## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__

__ __ __ __ _

No. 10 -1 47 7

__

__ __ __ __ _

Ch ad Lero y

Lis da hl

, *

* App el la nt

, *
*

v. *
* Mayo Fo un da ti on , et al

., *

* App el le es

. *

__

__ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e No. 10 -2 03 8 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

__

__ __ __ __ _

Mi ke Am en do la

, *

* App el la nt

, *
*

v. *
* Mayo Fo un da ti on , et al

., *

* App el le es

. *__

__ __ __ __ _

No. 10 -2 04 0

__

__ __ __ __ _

Ro ge r Swo r, *

* App el la nt

, *
*

v. *
* Mayo Fo un da ti on , et al

., *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 10
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 28 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ch ad Lero y Lis da hl

, a ve te ran , su ed Gol d Cro ss Am bu la nc e, a pa rt of th e Mayo

Fo un da ti on fo r Med ic a l Ed u c at io n an d Res earc h, an d Dav id B. Jo hn so n, hi s

su pe rv is or at Gol d Cro ss , al le gi ng wor kp la ce di sc riminat io n an d co ns t ru ct iv e
di sc ha rg e on th e ba si s of ve te ran st at us , in vi ol at i o n of th e Uni fo rm ed Serv ic es

Em pl oym en t an d Ree m

pl oym en t A ct of 1994

, 38 U

. S.C. §§ 43 01 -4 33 5 (“ USERRA”)

. Mi ch ael T. Am en do la an d R og er A. Swo r, Gol d C ro ss pa ram ed ic s, als o su ed un de r

USERRA al le gi ng ret al ia ti on by Gol d Cro ss an d Jo hn so n fo r pr ov id in g st at e men ts

i n su pp or t of Lis da hl ’s cl ai m s. Afte r a be nc h tri al on Lis da hl ’s cl ai m s, th e di s t r i c t

-2

-co ur t en te red jud gm en t fo r th e de fen da nt s. Se e Lis da hl v. Ma yo Fo und

. fo r Med ic al 1

Ed uc. an d Res ea rc h

, 69 8 F.Su pp .2d 10 81 (D.Mi nn

. 20 10 ). The di st ric t co ur t la te r 2

gr an t e d d e f

en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t in th e ret al ia ti on cas es of

Am en do la an d Swo r. Se e Am end ol a v

. M ay o Fo und

. fo r Med

ic al Ed uc. an d

Res ea rc h

, Nos

. 08 -6 23 1, 08 -6 23 2, 20 10 W L 12 86 08 7 ( D

. M i n n

. Mar

. 29

, 20 10 ).

Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 of th es e co ns ol id at ed ap pe al s, th is co ur t

affi rm s.

I.

Pl ai nt iff s w e r e p aram ed ic s em pl oyed by Gol d Cro ss , whi ch pr ov id es

am bu la nc e se rv ic es in th e Dul ut h, Mi nn es ot a, an d Su pe rio r, W is co ns in

, area

. Ch ad

Lis da hl

, a Gol d C ro ss em pl oyee si nc e 1 99 9, jo in ed th e Ma rin es in 20 02 an d s erv ed

th ree to ur s i n I r a q b e fo re be in g di sc ha rg ed in 20 06

. W hi le in th e m il it ary, Lis da hl

ha d su rg ery o n bo th kn ees

. Befo re he en te red act iv e d ut y , Gol d C ro ss ad vi se d hi m

to m ai nt ai n hi s Mi nn es ot a pa ram ed ic ’s li cen se , be cau se m ai nta ini ng ce rt if ic at ion w ith

th e Nati on al Reg is try of Em erg en cy Me d i c a l Tech ni ci an s wou ld be ex tre m el y
di ffi cu lt whi le on act iv e du ty (Go ld Cro ss req ui res ev ery pa ram ed ic to be na ti on al ly

cert ifi ed ). If Lis da hl m ai nt ai ne d hi s Mi nn es ot a li cen su re, up on ret ur ni ng he wou ld

be qu al ifi ed to ta ke th e ex ami n a ti on s fo r rece rti fic at io n by th e Nati on al Reg is try.

W hi le in Iraq

, Lis da hl al lo wed hi s Nati on al Reg is try cert ifi cat io n to la ps e. Afte r he

ret ur ne d, Gol d Cro ss al lo wed hi m a y ear to rece rti fy

, bu t Lis da hl ’s em pl oym en t wit h

Gol d C ro ss ter m in at ed be fo re t he on e-year pe rio d e nd ed

.

The Hon or ab le Raym on d L. Eric ks on , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta , no w ret ire d.

