale a n d thu s ev iden ce o f p retex t. S im il arly , M r. Z amora cont ends t hatbeca us e the mem or andum handed t o hi m on M ay10 s t at ed t hat“el i gi bi l i t ycan be es t abl i s hed w i t h . . . a C er t i fi cat e of Ci t i zens hi p or N a tu ra liz a tio n ,” M r. T u c k e r’ s reje c tio n o f s u c h a d o c u m e n t is e v id e n c e o f p re te x t. L as t l y , M r . Z amora ar gues t hatM r . T ucker ’ s per s onal demeanori s evi dence of d is c ri m in a tio n . I d o n o t fin d th e s e a rg u m e n ts c o n v in c in g fo r s e v e ra l r e a s o n s . A . F ir st, M r. Z am o ra ign o res the crit ical fa ct th at i n ad d it ion to p rese n ti n g M r. T u c k e r w ith h is n a tu ra liza tio n c e rtific a te h e a lso p re se n ted h im a S o c ial S e c u rity d o c u m e n t th a t d isp layed a b irth d a te d iffe re n t f ro m th e o n e h e h a d p re v io u sly re p o rt e d to E lite . See A ppel l ant ’ s Supp. A pp. at89. T hi s new devel opm ent un de r s t a nd a bl yhe i gh t e ne d M r . Tuc ke r ’ s s us pi c i on r e ga r di ng w he t he rt he SSN us ed byM r . Z amora w as l egi t i m at el yhi s . T he cont empora neous pr es ent at i on of a- 21-

natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e, w hi ch w oul d notcont ai n M r . Z amora ’ s SSN , w oul d not h a v e re so lv e d th e iss u e . A s M r. T u c k e r e x p lain e d : [M ]yco n ce rn w ith M r. Z am o ra w as c o u ld I find a d o cu m en t or a coupl e of doc um ent s t hathad the bi r t hdat e he w as us i ng, t he name he w as us i ng, and the s oci al s ecur i t ynum berhe w as us i ng t hatver i fi ed t hatt hi s i s t rul yhi s ? A nd w hen he br ought[i n t he documentw i t h t he di ffe r entbi r t h dat e, ] i n addi t i on t o t he otherconce r n t hathad bee n r a i s e d wi t h t h i s d i ffe r e n tb i r t h d a t e , i ta p p e a r e d t o me a s i f n o w we had pos s i bl yt hr ee i ndi vi dual s us i ng t hi s s ame car d. T uckerD ep. at64. It m a yh a v e b e e n w ro n g , b u t itw a s n o t u n re a so n a b le fo r M r. T u c k e r to bel i eve that , undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , exami nat i on of the natur al i zat i on c e r t i fi c a t e wo u l d fa i l t o b r i n g t h e c o mp a n yi n t o c o mp l i a n c e wi t h I RCA. I RCA m a k e s it “ u n law f

u l fo r [ a n e m p lo y e r], a f ter h irin g a n a lien fo r e m p lo ym e n t in acc or dance w i t h [I R C A ’ s hi r i ng pr ocedur es ] t o cont i nue t o empl oyt he al i en i n t he U n ited S tate s k n o w in g th e a lien is (o r h a s b e c o m e ) a n u n a u th o riz e d a lien w ith r es pectt o s uch empl oym ent . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1324a( a) ( 2) . T hus , M r . T uckerm ay have r eas onabl ybel i eved thatw hi l e exa m i nat i on of a faci al l yval i d natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e w oul d s at i s fyE l i t e’ s s t atut or ydut i es att he hi r i ng s t age , s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1324a( a) ( 3) , once the companyw as confr ont ed w i t h a sp e c ifi c q u e stio n a b o u t a w or ker ’ s document at i on, i tw as undera dutyt o i nves t i gat e and r es ol ve that s p e c ific c o n c e rn . In d e e d , ca se law in ter p re tin g IR C A su p p o rts E lit e in th is v iew . T h e N in th C i r cui thas hel d t hat8 U . S. C . § 1324a( a) ( 2) adopt s a “c ons t ruct i ve know l edge- 22-

s t andar d, ” w her eby“a de l i ber at e fa i l ur e t o i nves t i gat e s us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s im p u te s k n o w le d g e ” to a n e m p lo y e r. New E lR ay Sa u s a g e Co . v . I NS , 925 F. 2d 1153, 1157–58 ( 9t h C i r . 1991) ( ci t i ng Me s t e rM f g . Co . v . I

NS , 879 F. 2d 561, 567 ( 9t h C i r . 1989) ) . A s t hatcour texpl ai ned, empl oy er s s har e “pa r tof [the] bur den” of “pr ovi ng ordi s pr ovi ng t hata per s on i s unauthor i zed t o w or k. ” Id. I ni t i al ver i fi cat i on att he hi r i ng s t age i s done thr ough document i ns pect i on, but“[n] ot i ce th a t th e se d o c u m e n ts a re in c o rre c t p lac e s th e e m p lo y e r in th e p o sitio n it w o u ld have be en i f the al i en had fai l ed t o pr oduce doc um ent s i n t he fi r s tpl ace : i thas fai l ed t o adequa t el yens ur e thatt he al i en i s author i zed. ” Id. M o reo v er, [a]l t ho ug h co m pli ance w i t h the pap erw ork proced ures es t abli shes a g o o d fa ith d e fe n s e a g a in s t a fin d in g o f u n la w f u l h ir in g , 8 U .S .C . § 1324a( a) ( 3) , i ts houl d pr ovi de no defens e aga i ns ta vi ol at i on of se c tio n 1 3 2 4 a (a )(2 ). W h ile th e h irin g c a n b e c o n sid e re d in g o o d fa ith s i nce the fa l s e natur e of the document s w as unknow n, t he cont i nui ng empl oym enti s done w i t h t he know l edge thatt he documenti s fal s e. Id. a t 1 1 5 8 n .7 . W h ethe r or n o t th is C o u rtu lt im atelyag ree s w ith the N inth C ir cu it ’s i nt erpr et at i on— w hi ch w e nee d notdeci de i n t hi s cas e— New E lR ay Saus age d e m o n stra tes th a t M r. T u c k e r’s d ili g e n c e in se e k in g re so lu tio n o f a ll r epor t ed SSN di s cr epanc i es w as w i t hi n t he bounds of r eas onabl enes s and, t her efor e, t hathi s cont i nued foc us on r es ol vi ng M r . Z amora ’ s SSN pr obl em d o e s n o t c o n s titu te s tr o n g e v id e n c e o f p re te x t. S e e Me l tz e rv . Fe d
. Ho me Loan B ank of

Topeka , 464 F. 3d 1164, 1178 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( “‘ [A ] m i s t aken- 23-

bel 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 not nece s s ar i l ypr et extual . ’ ” ( quot i ng EE O Cv. F las herC o. , Inc. , 986 F. 2d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 2 2 n . 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 )); St overv. Mar t i nez , 382 F. 3d 1064, 1076 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( “[I ] n eval uat i ng pr et ext , t he r el evanti nqui r yi s not w hether[the empl oy er ’ s ] pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e w i s e, fai rorcorr ect , but w hether[the empl oy er ] hones t l ybel i eved thos e r eas ons and ac t ed i n good fa ith u p o n tho se b eli efs. ”) (interna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted); R eynolds v. SchoolD is t . No. 1, D enve r , 69 F. 3d 1523, 1535 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( “[A ] n empl oy er ’ s exer ci s e of e r r oneous oreven i l l ogi cal bus i nes s j udgm ent d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p re te x t.” ). See a lso McKnightv. K i m ber l y C l ar k C or

p. , 1 4 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is n o t o rd in a rily a p p ro p ria te fo r se ttl in g iss u e s o f in ten t o r m o tiv a tio n . . . . H o w e v e r, in th is cas e, M cK ni ghthas nots how n t hatatt he t i m e of hi s t er m i nat i on t her e w as anydis pu t e or a gen uine i ssue con cerni ng t he si nceri t yof d efen dan t s’ p ro ffe re d re a s o n fo r h is te rm in a tio n .” ). M r . Z amora ’ s pos i t i on appea r s t o be thatw heneve ran empl oy erhas

“ g o o d ” d o c u m e n ts o n file— th a t is, d o c u m e n ts th a t fa c iallyc o m p lyw ith I R C A and forw hi ch ques t i ons have notbeen r ai s ed— t he empl oy eri s barr ed fr om pur s ui ng anys us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s t hatar i s e conc erni ng ot her do cum ents on fi l e. A s New E lR ay Saus age demonst r at es , I R C A does not n e c e ss a rilyre a d th a t w a y , an d I d o n o t b e liev e a n e m p lo y e r sh o u ld b e h e ld-24-

t o have di s cr i m i nat ed underT i t l e V I I forfai l i ng t o adoptt hi s s om ew hat s urpr i s i ng r eadi ng of i t s r es pons i bi l i t i es . I ndeed, i f anyact i on bey ond fac i al e x a m in a tio n o f

e lig ib ili tyd o c u m e n ts is d isc rim in a to ry , the n th e e n tire B a sic Pi l otPr ogr am— w hi ch i s des i gned t o curb t he gr ow i ng pr obl ems of d o c u m e n t f

ra u d a n d id e n tityth e f t— m ig h t b e c a lled in to q u e stio n , sin c e it i s prem i sed on t he ex am i nati on of d at a dis crepancies rather t han do cum ents . In a rg u in g th a t E lit e ’s p ro ffe re d re a so n is p re tex tu a l, th e d iss e n t re sts heavi l yon a quot at i on fr om M r . T ucker ’ s depos i t i on i n w hi ch he a ffi r m a t i v e l y r e s p o n d e d t o t h e fo l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : “ S o , i tw a s n ’ tr e a l l y a c o n c e rn a b o u t w h e th e r [ M r. Z a m o ra ] is e n tit led to w o rk in th is c o u n try , it w as a conc ern abouti s he us i ng t he corr ects oci al s ecur i t ynum ber ?” T ucker D ep. at87. T he di s s enti nt erpr et s t hi s as a “c onces s i on” thatM r . T ucker “w as notconce r ned w i t h Z amora ’ s l aw ful r i ghtt o w or k i n t hi s countr yas of M ay22, 2002. ” D i s s ent i ng O p. at18- 19. T he s t at ement , how ever , m us tbe u n d e rsto o d in c o n tex t: ( 1) W hen as ked w hatI R C A r equi r es , M r . T uckers t at ed: “W i t hi n t hr ee day s of [a n empl oy ee’ s ] w or ki ng forus w e have t o have doc um ent s t hat e sta b lish , o n e , the ir id e n tity ; an d tw o , the ir e lig ib ili tyto w o rk in th is countr y . Som et i m es t hos e document s can be one and the s ame. ” Tucker D ep. at17.-25-