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of Mi nn es ot a.

-3

-Befo re com in g ho m e to Dul ut h- Su pe rio r, Lis da hl arra ng ed wit h Gol d Cro ss

to res um e wor k in Sep t e mb e r 20 06

. Rejo in in g Gol d Cro ss req ui red th e sa m e

or ie nt at io n a nd sc reen in g gi ve n t o a ny para m ed ic ret ur ni ng fro m an ex te nd ed lea ve

of ab se nc e, or tra ns ferr in g t o G ol d Cro ss fro m an ot he r em pl oyer. Alt ho ug h on e

or ie nt at io n was can cel le d du e to la ck of pa rti ci pa nt s, Lis da hl ret ur ne d to Gol d Cro ss

at th e sa m e po si ti on (as si st an t cap ta in ), se ni or it y , an d rat e of pa y as be fo re he joi ne d

th e Mar in es (in cl ud in g in te rv en in g pa y in crea se s)

. Upo n hi s ret ur n, li ke al l ne w hi res

or pe rs on s res to red fro m ex te nd ed le av e, Lis da hl was cl as si fie d as “ no ns ta tu s,” whi ch

m ean t h e c o u l d do al l reg ul ar pa ram ed ic wor k bu t ha d to be in th e sa m e tru ck as a

“ st at us ” pa ram ed ic

. W it hi n a few m on th s, an d du e to de la y s on Lis da hl ’s pa rt, he was

ret ur ne d t o “ st at us ” cl as si fic at io n.

Bac k at wor k, Lis da hl was su pe rv is ed by Dav id Jo hn so n, who in di sp ut ab ly ha s

a di rect

, no -n on se ns e m an ag em en t st y le

, st ric tl y en fo rci ng Gol d Cro ss ’s pr oc ed ur es

. Befo re Lis da hl ’s ret ur n, Jo hn so n in co rrec tl y st at ed at le as t on ce to Lis da hl ’s co

wor ke rs th at Gol d Cro ss di d no t ha ve to reh ire hi m , be cau se he vo lu nt ari ly joi ne d th e

m il it ary. W hi le at Gol d Cro ss , Jo hn so n al le ge dl y m ad e so m e jok es at th e ex pe ns e of

th e m il it ary: fo r ex am

pl e, th at so m e Arm

y Res erv is ts di d no t do an y th in g ex cep t pl ay
card s, an d th at Nati on al Gua rd se rv ic e ha d to be a jok e if a cert ai n co -wo rk er joi ne d,

i n v i e w o f th at wor ke r’s weig ht an d be ari ng

. Onc e, Jo hn so n en ga ge d in ho rs ep la y
wit h a la rg er, st ro ng er co ll eag ue th at le ft th e co ll eag u e wit h a welt an d br ui se fro m
be in g t a c k l e d to th e gr ou nd (wh il e Jo hn so n as ke d to be writ te n up fo r th e in ci de nt

, hi s su pe rio rs im

po se d no di sc ip li ne ). On an ot he r oc cas io n, Jo hn so n th reat en ed to rip

a co -wo rk er’s fac e o ff if he m ad e an ot he r co m m en t th at Jo hn so n’s wi fe was ha vi ng

an ex tra m ari ta l af

fai r.

Jo hn so n di d no t m ak e an y m il it ary-relat ed co m m en ts to Lis da hl

. The y ha d on e

ve rb al co nf

ro nt at io n, aft er Lis da hl ob jecte d to Jo hn so n’s cri ti ci sm of Ro ge r Swo r fo r

rep eat ed ly ex ceed i n g t h e mi nu te s al lo wed fo r Gol d Cro ss cel l ph on es

. Afte r bo th

m en rai se d th ei r vo ic es , Jo hn so n as ke d Lis da hl whe th er that was th e ap pr oa ch Lis da hl

-4

-in te nd ed to ta ke in th ei r fu tu re rel at io ns hi p. Lis da hl al so te st i f i ed th at Jo hn so n

tre at ed hi m

di sm is si ve ly at wor k.