( 2) I n expl ai ni ng hi s conce r n overM r . Z amora ’ s fi l e, M r . T ucker stat ed : “M yco n ce rn w ith M r. Z am o ra w as c o u ld I find a d o cu m en t or a coupl e of doc um ent s t hathad the bi r t hdat e he w as us i ng, t he name he w as u sin g , an d th e so c ial s e c u rityn u m b e r h e w a s u sin g th a t v e rified th is is tru ly hi s ?” Id. a t 6 4 . (3 ) W ith th is a s b a c k g ro u n d , M r. T u c k e r w a s th e n a sk e d : “S o w o u ld it b e fa ir to sa yth a t th e p ro b lem w ith th e so c ial s e c u rityn u m b e r is th a t it poi nt s t o a pot ent i al t hat , i n fac t , he i s notent i t l ed t o w or k i n t hi s countr y ?” Id. at87. M r . T uckerr es ponded: “W hatI had w as a s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber t hati ndi cat ed thr ee di ffe r entpeopl e mayhave us ed thatnum beratt hr ee di ffe r entpoi nt s i n t i m e. I w ant ed t o as cert ai n w i t h cert ai nt yt hatt hat num berbel onged t o M r . Z amora . ” Id. ( 4 ) O n l y th e n d i d M r . Z a m o r a ’ s a t t o r n e y a s k : “ S o i tw a s n ’ tr e a l l y a co n ce rn w h ethe r he is en ti tl ed to w o rk in this co u n try , itw as a co n ce rn ab o u t i s h e u sing the c o rrect so cial sec u ri tyn u m b er? , ” w h ere u p o n M r. T uckerr es ponded, “Y es s i r . ” Id. M r . Tu c k e rn e v e rt e s t i fi e d t h a th e wa s u n c o n c e r n e d wi t h I RCA c ompl i a nc e i n g e ne r a l , on l yt ha thi s c on c e r n r e l a t e d t o M r . Zamor a ’ s SSN ra th e r th a n a n yo th e r iss u e s s u rro u n d in g “ e n tit lem e n t to w o rk in th is c o u n tr y .” As a l r e a d yd i s c u s s e d , a n i n c r e a s i n g l yc o mmo n fo r m o f I RCA fr aud ent ai l s t he pr es ent at i on of val i d document s t hatbel ong t o s om eone-26-

e lse . T h u s, w h ile S S N s a re in iti a llyu se d to c o n firm e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili ty underI R C A ( r athert han i dent i t y ) , w hen an e m pl oy erl earns t hata Soci al Secur i t ynum berhas been us ed bym ul t i pl e per s ons , t he empl oy erm i ght re a so n a b lyb e c o n c e rn e d th a t an e m p lo y e e is n o t w h o h e p u rp o rts to b e — in o th e r w o rd s, th a t th e S S N th e e m p lo y e e p re se n ts d o e s n o t m a tch th e id e n tity h e p re se n ts. C o n se q u e n tly , the q u e stio n re lev a n t to th is c a se is n o t re a lly o n e o f “ e lig ib ili ty ” u n d e r IR C A , b u t ra th e r o f th e m a tch b e tw e e n id e n tity and pr oof of e l i gi bi l i t y . I n M r . T ucker ’ s w or ds : “W hatI had w as a s oci al s ecur i t ynum bert hati ndi cat ed thr ee di ffe r entpeopl e mayhave us ed that n u m b e r a t th re e d iffe re n t p o in ts in tim e . I w a n ted to a sc e rta in w ith c e rta in ty t hatt hatnum berbel onged t o M r . Z amora . ” Id. at64. T he di s s entm i s appr ehends t he natur e of M r . T ucker ’ s conce r n, and th e re fo re e rro n e o u slyc o n c lu d e s th a t M r. T u c k e r w a s n o t co n c e rn e d w ith I R C A compl i ance — orm or e pr eci s el y , t hatE l i t e’ s pr ofes s ed conc ern about I R C A compl i ance m us tbe a pr et extfori t s r eal m ot i ve: di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tper s ons of M exi can na t i onal i t y . M r . T uckerr epea t edl yexpl ai ned t h a th e wa s c o n c e r n e d wi t h M r . Z a mo r a ’ s r e p o r t e d S S N d i s c r e p a n c y . As det ai l ed above , a r eas onabl e r eadi ng of I R C A s ugges t s t hatw hen s uch p ro b lem s a re re p o rte d , an e m p lo y e r m u st re so lv e th e m . R e a d in c o n tex t, M r. T u ck er’s statem en ts— inclu d ing h is “co n ce ssion ”— reflect a co n ce rn-27-

w ith this asp ec t of

IR C A co m p li an ce rathe r th an an ad m issi o n that M r. T u c k e rwa s wh o l l yu n c o n c e r n e d wi t h I RC A. T h e d issen t objects th at m yinterpre tat ion o f M r. T u ck er’s rem ark r el i es on i t s “cont ext . ” D i s s ent i ng O p. at3 n. 3, 20, 21 n. 13. I tas s er t s t hat cons i der at i on of “c ont extual hues ” w i l l “amount t o i m per m i s s i bl e i nfer ence s d raw n in fav o r of

E li te, ” a n d im p li es th at on su m m aryjud g m en t a co u rt m us tdi s r egar d s uch “a r gum ent s . ” Id. at 21 . S u ch an ap p roa ch w o u ld d ep art fro m w ell -estab li sh ed p ri n ciples o f T it le V II l aw . A s the S u p rem e C o u rt r ece nt l yexpl ai ned: [ T ]h e sig n ifica n c e o f

a n yg iv e n a c t o f

[ e m p lo ym e n t] re talia tio n w ill o f te n d e p e n d u p o n th e p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C on t extm att ers . “The r eal s oci al i m pactof w or kpl ace behavi oroft en depe nds on a cons t el l at i on of s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , expec t at i ons , and r el at i ons hi ps w hi ch ar e notful l ycaptur ed bya s i m pl e r eci t at i on of th e w o rd s u s e d o r t h e p h y s ic a l a c ts p e rfo rm e d .” B u rlin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe Ry . C o . v. Wh ite , 126 S. C t . 2405, 2415 ( 2006) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng O ncal e v. Sundow nerO f f s hor e Ser vs . , Inc. , 523 U . S. 75, 81- 82 ( 1998) ) . A ccor di ngl y , t hi s C our tfr equent l yexami nes s t at ement s and eve nt s i n cont extt o det erm i ne thei rl egal effectorw hether th e yg e n u in e ly cr e a te a d is p u te d q u e s tio n o f m a te ri a l fa c t. See, e. g. , Jones v. B arnh art , 3 4 9 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (c o n sid e rin g a lleg e d ly d isc rim in a to rya c ts a n d f in d in g th a t, “[ i]n c o n tex t, th e se p a rticu lar in c id e n ts d o n o t ap p e a r to b e fo u n d e d in ra c ial e n m ity ” ); R akit y v. D i l l on C ompa nies ,-28-

Inc. , 302 F. 3d 1152, 1163 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t he i m por t ance of vi ew i ng depos i t i on t es t i m onyi n i t s ful l cont extand conc l udi ng t hat c o m m e n ts f

ro m o n e p o rtio n o f

a d e p o sitio n w e re c lar ified b yc o m m e n ts in an o ther p o rt ion an d there fo re d id n o t r aise a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct); C ur t is v. O kla. C i t

y Pub. Sch. B d. of

E duc. , 1 4 7 F . 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1998) ( fi ndi ng t hatdepos i t i on s t at ement s , “pl ace d i n cont ext , [di d] not s uppor tPl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m t hat ” hi s empl oy er“t er m i nat ed hi m forno r eas on” and conc l udi ng t hathe fa i l ed t o “es t abl i s h[] a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fa c t”) ; G r os s v. B urggr af C ons tr . C o. , 53 F. 3d 1531, 1538 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( vi ew i ng al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat or ycomm ent s byco- w or ker s i n “cont ext ” and affirm ing su m m aryjud g m en t fo r de fe n d an t) ; Ingels v. Thi okolC or p. , 42 F . 3 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 3 n . 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (view ing a h u m an reso u rce d ir ec tor’s t es t i m ony“i n cont ext ” t o concl ude thati tdi d notcons t i tut e evi dence of p re te x t in a n a g e d is c ri m in a tio n c a s e ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by Na t’ l R . R . P as s engerC or

p. v. Morgan , 5 3 6 U . S . 1 0 1 (20 0 2 ); A m b u s v . G ra n ite B d. of E duc. , 975 F. 2d 1555, 1565 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) (fin d in g th a t fa c ially “di s turbi ng” depos i t i on t es t i m ony , “t aken i n cont ext , ” di d notcons t i tut e the sh o w in g o f

b ias n e e d e d to su p p o rt p lain tiff ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim ); Mel l a v. Mapl et on P ub. Sch. , 152 Fed. A pp’ x 717, 724–25 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) (u n p u b lish e d ) (re a d in g sta tem e n ts in c o n tex t to c o n c lu d e th a t “n o re a so n a b le juryco u ld co n stru e [ them ] as a g eist ”); Shi nw ar i v. R aytheon Ai r cr af tC o. ,-29-

N o . 9 8 -3 3 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 W L 7 3 1 7 8 2 , a t * 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 0 ) ( L u c e ro , J .) ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) ( “ Vi e wi n g t h e e n t i r e t yo f t h e e v i d e n c e i n c o n t e x t , we c o n c lu d e th a t th is s in g le is o late d in c o n sis ten c yis n o t su fficie n t to un derm i ne the si nceri t yof R ay t heo n’s pr ofessed m oti ve fo r t aking ad verse ac ti o n . . . . ”) abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by C l ar k C ount y Sch. D is t . v. B r eede n , 5 3 2 U .S . 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (2 0 0 1 ); D r ake v
. C ol o. St at e Uni v. , N os . 97- 1076, 97- 1077, 1998 W L 614474, at*5 ( 10t h C i r . Sept . 8, 1998) (u n p u b lish e d ) (fin d in g th a t, “[ p ]la c e d in c o n tex t,” a n e m p lo y e r’s sta tem e n ts di d notcons t i tut e evi dence of r et al i at or ym ot i ve s uffi ci entt o r ebutt he em p loy er’s p roffe red n o n d iscri m inato ryrea so n ). Itw ou l d b e err or t o d o o t herw i se. T he p ri ncipl e t hat a courtm ust r es ol ve di s put ed fa ct s i n favorof the nonmovi ng par t ydoes notl i cens e the c o u rt to d isre g a rd u n d isp u ted fa c ts, e v e n re g a rd in g “ c o n tex t,” if th o se fa c ts w oul d pr ecl ude a r eas onabl e j ur yfr om fi ndi ng di s cr i m i nat i on. I n t hi s cas e, t he cont extm akes cl ear— and no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd ot herw i s e— t hat M r . T uckerw as conce r ned aboutM r . Z amora ’ s Soci al Secur i tynum ber i s s ues as par tof the company ’ s I R C A compl i ance effor t s . T her e i s not hi ng i n M r . T ucker ’ s s t at ement s , r ead i n cont ext , t hatw oul d w arr antan i nfer ence t hathi s conce r ns aboutM r . Z amora ’ s SSN w er e a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on.-30- B. Second, w hi l e w e have hel d t hatpr et extcan be s how n “w i t h evi dence t hatt he defendantact ed contr aryt o a w r i t t en companypol i cypr es cr i bi ng t he ac t i on t o be t aken byt he defendantundert he ci r cumst ance s , ” E ng l ish , 2 4 8 F . 3 d at 10 0 9 , an d w h il e itis true that the m em o ran d u m issue d to M r. Z amora s t at ed thata natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e w as an ac cept abl e form of pr oof of i dent i t yand empl oym entel i gi bi l i t y , t he mem or andum al s o s t at ed t hat“the document s y ou pr ovi ded us pr evi ous l yar e ques t i onabl e. ” A ppel l ant ’ s Supp. A pp. at87. A ccor di ng t o M r . T ucker , w hen he ha nded th e m e m o to M r. Z a m o ra , h e “ to ld h im th ro u g h th e in ter p re ter th a t it a p p e a re d a s if

h is d o c u m e n tatio n m ig h t h a v e a p ro b lem a n d th a t h e w o u ld have t en day s t o t r yt o r es ol ve the dis cr epancy . ” TuckerD ep. at52 ( emphasi s added) . A thi s depos i t i on, and i n hi s compl ai ntbefor e the Equal O ppor tuni t yE m pl oym entC om m i s s i on, M r . Z amora admi t t ed that“[o] n or a b o u t M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , m ym a n a g e r a sk e d m e to b rin g a g a in d o c u m e n ts to pr ove thatI

had a val i d Soci alSecur i t y num bera n d th e rig h t to w o rk in th is countr y . ” Zam or a D ep. at21–22 ( emphasi s added) . A ddi t i onal l y , t he fol l ow i ng excha nge occ ur r ed atM r . Z amora ’ s depos i t i on: Q . O k a y . A n d is it fa ir to sa yth a t y o u k n e w y o u n e e d e d to br i ng a val i d Soci al Secur i t ynum berand document s t o pr ove t h e r i g h tt o w o r k i n t h i s c o u n t r y? A . Y es. Q . A nd y ou knew t haton M ay10t h?-31-