Bas ed o n t h e s e sc at te red co m m en ts an d in ci de nt s, Lis da hl cl ai m s he fear ed

Jo hn so n wou ld at ta ck hi m or fin d so m e p ret ex t t o fi re h im . The d is tri ct co ur t m ad e

fact -fi nd in gs ab ou t th e Jo hn so n- Lis da hl rel at io ns hi p: “ W e e x p r e s s ly fin d th at th e

co nc en tra te d effo rt by Lis da hl

, an d hi s at to rn ey , to de m on iz e Jo hn so n was as
fic ti on al iz ed as it was sc ur ril ou s,” an d th at “ th ere is ab so lu te ly n o c r e d i b l e b as is to

as cri be an y le gi ti m acy to th at cl ai m ed fear .” The di st ric t cou rt fou nd th e co m m en ts

at tri bu ta bl e to Jo hn so n were “ ei th er se ve r e l y da te d, or th ey were ob li qu e wit h

refe ren ce to an y th in g un de si rab le ab ou t m il it ary se rv ic e.” Lis da hl d i d n o t rep or t

Jo hn so n’s pu rp or te dl y dr aco ni an t reat m en t to an y m an ag er at Gol d Cro ss , no r di d

Lis da hl ’s cowo rk ers co m pl ai n a bo ut an y

ab us e o f Lis da hl by Joh ns on

.

On May 21

, 20 0 7

, Lis da hl req ue st ed ti m e of f pu rs ua nt to th e Fam il y an d

Med ic al Leav e Act fo r tre at m en t of hi s se lf- rep or te d “ se rio us he al th co nd it io n” of

Po st -Trau m at ic St res s Dis or de r (PTSD). Gol d Cro ss gr an te d th e req ue st

. Dur in g hi s

ti m e of f, Lis da hl fil ed a cl ai m (wit h swo rn st at em en ts ) f o r Lo n g Te rm Dis ab il it y

Ben efi ts wit h Gol d Cro ss fo r PTSD. Thi s cl ai m was de ni ed

, as hi s pl an di d no t co ve r
di sa bi li ti es cau se d by act s of war. Lis da hl ap pe al ed an d was ev al ua te d by two

do ct or s, who fo un d li tt le ev id en ce th at hi s m il it ary ex pe rie nc e ad ve rs el y im pa ct ed hi s

wor k l ife . Lisd ah l t he n fa il ed to ex ha us t h is ap pe al s wi th Gol d C ro ss

.

Dur in g hi s m ed ic al le av e, Lis da hl al so ap pl ie d fo r di sa bi li ty an d

un em pl oyabi li ty be ne fit s fro m th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of Vete ran s Affai rs (“ VA”), cl ai m in g in swo rn st at em en ts t ha t he was di sa bl ed an d pe rm an en tl y

un em pl oyabl e du e to the co m

bi na ti on of hi s ba d kn ees , ch ro ni c de pr es si on , an d PTSD
(res ul ti ng fro m ex po su re to IED ex pl os io ns an d th e de at h of co m rad es ). Lis da hl ’s

st at em en ts de s c r i be d ho w aft er ret ur ni ng to Gol d Cro ss , he ha d di ffi cu lt y wit h

co nc en tra ti on an d m em or y , gr eat ly im pa iri ng hi s ab il it y to do hi s job

. Howev er, th e

-5

-di st ric t co ur t fo un d no ev id en ce to su pp or t th is cl ai m —n on e of Lis da hl ’s co -wo rk ers

no ti ced an y co nc en tra ti on or m em or y is su es , an d hi s la st pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w be fo re

m ed ic al lea ve is gl owi ng in it s p rai se of Li sd ah l’s wo rk

.

W it h res pe ct to hi s de pa rtu re fro m Gol d Cro ss , each of Li sd ah l’s swo rn

st at em en ts id en ti fie d hi s cl ai m ed se rv ic e-re la te d in juri es as hi s reas on fo r le av in g;

no ne of th e st at em en ts m en ti on an y di sc rimi n a to ry co nd uc t by Gol d Cro ss or

Jo hn so n. Li s d a hl at te st ed : “ My se rv ic e co nn ect ed PTSD al on g wit h m y ba d kn ees

ha ve pr ev en te d m e fro m wor ki ng an d fo rced m e to res ig n fro m m y Para m ed ic job .”

In a fil in g wit h th e VA, Lis da hl m en ti on ed th at “ m y ph y si ci an s ha ve st at ed it wou ld

be de tri m en ta l fo r me to ret ur n” to Gol d Cro ss , an ap pa ren t refe ren ce to a VA
ph y si ci an ’s as si st an t who Lis da hl cl ai m s to ld hi m to rep or t th at he was di ag no se d

wit h PTSD in or de r to ob ta in VA be ne fit s. The di st r ic t co ur t ex pr es sl y fo un d

Lis da hl ’s te st im on y un be li ev ab le to th e ex te nt he cl ai m s he was in no cen tl y du pe d by

VA st affe rs in to su bm it ti ng fal se rep or ts of di sa bi li ty an d un em pl oyabi li ty to th e VA.