A . Y eah. Id. at22. T hus , al t hough t he El i t e mem or andum, r ead i n i s ol at i on, m i ght su g g e st s o m e so rt o f

in c o n sis ten c y , w h e n re a d in c o n tex t o f w h a t w a s s a id to M r. Z am o ra— an d w h at t o o k p lace in this ca se— itd o es n o t get M r. Z am o ra v eryfa r. C. T hi r d, as di s cus s ed above , t he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hata s how i ng byt he pl ai nt i ff thatt he empl oy er ’ s as s er t ed j us t i fi cat i on i s fal s e w i l l not a lw a y s b e a d e q u a te to s u s ta in a ju ry’s fin d in g o f lia b ility. R eev es , 53 0 U. S. a t 1 4 8 . T h e C o u rt o ffe re d tw o e x a m p le s o f w h e n th is m ig h t b e th e c a s e . O ne s uch exa m pl e ar i s es w hen “the pl ai nt i ff c r eat e[s ] onl ya w eak i s s ue of fac tas t o w hethert he empl oy er ’ s r eas on w as unt rue and ther e w as abundant and uncontr over t ed i ndepende ntevi dence t hatno di s cr i m i nat i on had occurr ed. ” Id. A s al r eadynot ed, M r . Z amora has , atbes t , cr eat ed a w eak i s s u e o f fa c ta s t o wh e t h e rM r . Tu c k e rwa s r e a l l yp u r s u i n g I RCA c o m p lian c e : h is a ttem p t to re so lv e k n o w n S S N d isc re p a n c ies w a s e n tirely r eas onabl e underI R C A and r el evantcas e l aw , and hi s cont i nued i ns i s t ence o n re so lv in g th a t p ro b lem w a s c o n sis ten t w ith w h a t M r. Z a m o ra w a s to ld abo ut hi s need to res olve t he S S N i ssue. B ut m ore i m po rt antl y , t here i s a co m p let e a b sen ce o f a n yev iden ce that E li te ha rbo red an yan im o sitytow ard per s ons of M exi can e xt r act i on. Q ui t e the contr ary . T he s ame em pl oy erA thi s depos i t i on, M r . Z amora admi t t ed thatas i de fr om t he r ej ect i on of 10 h is p a p e rs, M r. T u c k e r d id n o th in g to su g g e st a n a n im u s to w a rd H isp a n ics : Q . O k a y . D id M r. T u c k e r te ll y o u th a t h e d id n o t li k e H isp a n ic peopl e? A . N o. Q . D i d M r . T uckert el l y ou t hathe di d notl i ke M exi can pe opl e? A . N o. Q . W ere there o ther p eo p le t h at w o rke d in E li te L o g ist ics w h o w ere fr om M exi co? A . Y es.

. . . Q . A nd w hatar e y ourr eas ons forbel i evi ng t hatE l i t e di s cr i m i nat ed a g a in s t yo u b e c a u s e o f y o u r n a tio n a l o ri g in ? . . . A . B eca us e he don’ tbel i eve me t hatt he pape r s t hatI gi ve hi m w as r i ghtorm i ne. Z amora D ep. at40–41. -32- hi r ed ot her empl oy ees of M exi can des cent , hi r ed M r . Z amora know i ng he w as fr om M exi co, t ol d M r . Z amora he w oul d be r ehi r ed i f he c oul d cl earup th e S S N p ro b lem , an d o ffe re d to re h ire h im im m e d iate lya f ter v e rif y in g h is document at i on, a mer e thr ee da y s aft ers us pendi ng hi m . I f thes e ac t i ons 10
w e re a p re tex t fo r d isc rim in a tin g a g a in st p e rso n s o f M e x ica n n a tio n a lity , it w a s a n e x c e e d in g ly p e c u lia r w a yto g o a b o u t it. Cf
. A n t o n i o v . S

yg ma Netw or k, Inc. , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 3 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ M o s to f t h e s a me i ndi vi dual s . . . w ho deci ded t o t er m i nat e A nt oni o forj ob abandonmenthad al s o hi r ed hert w i ce, ful l yaw ar e of he rr ace and nat i onal or i gi n. I tm akes l i t t l e s ens e t o deduce t hatt hes e i ndi vi dual s t er m i nat ed A nt oni o r oughl yt en m o n ths later be ca u se o f h er rac e a n d /or n ati o n al origin . ”).-33-

T he Supr eme C our t ’ s s econd e xampl e of w hen evi dence of i ncons i s t encym aynotgi ve r i s e t o a fi ndi ng of pr et extoccur s w hen “the r ecor d concl us i vel yr evea l [s ] s om e other , nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on fort he empl oy er ’ s deci s i on. ” R eev es , 5 3 0 U .S . at 1 4 8 . H e re , ev e n if w e w e re to as s um e thatM r . T uckerw as nots i m pl yt r y i ng t o s at i s fyw hathe bel i eved w e re E lit e ’s r e sp o n sib ili ties u n d e r IR C A , the m o st th a t ca n b e sa id o f h im is t h a th e wa s fi x a t e d o n e n s u r i n g t h a ta l l o f E l i t e ’ s e mp l o y e e s h a d v a l i d S S Ns o n fil e a n d that all rep o rt ed S S N p rob lem s w ere reso lved . M r. T u ck er’s a c tio n s th ro u g h o u t th is p ro c e ss w e re c o n sis ten t w ith th is c o n c e rn a n d th is conce r n onl y . H i s fi r s ts t ep w as t o chec k al l empl oy ees ’ SSN s . W hen p ro b lem s w e re d isc o v e re d , h e p u rsu e d e a c h a n d e v e ryo n e o f th e m to re so lu tio n . A s s o o n a s M r. Z a m o ra p ro d u c e d a d e q u a te p ro o f o f th e v a lid ity of hi s SSN , M r . T uckeras ked hi m t o r etur n t o w or k. A s al r eadyexpl ai ned, th e s e a c tio n s c o u ld b e c o n s is te n t w ith a re a s o n a b le in te rp re ta tio n o f IR C A . B ut , even i f theyw er e not , theyatm os tr evea l a mi s t aken pr eocc upat i on w i t h ens ur i ng t hatt he r epor t ed SSN pr obl ems getr es ol ved, nots om e s or tof c o v e r tp l a n t o t a r g e tM r . Z a m o r a b e c a u s e o f h i s e t h n i c i t y.

D.-34-

M r. Z a m o ra a lso c o n ten d s th a t M r. T u c k e r’s ru d e n e ss in re a c tin g to t he demand foran apol ogyi s i ndi cat i ve of a di s cr i m i nat or ym ot i ve. B utt he rec o rd c o n tai n s n o ev iden ce that M r. T u ck er’s rea cti o n to M r. Z am o ra’s re q u e st w a s re late d to e th n icity . A s M r. T u c k e r sta ted in h is d e p o s i t i o n — e x p l a i n i n g w h y Mr . Zam or a’s tr ans l at orm ayhave us ed s t r ong l anguage on M r . Z amora ’ s behal f— “[f] oul l anguage i s qui t e comm on [att he E lit e ] o rg a n iza tio n .” T u c k e r D e p . at 5 6 . “T itl e V II is n o t a g e n e ra l civ ili ty code fort he A m er i can w or kpl ace . ” D i ck v
. P hone D i r ector i es C o. , 397 F. 3d 1256, 1263 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . R udenes s does not , s t andi ng al one, d em o n str ate d iscri m ination , esp ec ial lyin a w are h o u se e n v ir o n m en t w h ere to p h a ts a n d tails a re n o t th e n o rm . A n d n o n e o f M r. T u c k e r’s p u rp o rte d ly rude beha vi orfocus ed upon M r . Z amora ’ s ethni ci t y . I ndeed, befor e he ca ll ed M r. Z am o ra into h is office o n M ay1 0 , M r. T u ck er h ad n ev er m et M r. Z a m o ra . T u c k e r D e p . at 1 2 . M r. T u c k e r su m m o n e d M r. Z a m o ra so lelyto r econc i l e a r epor t ed SSN di s cr epanc y , and al l of M r . T ucker ’ s conduct t ow ar ds M r . Z amora fol l ow i ng t hati nci dentw as bas ed upon that d is c re p a n c y . T h a t M r. T u c k e r su sp e c ted M r. Z a m o ra o f so m e fo rm o f

S S N f ra u d is sc a rc e lye v id e n c e th a t h e w a s b ig o ted a g a in st p e rso n s o f M e x ica n e th n icity o r n a tio n a lity . M r. T u c k e r h a d in v e stig a ted th irty -fo u r o th e r e m p lo y e e s w ith s i m i l arpr obl ems and none of them had been abl e t o es t abl i s h t he-35-

authent i ci t yof thei rSSN s . M r . Z amora w as l as ton t he l i s t , and i tw as not u n rea so n ab le fo r M r. T u ck er to e x p ec t th at he w o u ld fo ll o w the p att ern . It turn ed o u t M r. Z am o ra w as th e e x ce p ti o n , b u t th at do es n o t m ea n M r. T uck er’ s suspi ci on s w ere a product of anim us. V. T hough I agr ee w i t h J udge Ebel ’ s anal y s i s fort he C our tas t o t he d ism iss a l cla im , I w rite to sp e ll o u t an a d d iti o n a l re a so n w h yw e sh o u ld affirm the d istri ct co u rto n this fro n t. A s I un d erstan d M r. Z am o ra’s t heory— and thatof J udge Lucer o i n di s s ent

— the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng M r. Z a m o ra ’s s u sp e n sio n fo rm e d th e c o n tex t fo r h is te rm in a tio n a n d “ it i s i nappr opr i at e t o i gnor e the form ereventw hen ana l y zi ng t he l at t er . ” D issen ti n g O p . at 2. In o ther w o rds, i f o n e a cc ep ts th e the o rythat M r. T ucker ’ s pr evi ous act i ons w i t h r egar d t o M r . Z amora ’ s empl oym ents t atus w ere m oti vated byanim us t ow ard t ho se of M exican descen t , on e m ustal so acc eptt hatM r . T ucker ’ s r eac t i on t o M r . Z amora ’ s demand foran apol ogy w as s i m i l ar l ym ot i vat ed. M r . T uckerfi r ed M r . Z amora , t he theorygoes , not as a r eac t i on t o t he ul t i m atum ( noteven a s a di s pr opor t i onat e oreven u n rea so n ab le reac ti o n ), b u t r athe r be ca u se th e d em an d fin all yg av e M r. T uckert he cove rhe nee ded t o r i d t he companyof an e m pl oy ee he d is fa v o re d b e c a u s e o f h is n a tio n a l o ri g in .M or eover , i f the C our tw er e t o val i dat e M r . Z amora ’ s t heory , i tm i ght 11 m ean thatan empl oy ee c oul d uni l at er al l ytur n everycl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on under 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-(2 )(a)(1) into a retali ati o n claim u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-3 (a), w h ich m a k e s it u n law f u l “fo r a n e m p lo y e r to d isc rim in a te a g a in st a n yo f h is empl oy ees . . . beca us e he ha s oppos ed anypr act i ce made an unl aw ful e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e ” u n d e r T itle V II . 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -( 3 )( a ). -36- T he cons equenc es of s uch a hol di ng w oul d be s t ar k: es s ent i al l yany vi ct i m of a di s cr i m i nat or yadver s e empl oym entact i on thatfel l s hor tof t er m i nat i on coul d m orph hi s gr i evanc e i nt o a more l ucr at i ve w r ongful ter m in a tio n c laim b yp re se n tin g h is e m p lo y e r w ith a n u lti m a tu m . W h ile appr opr i at e means foroppos i ng w or kpl ace di s cr i m i nat i on exi s t

— s uch as i nt ernal gr i evanc e pr oces s es , t he Equal O ppor tuni t yE m pl oym ent C om m i s s i on, ort he court s — empl oy ee- fas hi oned ul t i m atum s ar e notamong t hem. T her e ar e a mul t i tude of va l i d r eas ons w hyan empl oy erm i ghtnot iss u e a n a p o lo g yo n d e m a n d , n o t th e lea st o f w h ich is a re lu c tan c e to a d m it l egal l i abi l i t yorm or al cul pabi l i t ybefor e a c l ai m has been f ul l yr evi ew ed thro u g h ap p rop ri ate c h an n els. If M r. Z am o ra’s the o ryh o lds, em p loy ers w oul d fac e a da unt i ng C at ch- 22: apol ogi ze a nd perhaps admi tt he pr evi ous vi ol at i on of the di s cr i m i nat i on l aw s , orfai l t o s at i s fyt he ul t i m atum and fa ce pot ent i al l y i ncr eas ed l i abi l i t y for w r ongful t er m i nat i on. T i t l e V I I pr ovi des 11 empl oy ees w i t h a met hod of r emedy i ng act s of di s cr i m i nat i on, notw i t h a me a n s o f

c r e a t i n g t h e m. C oncl usi on-37-

F o r th ese rea so n s— in ad d it ion to tho se e n u n ciated in Ju d g e E b el’s o p in io n , w h ich I jo in

— I w o u ld a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s d isp o sitio n a s to bo t h clai m s.N ot abl y , t oo, t hi s debat e i s w aged pr i m ar i l yw i t h ci t at i ons t o compet i ng 1 s n ip p e ts o f

le g is la tiv e h is to ry. B ut s e e Exx o n Mo b il C o r p . v . A llap a tta h S e r v s ., Inc. , 54 5 U . S . 54 6, 56 8 (200 5) ( “Judici al i nv est i gati on of legi sl at i ve h i st oryhas a t end encyt o b ecom e, t o b orr ow Judg e L even t hal’ s m em orabl e ph ras e, an ex erci se i n l ooki ng overa cr ow d and pi cki ng outy ourfr i ends . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itte d )) . 0 4 -3 2 0 5 , Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , Inc. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng. I j oi n J udge Ebel ’ s opi ni on fort he C our tas w el l as J udge M cC on nell ’s con curr ence, w i t h the excep t i on of the dis cussi on i n the l ast p a ra g ra p h o f

S e c tio n III o f

th e latte r o p in io n re g a rd in g th e in ter re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n IR C A ’s a n ti- d is c ri m in a tio n p ro v is io n a n d T itle V II . Ju d g e L u c e ro a n d Ju d g e M c C o n n e ll en g a g e in a p e rh a p s u n a v o id a b le di s agr eementoverm anyhi ghl yi m por t anti s s ues i n t hi s di ffi cul tcas e. B ut o n o n e issu e a t l ea st, their disp u te see m s to m e u n n ec essa ry . Ju d g e L u ce ro and J udge M cC onnel l debat e i n s om e det ai l w hetherand t o w hatdegr ee T i t l e V I I anal y s i s s houl d be i nfor m ed byI R C A ’ s ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on ( 8 U . S. C . § 1324b) and the pol i ci es and purpos es t hatpr ovi s i on s er ves . Y et , as J udge M cC onnel l not es , t he pl ai nt i ff i n t hi s cas e does not

1 a lle g e a v io la tio n o f

th e IR C A a n ti- d is c ri m in a tio n p ro v is io n . See C o n c u rrin g O p . at 1 7 (M c C o n n e ll, J.). In fa c t, i n h is o p e n in g a p p e llate br i ef, M r . Z amora expr es s l ydecl i ned t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng t hatI R C A ’ s ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on appl i es onl yt o “hi r i ng, or- 2-

r ecrui t m entorr efe r r al fora fe e” a nd nott o deci s i ons , s uch as i n t hi s cas e, re g a rd in g s u s p e n s io n o r t e rm in a tio n . See A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 1 . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , i ti s unnece s s aryforus t o addr es s t he i m pactof I R C A ’ s ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on and i t s under l y i ng pol i ci es on T i t l e V I I anal y s i s , and I w oul d l eave open thes e mat t er s forr es ol ut i on a n o th e r d a yw h e n th e p a rties b e fo re u s h a v e re a so n a n d o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re s s th e m f

u lly. See ge ner al l

y Bow dr y v. Uni t ed Ai r l i nes , Inc. , 58 F. 3d 1483, 1490 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng , inte r a lia , Hea drick v
. R o ckw ellInt’l C or p. , 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 7 -7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (W h ite, J.)). I fin d it n o t e wo r t h yt h a tt h e o r i g i n a l p a n e l o p i n i o n p u r s u e d mu c h t h e s a me p ru d e n tia l c o u rs e . See Zam or a v. E l i t e Logis t i cs , Inc. , 449 F. 3d 1106, 1113 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . Ad d r e s s i n g s u c h a n o v e l l e g a l q u e s t i o n fo rt h e fi r s tt i me en banc and on ourow n m ot i on – w i t houtt he bene fi tof det ai l ed br i efi ng fr om t he l i t i gant s affect ed byourdeci s i on, a pane l deci s i on on poi nt , or p rio r o p in io n s f

ro m o u r sis ter c o u rts – ru n s th e risk o f a n im p ro v id e n t o r illadvi s ed r es ul tgi ven ourdepende nce a s an A r t i cl e I I I cour ton t he tr adi t i ons of the adve r s ar i al pr oces s fors harpeni ng, devel opi ng, and t es t i ng t he i s s ues forourdeci s i on. T hi s r i s k s eems t o m e part i cul ar l ys er i ous her e, w her e the ques t i on addr es s ed i s bot h hi ghl ycompl ex and c ons equent i al and i nvol ves how w e ar e t o gi ve pr operr es pectt o t he di r ect i ves w e have r ece i ved fr om C o n g re s s in tw o n u a n c e d a n d re la te d s ta tu to ry re g im e s .0 4 -3 2 0 5 , Z a m o ra v . E lite L o g is tic s , In c .

LU CE RO , J. , j oined byJudg es HOLL OW AY , HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , di s s ent i ng. W e gr ant ed en banc r ehear i ng i n thi s cas e t o r econs i derthe pane l opi ni on, Z amorav. E l i t e Logi s t i cs , I nc. , 449 F. 3d 1106 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , w hi ch deal tw i th tw o fac t - bound s um m aryj udgm enti s s ues . Fi r s t , di d Z amora , a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen and appar entvi ct i m of i dent i tytheft , cr eat e a mat er i al d isp u te o f

f a c t re g ard in g E lit e ’s m o tiv e f o r Z a m o ra ’s w e e k -lo n g u np a id s us pens i on, gi ven that , on the fir s tdayof hi s s us pens i on, he pr oduced a natur al i zati on cert i fi cat e cons i s t entw i th i nform at i on al r eadyi n hi s empl oym ent fil e? S ec o n d , d id Z am o ra c rea te a m ateriald ispu te of fa ct reg ard ing E li te’s m o tiv e f o r te rm in a tin g Z a m o raf o llo w in g h is d e m an df o r a nap o lo g yf

o r h is s u s p e n s i o n ? A no m al ou sl y , w e are di vided seven t o seven on w hetherthere i s a m at er i aldi s put e of f

actr egar di ng the s us pens i on, and thus r ei ns t at e the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s op inion o nthat p o int. N o tw ith stan d ing that resu lting d ispo sition , a b are m a j o r i ty o f o u rc o u rtd e t e rm i n e s th a t“ [ h u m anr e s o u r c e s m an a g e rL arry] T u ck er’s su sp en d ing Z am o ra a n dh is l ater d ec isi o nto term inate Z am o ra’s e mp l o yme n tmu s tb e v i e we da s d i s c r e t e , s e p ar a t e e v e n t s , ” a l th o u g h th e two in c id e n ts h ap p e n e dju st f o u r d ay s ap art, an dh o ld s th a t Z a m o ra ’s s e c o n dc laimB eca us e w e have s pl i tevenl yon t he di s pos i t i on of Zam or a’ s s us pens i on 2 cl ai m , t he courthas i s s ued no opi ni on t o w hi ch a c oncurr ence m aypr oper l ybe addr es s ed, par t i cul ar l ys o gi ven thatt he “c oncurr ence ” i s di r ect l ycontr aryt o t he vot e on the s us pens i on cl ai m of the authorof the maj or i t yopi ni on. I fi nd no pr ece dentfort he i s s uance of a c oncurr ence t o an eve nl ydi vi ded en ba nc j udgm ent . N ot w i t hs t andi ng di s agr eementw i t h t he cha r act er i zat i on of J udge M cC o n n ell ’s disco u rse a s a c o n cu rren ce , this dissen t r efers to Ju d g e M cC o n n ell ’s d is c u s s io n o f

th e s u s p e n s io n c la im a s “ th e c o n c u rr e n c e .”

- 2- fai l s as a matt erof l aw . ( M aj . O p. 13. ) Fr om the maj or i ty ’ s hol di ng on the la tte r c la im , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. T he bas i s of m ydi s s enti s thatnei therthe fa ct s northe l aw l end themsel ves t o a s ur gi calexci s i on of the tw o i s s ues i n the manneres pous ed by th e m a j o r i ty. B e c au s e Z a m o r a ’ s s u s p e n s i o nan dt e rm i n a t i o no c c u rr e dj u s td ays apartand w er e i m pos ed bythe s ame supe rvi s or , i ti s i nappr opr i at e t o i gnor e the fo rm er e v en t w h en an alyzing the latt er. I c o n tinu e to th in kit un n e c e ss aryto e x am in e th e su sp e n sio nc laim in det ai l becaus e, under our ci r cui t pr acti ce, w e af fi rm the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on w ith o u t o p in io nw h e nw e e v e n ly d iv id e o nth e d is p o s itio no f ac la im . N onethel es s , becaus e Judge M cC onnel l ’ s concurr ence choos es t o di s cus s the 2 is s u e a t le n g th , th is d is s e n t r e s p o n d s to th e M c C o n n e ll c o n c u rr e n c e a s w e ll. I T hi s appea ls t ems fr om a gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof El i t e on both Z amora ’ s s us pens i on and t erm i nat i on cl ai m s . “W e r evi ew the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s gra n t of

su m m aryjud g m en t de n o v o , ap p lying the s am e leg al st an d ardT he conc ur r ence i m pl i ci t l yar gues t hi s di s s enti ncorr ect l ypor t r ay s “a 3 hap l ess em ploy ee repeat edlyofferi ng soun d d ocu m entat i on of h i s w ork st atus, and j us tas oft en bei ng s ens el es s l y( ori nvi di ous l y ) r ebuffed. ” ( C oncurr i ng O p. 2 .) O n th e c o n te n tio n th a t th is “ is s c a rc e ly a fa ird e s c ri p tio n o f w h a t o c c u rr e d ,” ( i d. ) , i tt hen adva nces an al t ernat i ve fa ctual s cena r i o. T he conc ur r ence depi ct s an empl oy erat t empt i ng t o compl yw i t h t he I m m i gr at i on R eform and C ont r ol A ctof 1986 ( “I R C A ”) and t o m ai nt ai n oper at i ons aft eri tfac ed a w or kers t r i ke w hi ch “ n e c e s s ita te d th e ru s h e d h ir in g o f a b o u t th re e h u n d re d re p la c e m e n t e m p lo y e e s ,” (i d . a t 2 -5 ), a n d a n e m p lo y e e w h o ig n o re d th e c o m p a n y ’s m in im a l r e q u e s ts . For t he mostpar t , I do notdi s agr ee w i t h t he conc ur r ence ’ s des cr i pt i on of the e v en ts l ea d ing u p to Z am o ra’s init ial m ee ti n g w ith T u ck er. W e m ainlyd iffe r, how ever , i n ourpor t r ay al of the eve nt s aft ert hi s m eet i ng. B ot h fi nd fac tual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d, butt hi s di s s entm akes r eas onabl e i nfer ence s as r equi r ed by l aw , w hi l e the conc ur r ence advanc es t he defendant ’ s vi ew of the fa ct s . U s i ng t he ter m “ c o n tex t,” th e c o n c u rre n c e d isc re d its e v id e n c e th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld v ie w a s s u p p o rt in g Z a m o ra . In m yv iew , the se c o n tex tu a l ar g u m e n ts a re sim p ly i m per m i s s i bl e i nfer ence s .

- 3- as the courtbel ow . ” M unoz v. St . M ary - C orw i n H os p. , 221 F. 3d 1160, 1164 (10th C i r. 20 00 ). S um m aryj ud gm ent i s onlyapp ropri at e “i f the p l eadings, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in terro g a to rie s, an da d m iss io n s o nf ile, to g e th e r w ith the 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 alfac t an dth a tth e mo v i n g p artyi s e n t i t l e dt o aj u d g me n ta s amatt e ro f l aw. ” F e d . R. C i v. P. 56( c) . I ti s ourobl i gat i on on appea lt o vi ew the evi dence and dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o Z amora , the nonm ovi ng party . M unoz, 221 F. 3d at1164. M aki ng thes e i nfer ence s , the fact s ar e as foll ow s. 3 I n 1987 Z amoraw as gr ant ed l egalperm anentr es i dencyi n the U ni t ed St at es . I n A ugus t2001, he w as hi r ed byE l i t e. A tthatt i m e, Z amorapr ovi ded E l i t e w i th a copyof hi s s oci als ecuri tycar d and hi s al i en r egi s tr at i on car d, andI n r es pons e t o a Sum m er2000 w or kers t r i ke, E l i t e hurr i edl yhi r ed 4 ap p rox im ately3 0 0 rep lace m en t em p loy ee s. D u ri n g this t im e, i t op era ted u n d er a “ g e t a b o d yin th e d o o r” p o lic yth a t b la ta n tly d is re g a rd e d IR C A re q u ir e m e n ts .

- 4- compl et ed an I - 9 form att es t i ng thathe w as a M exi can c i t i zen and l aw ful p erm an en t r esid en t of

the U n it edS tat es. W h il e w o rkin g fo r E li te, Z am o ra becam e a natur al i zed c i t i zen. I n D ece m ber2001, aft err ece i vi ng a t ip thatthe I m m i gr at i on and N a tura liza tio nS e rv ice (“ IN S ” ) m ig h t in sp e c t it s K an sa s C itylo c a tio n , E lit e h ir edtw o ind ep en d en t con tr ac tors to ch ec kthe s o cial sec u ri tyn u m b ers (“ S S N s” ) o f a ll e m p lo y e e s a t th a t lo c a tio n . T u c k e r te stif ied ap p ro x im a tely 4 thi rty - fi ve ors o empl oy ees , i ncludi ng Z amora , w er e i dent i fi ed as havi ng pr obl ems as a r es ul tof thes e i nves t i gat i ons . A D at as our ce “ B ackgr ound I nves t i gat i on R eport ” r evea l ed thatan i ndi vi duali n C al i forni a had us ed Z am ora’ s SS N . (A pp el l ee A pp ’x 94, 96. ) A second con tract or, V eri fi cat i on s, I nc. , i nform ed El i t e thatZ amora ’ s SSN had “be en us ed bys om eone e l s e for cr edi tpurpos es , ” and ins truct ed El i t e that“[v] er i fi cati on thr ough the Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on i t s el f can onl ybe done bythe companythathas hi r ed the ap p li ca n t, b yca ll ing 8 0 0 -77 2 -12 1 3 . ” (Id . at 97 . ) T u c k e r c h o se n o t to ver i fyZ amora ’ s s oci als ecuri tys t atus bycal l i ng thi s num beratthe t i m e. N or d id h e b o ther to lo o kat Z am o ra’s em p loym en t fi le, w h ich c o n tai n edZ am o ra’s I - 9 w ork author i zati on form and copi es of hi s s oci als ecuri tycar d and al i en- 5-

r egi s tr at i on car d, atanypoi ntdur i ng the ens ui ng event s . I ns t ead, he pr es ent ed Z a m o raw ithth e f

o llo w in g m e m o ra n du m o nM ay1 0 , 2 0 0 2 : I ti s r equi r ed byfede r all aw thatal lempl oy ees pr oduce document s , w hi ch es t abl i s h thei ri dent i tyand/ orempl oym ent eli g ibil ityto leg all yw o rk inthe U n it edS tat es w h en theyare h ir e d . T h is e lig ib ility c anb e e s tab lis h e dw ith aU S P a s s p o rt , a C ert i fi cat e of Ci t i zens hip orN atur al i zati on; orw i th a combi nat i on of otherdocument s , s uch as a s t at e dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, stat e o r fe d era l I D ca rd, U S S o cial S ec u ri tyca rd a n d/or a cert i fi ed copyof a bi rth cert i fi cat e, i s s ued bya s t at e of the U nit ed S t at es. I thas come t o ouratt ent i on thatthe document s y ou pr ovi ded us pr evi ous l yar e ques t i onabl e. T her efor e, w e ar e as ki ng thaty ou o b tain p ro p e r d o c u m e n tatio n , o r y o um ayn o t b e p e rm itt e dto cont i nue w orki ng her e. Pl eas e br i ng pr operevi dence of y our i dent i tyand empl oym entel i gibi l i tyno l at erthan 5: 00 p. m . on M on day , M ay20 , 20 02 , t o the D epartm ent of H um an R esources, o r yo um ayb e te rm in a te d . T hank y ou. (A p p e lla n t S up p . A p p ’x 8 7 .) U ndera partt i t l ed “El i gibi l i tyD ocument at i on, ” the mem or andum cont i nued: I underst andandagree that unt i landi f I pr ov i de d ocu m ents , w h ich e stab lish m yid e n tityan d/o r e m p lo ym e n t elig ib ili tyto leg a llyw o rkinth e U n itedS tate s, E lit e L o g istics m ayn o t b e ab le t o cont i nue perm i tt i ng m e t o w ork. I al s o under s t and and a gr ee thatI have unti l5: 00 p. m . on M onday , M ay20, 2002, t o pr oduce th is d o c u m e n ta tio n . (I d .) A l though Z amoradi d notpr ovi de the r eques t ed document at i on byM ay 20, he att empt ed t o compl yw i th E l i t e’ s r eques ti m m edi at el yaft erT uckerT he exa ctor derof the fol l ow i ng event s i s uncl earfr om t he r ecor d, but , as 5 did the d i stri ctcou rt , t his dis sentassum es the o rderoccu rr ed in t he li gh tm ost favor abl e t o Z amora . T uckert es t i fi ed thathe di d notr eca l l r ece i vi ng t hi s document ; Z amora , 6 how ever , vi gor ous l yas s er t s t hathe pr es ent ed Tuckerw i t h a natur al i zat i on c e r t i fi c a t e . Be c a u s e we v i e w t h e fa c t s i n t h e l i g h tmo s tfa v o r a b l e t o Z a mo r a , we assum e t hat he di d so. A s r equ i red byst atute, a natur al i zat i on cert i fi cat e m ust (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 6- s us pended hi m on M ay22, ther eaf t erpr es ent i ng addi t i onalm at er i al s on num er ous occa s i ons . O n the dayof hi s s us pens i on, Z amorapr es ent ed Tucker 5
w ith a re p o rto f h is earn ing s fro m the S o cial S ec u ri tyA d m inistrati o n(“S S A ”), h is s o c ial s e c u rityc ard , an danIN S d o c u m e n t sh o w in g th a t h e h a dap p liedto become a natur al i zed c i t i zen in 2001. T he IN S form pr ovi ded a c us t om er serv ice n u m b er, bu t T u ck er d id n o t callthat n u m b er. T h e S S A ea rnin g s rep o rt i s s ued foran “R. Z amora ” l i s t ed a birth dat e of “ 2/ 1960, ” conf l i ct i ng w i th the documentpl ai nt i ff ha d pr ovi ded t o E l i t e w hen hi r ed, s how i ng a bi rth dat e of Ju n e 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 . B yT u c k e r’s o w na d m iss io n , rec e ip t o f th e se d o c u m e n ts a lle v ia te dh is c o n c e rn ab o u t Z a m o ra ’s ri g h t to w o rkin th is c o u n try . N onethel es s , T uckerchos e nott o end Zam or a’ s s us pens i on w i thoutpay and i ns t ead de m anded mor e document at i on, al l egedlydue t o T ucker ’ s conce rns aboutthe bi rth- dat e di s cr epanc ybetw een Zam or a’ s SSA earni ngs r ecor d and E lit e ’s f iles . Z a m o rare turn e dto E lit e o n c e a g a inw ithac o p yo f h is n a tura liza tio nc e rtific a te, ad o c u m e n t th a t E lit e h a did e n tifie da s s u f f icie n t to s how l aw fulw ork s t atus i n i t s M ay10 m emorandum . T uckernotonl yr ej ect ed 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 i ncl ude a phot ogr aph and the age of the natur al i zed pe r s on. 8 U . S. C . § 1449.

- 7- th is c e rtific a te; h e a c c u se dZ a m o rao f ste a lin g so m e o n e e lse ’s S S N an dto ld Z a m o ra to b ri n g ad if

f e re n t s o c ia l s e c u ri ty num b e r th anp ro v id e dat h ir in g . Fi nal l y , Z amorabr oughti n a l ett erfr om the SSA beari ng the s t amp of the agenc yand veri fyi ng thatthe SSN he pr ovi ded w as as s i gned t o “R amon Z amoraFar i as , ” the name Z amorahad gi ven El i t e athi r i ng. O nce a gai n, T uckerw as nots at i s fi ed. O nl yaft erT uckerhad hi s s ecr et aryconfi rm the l egi t i m acyof thi s l ett erbythen pl acing a phone c al lt o the SSA , di d he al l ow Z amorat o r eturn t o w ork. O n M ay29, Z amoraent er ed Tucker ’ s offi ce and handed hi m a l ett erthat demanded both an apol ogyand an e xpl anati on. T uckerdes cr ibed Zam or a as “verypol i t e” in t enderi ng thi s l ett er . A l though ful l ycogni zantthatZ amorahad been l aw ful l yent i t l ed t o w ork dur i ng hi s ent i r e w eek- l ong s us pens i on, T ucker r efus ed t o apol ogi ze, fi r ed Zam or a, then i ns truct ed hi m t o “getthe hel lout . ” L at er , T uckert es t i fi ed thathe w as “s hocked” thatZ amoraw oul d r eques tan ap o l o g y an dn e v e rb o th e r e dt o c o n s i d e rw h y Z a m o r aw o u l dd e s i r e anap o l o g y. II C ongr es s enac t ed Ti t l e V I I t o “el i m i nat e thos e di s cr i m i nat orypr acti ces and devi ces w hi ch have fos t er ed r aci al l ys tr at i fi ed j ob envi r onm ent s t o the di s advant age of

m i nor i tyci t i zens . ” M cD onnel lD ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411- 8-

U . S . 79 2, 80 0 (1973 ). B ecause iti s so di ffi cultt o ferretou tnati on alori gin bi as, w e m u s t o f

te nre ly o nc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in d e c id in g s u c h c la im s . H o w e v e r, th e p e rs u a s iv e v a lu e o f s u c h e v id e n c e c an n o t b e d is c o u n te d . “C i r cumst ant i alevi dence i s notonl ys uffi ci ent , butm ayal s o be more cert ai n, s at i s fyi ng and per s uas i ve than di r ectevi dence . ” R oger s v. M o. Pac. R . , 352 U . S. 500, 508 n. 17 ( 1957) ; s ee a l s o D es ertPal ace , I nc. v. C os t a, 539 U . S. 90, 1 0 0 (20 0 3 ). Forboth Z amora ’ s s us pens i on and t erm i nat i on cl ai m s , w e fol l ow the thr ee- s t ep fr amew ork s etforth i n M cD onnel lD ougl as fors um m aryj udgm ent c a s e s b a s e do nc i r c u ms t an t i a le v i d e n c e . A p l a i n t i f f mu s tf i r s tp l e a dap r i ma f a c ie c a se o f

ad isc rim in a to rye m p lo ym e n t ac tio n . T h e re a f ter , the b u rd e nsh if

ts t o the empl oy er“t o art i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe empl oy ee’ s r ej ecti on. ” I d. at802. O nce the empl oy erdoes s o, the pl ai nt i ff m u st o f f e r e v id e n c e sh o w in g th a t th e p ro f f e re dre a so nis p re tex tu a l. A l though hal f of the mem ber s of thi s courtagr ee thatZ amorapr es ent ed su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

p re tex t as to h is c o n tinu e dsu sp e n sio n , the m a jo rity opi ni on concludes thatthe r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence thatT uckert erm i nat ed Z a m o rab e c au se Z a m o raw a s a“ M e x ica n -b o rn H isp an ic.” (M a j. O p . 1 3 .) T h is ign o res the ev en ts surrou n d ing Z am o ra’s su sp en sion , w h ich h aden d eda m ere fourday s befor e. W e have s t at ed that“evi dence of the empl oy er ’ s gener al di s cr i m i nat orypr opens i t i es m aybe r el evantand admi s s ibl e t o pr ove- 9-

di s cr i m i nat i on. ” M endel s ohn v. Spr i ntU ni t ed M gm t . C o. , 466 F. 3d 1223, 1226 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . M or eover , “[e ] vi dence of pr et extm ayi nclude . . . pr i or tr eatm entof pl ai nt i ff. ” G arr ettv. H ew l ett - Packar d C o. , 305 F. 3d 1210, 1217 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot at i on om i tt ed) . I fai lt o under s t and how w e can be even l ydivi dedov er w hetherT uck er w as m oti vated byraci albias against M exi can- A m er i cans on M ay25, and y eti s s ue a maj or i tyopi ni on concludi ng th a t T u c k e r h a dn o ra c ia l m o tiv a tio n s a s am a tte r o f la w o nM ay2 9 . T he maj or i tyci t es ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n A nt oni o v. Sy gm a N etw ork, Inc . , 4 5 8 F . 3 d1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), fo r th e p rop o sition that T u ck er’s deci s i on t o al l ow Z amorat o r eturn t o w ork r ai s es a “s tr ong i nfer ence thatthe empl oy er ’ s s t at ed r eas on foracti ng agains tthe empl oy ee i s notpr et extual . ” (M aj. O p . 1 3 . ) F rom there , the m ajorityjum p s to the co n clus ion that “T u ck er’s s us pendi ng Z amoraand hi s l at erdeci s i on t o t erm i nat e Zam or a’ s empl oym ent mu s tb e v i e we da s d i s c r e t e , s e p ar a t e e v e n t s . ” I d . Atn o p o i n ti nS y g ma N etw ork di d the courts o hol d. I n fac t , the gui di ng pr i ncipal s under l yi ng the h o ld in g o f

S y g m aN e tw o rkare th a t an in d iv idu a l ca nb e a ss u m e dto m a in tain the s ame vi ew s fora r el at i vel ys hortper i od i n t i m e, and thatdeci s i ons proxim at e i n ti m e andm ade b ythe sam e person m aybe v i ew ed to est abli sh comm on cont ext . Z amora ’ s s us pens i on, perm i s s i on t o r eturn t o w ork, and t erm i nat i on al lt ook pl ace w i thi n a s pan of day s and w er e al ldeci ded by T u ck er. T h u s, n o tw ith stan d ing the g ran t of p erm issi o nto return to w o rk, th ereA l t hough t he pl ai nt i ff pr oduced e vi dence t hathers uper vi s orm ade a n 6 a rg u a b lyra c ial c o m m e n t re g a rd in g th e p lain tiff ’s b o d yo d o r te n m o n th s p rio r to t e r mi n a t i o n , we h e l d t h a tt h i s r e ma r k wa s a n i s o l a t e d c o mme n tt o o r e mo t e i n t i me t o over come pr et ext . Sy gm a N etw or k, 458 F. 3d at1184. I n Z amora ’ s cas e, t he s us pens i on w i t houtpayw as m or e s i gni fi cantt han an i s ol at ed comm entw i t h no a d v e rs e c o n s e q u e n c e s a n d o c c u rr e d ju s t d a y s b e fo re h is te rm in a tio n .

- 10- i s no pr i ncipl ed r eas on t o vi ew the s us pens i on and t erm i nat i on as “di s cr et e, sep ara te ev en ts. ” U n li k e the instan t case , the p lai n ti ff in S y g m a N etw o rk o ff ere dn o ev iden ce that h er e m p loy er e n g ag edin arg u ab lyd iscri m inato ry conduct t ow ar ds her j us t day s befor e the t erm i nat i on. W hen s uch evi dence 6 e x is ts , S y g m aN e tw o rko f f e rs n o g u id an c e . E v e nm o re p ro b lem a tic is th e m a jo rity ’s b a lda ss u m p tio n , ag a in purport edl yunderpi nned bySy gm a N etw ork, that“[i ] f Tuckerw as di s cr i m i nat i ng agains tZ amorabas ed upon hi s r ace ornat i onalor i gi n, T ucker w o u ldn o t h a v e re in sta ted h im .” (M a j. O p . 1 3 .) T h is s tate m e n t is n o t o n ly speculat i ve, bu tal so perm i t s em ploy ers t o easi l yi nsulat e them sel ves aga i nst di s cr i m i nat oryt erm i nat i on cl ai m s . U nderthe maj or i ty ’ s form ul at i on, an em ploy er w ho w i shed to fi re an em ploy ee fo r inv i dious r easons co uld do so w i thoutfearof l egalacti on s i m pl ybys us pendi ng and r ei ns t at i ng the empl oy ee b ef o re term inating h im . T o the e x tent that the m ajorityh o lds tha t T u ck er’s g ru d g in g p e rm iss io nf o r Z a m o rato re turn to w o rkc lea n s th e sla te o f a llT he conc ur r ence expr es s es conce r n t hatourappr oach w oul d al l ow 7 “ e ss e n tiallya n yv ictim o f a d isc rim in a to rya d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n th a t fe ll s hor tof t er m i nat i on [t o] m orph hi s gr i evanc e i nt o a more l ucr at i ve w r ongful t er m i nat i on cl ai m bypr es ent i ng hi s empl oy erw i t h an ul t i m atum . ” ( C oncurr i ng O p . 3 6 .) I sh a re n e ith e r th e c o n c u rre n c e ’s fe a r o f th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f

th is d iss e n t’s s u g g e ste d h o ld in g n o r its ja u n d ice d v iew o f T itl e V II p lain tiffs. In th is c a se , Z a m o ra w a s fire d b e fo re h e c o u ld re sig n . H a d Z a m o ra re sig n e d , h e c o u ld n o t h a v e e s ta b lis h e d a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e o f w ro n g f u l te rm in a tio n u n d e r T itle V II .

- 11- evi dence of di s cr i m i nat orym ot i ve, i ncludi ng the cir cumst ance s s urr oundi ng Z amora ’ s s us pens i on, I di s agr ee. 7 III A lth o u g h th e c o n c u rre n c e w o u ldh o ldth a t Z a m o ra ’s s u sp e n sio nc laim fai l s as a matt erof l aw , i n m yvi ew Z amorahas pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o s urvi ve s um m aryj udgm enton thi s cl ai m . T he part i es do notdi s put e that Zamo r ah a s s a t i s f

i e dth e f i r s ts t e p o f

M c Do n n e l lDo u g l a s b yp l e a d i n g ap r i ma f a c ie c a se o f

d isc rim in a to rysu sp e n sio n . T h e re f o re , the b u rd e nsh if

ted to E lit e to articu late aleg iti m a te n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so nf o r its a c tio n s. E lit e co n tend s itw as m ere lyatt em p tin g to co m p lyw ith IR C A in su sp en d ing Z am o ra forappr oxi m at el ya w eek w i thoutpay . T hi s cas e i s acc or di ngl ydeci ded atthe l as ts t ep of M cD onnel lD ougl as , i n w hi ch Zam or a mustoffe revi dence s how i ng th a t th e p ro f

f e re dre a so nis p re tex tu a l. A B ecaus e Tuckereff

ecti vel yconce ded thathi s acti ons w er e notdr i ven by IR C A –h e a d m itt e dh e n o lo n g e r h a dc o n c e rn s ab o u t Z a m o ra ’s r ig h t to w o rkin- 12-

th is c o u n trya s o f

M ay2 2 , 2 0 0 2 –I se e little m e rit in p ro v id in g anin -d e p th di s cus s i on of the s t atut e. N everthel es s , becaus e I di ffe rgr eatl yfr om the c o n c u rre n c e in m y v iew o f IR C A ’s re qu ire m e n ts an d re stric tio n s, I b rie f ly o u tl ine m ytho u g h ts on this m att er. I R C A w as des i gned t o curb the i nflux of undocument ed i m m i gr ant s by c re a tin g are g im e o f

sa n c tio n s a g a in st e m p lo y e rs th a t h ire th e m . T o w ardth is end, the A ctr equi r es empl oy er s t o ver i fythe i dent i tyand el i gibi l i tyof e m p lo y e e s a t th e tim e o f h ir in g b ye x a m in in g c e rt a in d o c u m e n ts . 8 U .S .C . § 1324a( a) ( 1) ( B ) , ( b) . W el l - m eaning empl oy er s ar e pr ovi ded w i th s i gni fi cant l egalpr ot ecti on atthe hi r i ng s t age be caus e theyar e al l ow ed t o as s ert“good f a ith ” c o m p lia n c e w ith IR C A a s ana f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n s e to liab ility. Id . § 1324a( a) ( 3) . I R C A al s o decl ar es thatr eques t i ng “more oraddi t i onal document s ” athi r i ng than thos e s peci fi cal l yi dent i fi ed i n the A ct“s hal lbe tr e a te da s anu n f

a irim m ig ra tio n -r e la te de m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e .” Id . § 1 3 2 4 b (a )(6 ). A f

terth e e m p lo ym e n t re latio n sh ip is e stab lish e d , IR C A m a k e s it unl aw fult o “conti nue t o empl oy[an] al i en i n the U ni t ed St at es know i ng the al i en i s ( orhas become) an unauthor i zed a l i en w i th r es pectt o s uch e m p lo ym e n t.” Id . § 1 3 2 4 a (a )( 2 ). E m p lo y e r s an c tio n s , h o w e v e r, r e p re s e n t o n ly o n e s id e o f th e IR C A c o in . W hen I R C A w as i ni t i al l ydebat ed, advocat es and mem ber s of C ongr es s voi ced w i des pr ead c oncerns thatthe A ctw oul d become a t oolof i nvi di ous- 13-

di s cr i m i nat i on agains tH i s pani c- A m er i cans and otherm i nor i t i es . A l though the or i gi nalbi l li ntr oduci ng I R C A di d notcont ai n s tr ong ant i - di s cr i m i nat i on m eas ur es , the ful lH ous e vot ed t o i nclude a s i gni fi cantant i - di s cr i m i nat i on am en d m en t. S ee H . R . R ep . N o . 9 9 -68 2 (II ) (19 8 6 ), p t. 2 , at 12 (19 8 6 ), re p rin ted in 1 9 8 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . 5 7 5 7 , 5 7 6 1 . E x p lain in g its sup p o rt f o r th is a m e n d m e n t, th e H o u se C o m m itt e e o nE du c a tio nan dL ab o r sta ted : T he [c om m i tt ee] s tr ongl yendor s es [the anti - di s cr i m i nat i on amendm ent ] and . . . has cons i s t ent l yexpr es s ed i t s fearthatthe i m pos i t i on of empl oy ers ancti ons w i l lgi ve r i s e t o empl oym ent d isc rim in a tio na g a in st H isp an ic A m e ric an s a n do th e r m in o rity gr oup m ember s . I ti s the comm i tt ee’ s vi ew thati f ther e i s t o be sa n c tio n s e n f

o rc e m e n t an dliab ili tyth e re m u st b e ane qu a lly s tr ong and r eadi l yavai l abl e r emedyi f r es ul t i ng empl oym ent d is c ri m in a tio no c c u rs . I d. In adop t i ng the H ou se am end m ent t o the bi l l , the JointS enate and H ou se C onfer ence C om m i tt ee ( “C onfer ence C om m i tt ee” ) agr eed “ [t ] he ant i di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i ons of thi s bi l lar e a c om pl ementt o the s ancti ons pr ovi s i ons , and mustbe cons i der ed i n thi s cont ext . ” H . R . C onf. R ep. N o. 99- 1 0 0 0 (1 9 8 6 ), re p rin ted in1 9 8 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . 5 8 4 0 , 5 8 4 2 . It w e n t o nto expl ai n thatthe pr ovi s i ons “br oaden[ ] the Ti t l e V I I pr ot ecti ons agains tnat i onal ori gin di scr i m i nati on , w hil e no tbroade ning the o ther T i t l e V IIprot ect i on s, becaus e of the conc ern of s om e M ember s thatpeopl e of ‘ for ei gn’ appear ance m ig h t b e m a d e m o re v u ln e rab le b yth e im p o sitio no f sa n c tio n s.” Id . (em p h a sis a d d e d ).A l t hough t he conc ur r ence l ooks t o num er ous ext ernal s our ces , i ncl udi ng 8 th e N e w Y o rk T im e s, to ill u m in a te th e p u rp o se s a n d e ffe c ts o f IR C A , itn e g lec ts to ca ref u ll yco n side r th e a n ti -discrim ination p rov isi o n s o f IR C A it self. It m ai nt ai ns t hatbeca us e “Zam or a has notpur s ued” the admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocedur es (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 14- B ecaus e mem ber s of C ongr es s bel i eved thatI R C A m i ghtnoti n fac t p ro m p t em p lo y e rs to d isc rim in a te a n dth e an ti-d isc rim in a tio np ro v isio n s c o u ld thus be unnece s s ary , the C onfer ence C om m i tt ee a dopt ed a c l aus e pr ovi di ng, “[t ] he anti di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i ons w oul d . . . be r epea l ed i n the eve ntof a j oi ntr es olut i on appr ovi ng a [G ener alA ccounti ng O ffi ce] fi ndi ng thatthe s ancti ons had r es ul t ed i n no s i gni fi cantdi s cr i m i nat i on. ” I d. at5843; s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1324b( k) ( 2) . I n 1990, the G ener alA ccounti ng O ffi ce ( “G A O ”) r el eas ed a r eportt o C ongr es s , fi ndi ng I R C A had i ndeed r es ul t ed i n a “s er i ous patt ern” of nat i onalor i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on. G A O , E m pl oy erSanct i ons and the Q ues t i on of D i s cr i m i nat i on 5 ( 1990) ( “G A O es t i m at es that461, 000 ( or10 per cent) of the 4. 6 m i l l i on empl oy er s i n the s urveypopul at i on nati onw i de b e g ano n e o r m o re p ra c tic e s th a t r e p re s e n t n a tio n a l o ri g in d is c ri m in a tio n .” ). T h u s, IR C A –a s e n a c ted , an da s it sta n d s to d ay–d e c lar e s th a t “[ i]t is anu n f a ir im m ig ra tio n -re late de m p lo ym e n t p ra c tice f o r ap e rso no r o th e r e n tityto di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tanyi ndi vi dual. . . w i th r es pectt o the hi r i ng, or r ecrui tm entorr efe rr alfora fe e, of the i ndi vi dualforempl oym entorthe di s chargi ng of the indi vi dualfr om empl oym ent. . . becaus e of s uch ind ividu al’s na ti o n al origin . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 4 b (a)(1)(A ). 8 9( . . . cont i nued) 8 s etfor t h i n § 1324b, “[t ] hes e pr ovi s i ons ar e thus notati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. ” (C o n c u rrin g O p . 1 4 , n .7 .) IR C A e x p re ss lyp ro v id e s th a t th e se p ro c e d u re s a p p ly o n lyto claim s tha t can n o t be b rou g h t un d er T it le V II. 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 4 b (a)(2)(B ). A lth o u g h I a g re e th a t th e a n ti-d isc rim in a tio n p ro v isio n s h a v e n o t b e e n d ire c tly pl ace d ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e, t hes e pr ovi s i ons ar e i ndi s pens abl e i n anys er i ous d isc u ss io n o f

th e A c t. I d o n o t su g g e st th a t IR C A ’s a n ti-d isc rim in a tio n p ro v isio n s n e c e ss a rily 9 g u id e o u r a n a ly sis . T h is d iss e n t m e re lyp o in ts o u t th a t allo w in g e m p lo y e rs to c ite I RCA c o n c e r n s a s a s h i e l d a g a i n s tTi t l e VI I c l a i ms i s n o tc o n t e mp l a t e d b yI RCA i t s el f.

- 15- T he conc urr ence w oul d go fari n i ns ul at i ng empl oy er s fr om nat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s . I ts ugges t s thatbecaus e empl oy er s fac e s ancti ons forknow i ngl ycont i nui ng t o empl oyunauthor i zed a l i ens , empl oy er s s houl d be gi ven a virtuals afe - harboragains tT i t l e V I I cl ai m s fori nves t i gat i ng an e m p l o ye e , s o l o n g a s th e y c i t e I R C A t o d e f e n dth e i ra c t i o n s . A s s u r e d l y, empl oy er s s houl d undert ake meani ngfuli nves t i gat i on i f an e m pl oy ee’ s l aw ful w ork s t atus i s l egi t i m at el ycal l ed i nt o ques t i on. H ow ever , fearof s ancti on for “k n o w ing ” e m p loym en t of u n au tho ri ze dali en s ca n n o t j u sti fyd iscri m inato ry p re c au tio n arym e a su re s. In d e e d , reg u latio n s im p lem e n tin g IR C A e x p re ss ly w arn e m p lo y e rs: K now l edge thatan empl oy ee i s unauthor i zed maynotbe i nferr ed fr om an empl oy ee’ s for ei gn appear ance oracc ent . N othi ng i n [the defi ni t i on of know i ng] s houl d be i nt erpr et ed as perm i tt i ng an empl oy ert o r eques tm or e ordi ffe r entdocument s than ar e r equi r ed u n d e r se c tio n2 7 4 A (b ) o f th e A c t o r to re f

u se to h o n o r d o c u m e n ts ten d e re dth a t o nth e ir f a c e re a so n ab lyap p e ar to b e g e n u in e an dto re la te to th e in d iv idu a l.A s th e c o n c u rre n c e n o tes , so m e c o u rts h a v e h e ld th a t em p lo y e rs v io late 10 § 1 3 2 4 a(a )(2) w h en theyh av e “ co n stru cti v e k n o w ledg e” o f a n em p loy ee ’s unauthor i zed w or k s t atus and y etcont i nue t o empl oyt hati ndi vi dual . See, e. g, N e w E l R a yS a u s a g e C o ., v . IN S , 9 2 5 F .2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 7 -5 8 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). H o w ev er, no co u rth as h eld th at a c red itch ec k rev ea li n g o n lythat an em p loy ee ’s SSN w as us ed byanotherper s on cons t i tut es “cons t ruct i ve know l edge” of a p e r s o n ’ s u n a u t h o r i z e d wo r k s t a tu s . No rd o t h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s a c t i o n s u n d e rI RCA su p p o rt th is b ro a d e r v iew o f “ c o n stru c tiv e k n o w led g e .” T h e c o n c u rre n c e su g g e sts t hatt he governm ent ’ s adopt i on of s oci al s ecur i t yver i fi cat i on i n i t s B as i c Pi l ot P ro g ra m su p p o rts E lit e ’s a c tio n s. (C o n c u rrin g O p . 1 5 -1 8 .) T o th e c o n tra ry , this ar gum enti gnor es s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence s betw een the governm ent ’ s B as i c Pi l ot Pr ogr am, w hi ch r equi r es empl oy er s t o ver i fyempl oy ee SSN s w i t h t he fe der al g o v ern m en t, an d the a d h o c a p p roa ch u sed b yE li te. A t no p o int be fo re Z am o ra’s s us pens i on di d E l i t e orany one el s e att empt t o ver i fyZ amora ’ s SSN bycont act i ng t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on ( “SSA ”) . I ns t ead, E l i t e hi r ed i ndepende nt c o n tra c to rs to ru n c h e c k s o n h is S S N in fo rm a tio n . O n lyth e S S A c a n c o n c lu siv e ly i dent i fyt he pr operhol derof a gi ven SSN – r ecogni zi ng t hi s , t he i ndepende nt c o n tra c to r e m p lo y e d b yE lit e in stru c ted th e c o m p a n yto v e rif yth e n u m b e r w ith t h e S S A a n d p r o v i d e d a t e l e p h o n e n u m b e rfo rt h e a g e n c y.

- 16- 8 C . F . R . § 2 7 4 a.1(1 )(2). 10 A dopt i ng the conc urr ence ’ s appr oach w oul d undoubt edl ynarr ow the sc o p e o f re c o v e ryf

o r n a tio n a l o rig ind isc rim in a tio nc laim s. T h is re su lt th w arts C ongr es s ’ s cl eari nt enti n pas s i ng I R C A t o “br oaden[ ] the Ti t l e V I I pr ot ecti ons a g a in st n a tio n a l o rig ind isc rim in a tio n ” an dto p re sc rib e a“ stro n g an dre a d ily avai l abl e r emedy ” fors uch di s cr i m i nat i on. H . R . C onf. R ep. N o. 99- 1000 (19 8 6 ), rep ri n ted in1 9 8 6 U . S . C . C . A . N . 5 8 4 0 , 5 8 4 2 ; H . R . R ep . N o . 9 9 -68 2 (II ) ( 1986) , pt . 2, at12 ( 1986) , r epr i nt ed i n 1986 U . S. C . C . A . N . 5757, 5761. D ue cons i der at i on of I R C A does notand s houl d notpr eclude exam i nat i on of w h ethe r Z am o ra p rese n ted e v iden ce su ff ici en t t o rea ch a juryo nh is T itle V IIC o n tra ryto th e c o n c u rre n c e ’s s u g g e stio n , a s h o w in g o f p re tex t alo n e w ill 11 ge ne r a l l ys uffi c e . Se e Ree ve s v. Sa nd e r s on Pl umbi ng Pr od uc t s , I nc . , 53 0 U. S. 133, 148 ( 2000) ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, combi ned w i t h s uffi ci ent evi dence t o fi nd t hatt he empl oy er ’ s j us t i fi cat i on i s fal s e, m ayperm i tt he tr i erof fac tt o concl ude thatt he empl oy erunl aw ful l ydi s cr i m i nat ed. ”) ; R andl e v. C i t yof A u ro ra , 6 9 F .3 d 4 4 1 , 4 5 1 -5 3 , 4 5 2 n .1 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).

- 17- c la im s . B A s expl ai ned above , thi s cas e i s deci ded atthe l as ts t ep of the M cD onnel lD ougl as fr amew ork. A tthi s s t age w e det erm i ne w hethera pl ai nt i ff has pr oduced s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d conclude thatthe e m p lo y e r’ s p ro f

f e re dre a s o nf

o r th e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio nis p re te x t.” 11 P ret ext m aybe est abli shed b yshow i ng “such w eakn esses , i m plausibil i t i es, i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed leg iti m a te r e a so n s f

o r its a c tio n s th a t a r e a so n ab le f a c tf in d e r c o u ldra tio n a lly fi nd them unw orthyof cr edenc e and he nce inferthatthe empl oy erdi d notact forthe as s ert ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons . ” M or gan v. H i l t i , I nc. , 108 F. 3d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (qu o tat ion s an dcit ati o n s o m itted). A lth o u g h there i s no s t andar d m ethod forpr ovi ng pr et ext , pl ai nt i ffs gener al l yr el yon thr ee types of evi dence : ( 1) evi dence thatthe def endant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on w as fal s e, ( 2) evi dence thatthe def endantact ed contr aryt o a w r i tt en companypol i cy pr es cr ibi ng the ac t i on t o be t aken bythe def endantunderthe cir cumst ance s , or ( 3) evi dence thatthe def endantact ed contr aryt o an unw r i tt en pol i cyor- 18-

contr aryt o companypr acti ce w hen maki ng the adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on aff ecti ng the pl ai nt i ff. K endr i ck v. Pens ke Trans p. Servs . , I nc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1 2 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Z a m o rah a s c o n sis ten tlyarg u e dth a t E lit e ’s p ro f f e re dre a so nf

o r h is su sp e n sio n–ad e sire to v e rif yZ a m o ra ’s r ig h t to w o rkinth e U n itedS tate s –is pr et extual . I n s upportof hi s al l egati on of pr et ext , he i dent i fi es fourpi ece s of evi dence . Fi r s t , Z amorapoi nt s t o T ucker ’ s ow n admi s s i on thatconce rn over Z am o ra’s ri g h t to w o rk d id n o t un d erli e h is de cisi o nto co n tin u e Z am o ra’s su sp e n sio n . Z a m o rac o n ten d s th a t th is a d m iss io nd e m o n stra tes th a t T u c k e r d id n o t h a v e ag o o df

a ith b e lie f

in th e p ro f

f e re dju s tif

ic a tio no f

IR C A c o m p lia n c e . Second, Z amoranot es thatE l i t e’ s M ay10, 2002 w r i tt en mem or andum i nform ed hi m thata natur al i zati on cert i fi cat e w oul d be s uffi ci entt o cl earup conce rns overhi s w ork s t atus . I n r ej ecti ng Z amora ’ s pr offe rof a natur al i zati on cert i fi cat e, E l i t e thus vi ol at ed i t s ow n w r i tt en pol i cy . T hi r d, al though a neutr al de c i s i on make rw ou l d r e a l i z e the fa c tthats omeo ne e l s e ha d u s e d Za mor a ’ s SSN d idn o t re so lv e w h e th e r Z a m o raw a s th e p e rp e tra to r o r th e v ictim o f id e n tity the ft , Zamor at e s t i fi e d thatTuc ke ra c c us e d h i m of s t e a l i ng s omeo ne e l s e ’ s SSN des pi t e Zam or a’ s pr ot es t at i ons t o the contr ary . T ucker ’ s i m m edi at e conc lus i on thatZ amoras t ol e hi s SSN coul d r eas onabl ys upportan i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat oryi nt enton the partof Tucker . Fi nal l y , Z amorahas s how n that E l i t e h a s a c t e dc o n tr aryt o i t s a l l e g e dg o o d - f a i th a tt e mp tt o c o mp l ywi th I RC A,- 19-

even dur i ng the per i od of hi s s us pens i on. A ft erZ amoravi gor ous l yas s ert ed thathi s or i gi nals oci als ecuri tynum berw as corr ectand true, T uckeri ns truct ed Z amorat o r eturn t o hi m w i th a di ffe r entSSN . T ogetherthi s evi dence demonstr at es “w eakne s s es , i m pl aus ibi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , or c o n tra d ictio n s” inE lit e ’s p ro f f e re dre a so no f

IR C A c o m p lian c e , su c h th a t a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d fi nd thatr eas on “unw orthyof cr edenc e. ” M or gan, 1 0 8 F .3 da t 1 3 2 3 . T he conc urr ence i gnor es the l as ttw o s how i ngs i n i t s di s cus s i on and se e k s to d isc re d it th e f irst tw o p iec e s o f

e v id e n c e b yin terp re tin g th e m in

“ c o n te x t.” T h e c o n c urr e n c e f ir s t a tte m p ts to u n d e rm in e T u c k e r’ s a d m is s io n . O n thi s poi nt , T uckert es t i fi ed: Q : A n dthe re aso n[a d o cu m en t from the IN S that sh o w s Z am o ra appl i ed fornatur al i zati on di d nots at i s fyy ou] i s becaus e i tdoes n o t ex p lain aw ayth e c o n c e rn s y o uh a dab o u t h is s o c ial s e c u rity n u m b er? A : T h a t is c o rre c t. Q : O kay . So w oul d i tbe fa i rt o s aythatthe pr obl em w i th the so c ial s e c u rityn u m b e r is th a t itp o in ts to ap o ten tial th a t, inf a c t, [ Z a m o r a ] i s n o te n t i t l e dt o w o rki nth i s c o u n try? A : W hatI had w as a s oci als ecuri tynum berthati ndi cat ed thr ee di ffe r entpeopl e mayhave us ed the numberatthr ee di ffe r ent poi nt s i n t i m e. I w ant ed t o as cert ai n w i th cert ai ntythatthat n u m b e r b e lo n g e dto M r. Z a m o ra . Q : O kay . So, i tw as n’ tr eal l ya conc ern aboutw hether[Zam or a] i s ent i t l ed t o w ork i n thi s country , i tw as a conc ern abouti s he u sing the c o rrect so cial sec u ri tyn u m b er?O th e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd c o rro b o ra tes th a t T u c k e r d id n o t eq u a te h is 12 c o n c e rn a b o u t an in c o rre c t S S N w ith c o n c e rn o v e r Z a m o ra ’s s h o w in g o f id e n tity underI R C A . T uckert es t i fi ed thatan empl oy ee c oul d es t abl i s h i dent i t yfort he purpos es of I R C A bypr es ent i ng a val i d document w i t h a phot ogr aph: Q : So i f y ou have a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e ors om e otherki nd of appr oved document w i t h y ourphot ogr aph on i t , t hatm i ghtcompl yw i t h t he id e n tific a tio n re q u ire m e n t, co rre c t? A : T h a t is c o rre c t. Q : B u t th at w o u ld n o t nec essa ri lyco m p lyw ith the righ t- to-w o rk re q u ire m e n t? A : T h a t is c o rre c t. Q : A nd fort he r i ght - t o- w or k r equi r ement , t her e ar e other document s s etouti n t he I - 9 for m t hatar e ac cept abl e foran em p loy er? A : Y es, si r. Q : A nd one of thos e i s a s oci al s ecur i t ycar d i s s ued byt he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on? A : T h a t’s c o rre c t. (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 20- A : Y es, si r. ( A ppel l antSupp. A pp’ x 67. ) M aki ng al lr eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof Z amora , thi s exchange maybe r eas onabl yi nt erpr et ed as a conc es s i on by T u c k e r th a t h e w a s n o t co n c e rn e dw ithZ a m o ra ’s la w f u l rig h t to w o rkinth is co u n tryas o f M ay2 2 , 2 0 0 2 . T u ck er’s an sw ers to b o th the sec o n dan dthir d qu esti o n s d em o n str ate tha t he v iew edh is co n ce rn w ith Z am o ra’s law fu l w o rk sta tu s a s d istin c t f

ro m a c o n c e rn w ith th e v a lid ity o f h is S S N . F ro m th is 12( . . . cont i nued) 12 ( A ppel l antSupp. A pp’ x 51. ) T uckerl at eremphasi zed thathe under s t ood t hati dent i t yt heftdi d noti m pl i cat e a pe r s on’ s r i ghtt o w or k: Q : O kay . W oul d y ou agr ee w i t h m e thati tw as al s o pos s i bl e that som ebo dyel se w as i l l egall yusi ng M r. Z am ora’ s s o c ia l s e c u ri ty n u m b e r. A : Y es , s i r . I t ’ s ent i r el ypos s i bl e. Q : I f th at w as th e c ase , then that w o u ld n o t affec t his ri g h t t o w o rk o r sh o u ld n o t affe c t h is e m p lo ym e n t sta tu s a t E lit e a t all, sh o u ld it? A : T h a t is c o rr e c t. (A p p ell an t Su p p . A p p ’x 7 2 . )

- 21- exchange, a r eas onabl e fac t fi ndercoul d det erm i ne thatT uckerw as not co n ce rne dab o u t Z am o ra’s ri g h t t o w o rk w h en h e p rolo n g edZ am o ra’s s u s p e n s io n . A l though i tcannotes cape T ucker ’ s ow n admi s s i on, the conc urr ence appear s t o ar gue: ( 1) becaus e Tuckerhad conc erns aboutw hetherZ amoraw as us i ng s om eone e l s e’ s SSN , T uckerm us thave doubt ed Zam or a w as the per s on id e n tifie db yh is d o c u m e n ts; an d(2 ) b e c au se IR C A m an d a tes ane m p lo y e r to confi rm both i dent i tyand w ork el i gibi l i ty , T ucker ’ s SSN conce rn w as eq u ivalen t t o h is co n ce rn o v er IR C A co m p li an ce . (C o n cu rri n g O p . 2 5 -29 . ) B oth ar gum ent s ar e j us t i fi ed bythe conc urr ence as pr ovi di ng “cont ext . ” H ow ever , attr ibut i ng thi s under s t andi ng t o T uckerr equi r es a t ortur ed r eading of hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony . I ti s true thatI R C A nece s s ar i l yconce rns an- 22-

in d iv idu a l’s id e n tity , to th e e x ten t th a t an e m p lo y e e m u st e stab lish th a t sh e is the per s on named i n herw ork- author i zati on document . B utunl es s T ucker bel i eved thatthe w ork- author i zati on document s pr es ent ed byZ amoraon M ay 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 in f

ac t i d en ti fiedZ am o ra, his co n ce rn o v er Z am o ra’s ri g h t t o w o rk c o u ld n o t re a so n ab ly h a v e b e e n a llev iate d b y th o se d o c u m e n ts. T u c k e r c lea rly sta ted th a t as o f

M ay2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , h e w a s n o t co n c e rn e dab o u t Z a m o ra ’s r ig h t to w o rkin th is c o u n tryb u t w a s c o n c e rn e dab o u t Z a m o ra ’s u s e o f ac o rr e c t S S N . T o confl at e thes e conc erns i gnor es both T ucker ’ s t es t i m onyand ourobl i gat i ons t o the non- m ovi ng partyatthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age. I n addi t i on, the conc urr ence al s o att empt s t o expl ai n aw aythe fa ctthat E l i t e contr avene d w r i tt en pol i cyi n r ej ecti ng Z amora ’ s pr offe rof a n a tura liza tio nc e rtific a te. It c o n c e d e s th a t “th e E lit e m e m o ra n du m , rea din i s ol at i on, m i ghts ugges ts om e s ortof i ncons i s t ency , ” butpr ocee ds t o dr aw inf ere n ce s an dm ak e a rgu m en ts i nfa v o r of E li te. (C o n cu rri n g O p . 3 0 -31 . ) B ecaus e the mem or andum not ed thatZ amora ’ s document s w er e ques t i onabl e, and bec aus e Zam or a w as t ol d he nee ded t o cl earup the “di s cr epanc y , ” the concurr ence cl ai m s i ncons i s t encybetw een Tucker ’ s acti ons and the m e m o ra n du m s h o u ldb e o v e rl o o k e d .I d o n o t su g g e st th a t d e p o sitio n sta tem e n ts s h o u ld n e v e r b e c o n sid e re d in 13 c o n tex t. In fa c t, th e d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yin fo o tn o te tw e lv e o f th is d iss e n t is ci t ed t o pr ovi de cont extforT ucker ’ s s t at ement admi t t i ng t hathe no l ongerhad conce r ns overZ amora ’ s r i ghtt o w or k and dr aw i ng a di s t i nct i on betw een that c o n c e rn a n d th e S S N iss u e . H o w e v e r, th e c o n c u rre n c e im p ro p e rlyc ites c o n tex t to di s cr edi ts how i ngs of pr et extt hatr eas onabl ys uppor tt he non- m ovi ng par t y , even i n l i ghtof al l t he evi dence .

- 23- T h e c o n tex tu a l hu e s le n t b yth e c o n c u rre n c e a m o u n t to im p e rm iss ib le i nfer ence s dr aw n i n favorof El i t e. A l though thes e argum ent s m ayper s uade a 13 j ury , ourr ol e as j udges atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age r equi r es us t o acc ept Z amora ’ s compet i ng, pl aus ibl e i nt erpr et at i ons of the evi dence . B ecaus e I di ffe r w ithth e c o n c u rre n c e inc o n sid e rin g th e f a c ts inth e lig h t m o st f a v o rab le to Z amora , I conclude thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd E l i t e’ s pr offe r ed r eas on of IR C A c o m p lia n c e is p re te x tu a l. Ju d g e s H o llo w ay , H e nry, B ri s c o e , an dM urp hyjo ininth is d is s e nt.