W hi le th e VA di d gr an t so m e di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, it d e n i e d Li s da hl ’s cl ai m fo r

in crea se d c om

pe ns at io n b as ed up on un em pl oyabi li ty.

Lis da hl ne ve r ret ur ne d t o Go ld Cro ss fro m m ed ic al le av e, fo rm al ly res ig ni ng

in Ju ne 20 08

. He br ou gh t th is su it al le gi ng va rio us ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io ns an d

a co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e du e to ve te ran st at us

. In fil in g hi s ad m in is tra ti ve co m pl ai nt

, Lis da hl so ug ht su pp or ti ve st at em en ts fro m fo rm er co -wo rk ers Mi ke Am en do la an d

Ro ge r Swo r ab ou t th e al le ge d di sc riminat o r y mi s tre at m en t by Gol d Cro ss an d

Jo hn so n. Am en do la an d Swo r la te r su ed Gol d Cro ss an d Jo hn so n , c l a im in g

ret al ia ti on for ass is ti ng Lis da hl

.

Afte r a be nc h tri al to a m ag is tra te jud ge , th e co ur t fo un d fo r de fen da nt s on
Lis da hl ’s USERRA cl ai m s, di sm is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt wit h pr ejud ic e. A m on th la te r,

a di st ric t j ud ge gr an te d de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t in th e ret al ia ti on

cas es of Am en do la an d S wor . Thes e ap pe al s fo ll owe d.

-6

-II.

Lis da hl do es no t ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng t h a t h e was pr om pt ly

res to red to em

pl oym en t as req u i r e d b y U SERRA. He at ta ck s th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ru li ng th at a pr ima f

a c ie co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m un de r USERRA req ui res

ev id en ce tha t Gold Cro ss or Jo hn so n in te nd ed to fo rce hi m ou t. Afte r a be nc h tri al

, th is co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r, a n d i t s l e g al

co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Lenz v. Wa de

, 49 0 F.3 d 99 1, 99 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); se e al so Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 52 (a). A fin di ng is cl earl y erro ne ou s whe n “ al th ou gh th ere is ev id en ce to

su pp or t it

, th e rev ie win g co ur t on th e en ti re ev id en ce is le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m

co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s be en co m m it te d.” And

er so n v. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty

, 47 0 U.S. 56 4, 57 3 (1 98 5) (q uo ti ng Unit ed St at es v. Unit ed St at es Gyp su m Co

. , 33 3

U.S. 36 4, 3 95 (19 48 )).

USERRA pr ot ect s re t u r ni ng ve te ran s an d ot he r un ifo rm ed se rv ic e m em be rs
whe n tra ns it io ni ng to ci vi li an li fe, req ui rin g reem pl oym en t in ei th er th e sa m e po si ti on

“ or a po si ti on of li ke se ni or it y , st at us an d pa y , th e du ti es of wh i c h th e pe rs on is

qu al ifi ed to pe rfo rm .” 38 U.S.C. §4 31 3( a) (2 )(A) ; se e ge ne ra ll y Cl eg g v. Ar k. Dep ’t
of Co rr ect io ns , 49 6 F .3d 92 2, 93 0 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ). After reem pl oym en t, USERR A

pr oh ib it s di sc riminat io n ag ai ns t ve te ran s wit h res pe ct to an y be ne fit of em pl oym en t

on th e ba si s of th ei r m em be r s h i p , ap pl ic at io n fo r m em be rs hi p, pe rfo rm an ce of

se rv ic e, ap pl i c a t i o n fo r se rv ic e, or ob li ga ti on to pe rfo rm se rv ic e in th e un ifo rm ed

se rv ic es

. 38 U.S.C. § 43 11 (a ) . A ben efi t o f em pl oym en t i s “ an y

ad va nt ag e, pr of

it

,
pr iv il eg e , g a i n , s ta tu s, acco un t, or in te res t (o th er th an wag es or sa la ry fo r wor k

pe rfo rm ed ) th at accr ue s by reas on of an em pl oymen t co nt ract or ag reem en t or an

em pl oyer po li cy , pl an , or pr act ic e

. . .” 38 U.S.C. §4 30 3( 2)

. Bec au se USERRA was

en act ed to pr ot ect th e rig ht s of se rv ic e m em be rs , it is co ns tru ed br oa dl y an d “ in fav or

of it s m il it ary be ne fic ia rie s.” Cl eg g , 49 6 F .3d at 9 30 -3 1.

-7

-An em pl oyer vi ol at es USERRA whe n v et eran st at us is a m ot iv at in g fact or in

th e em pl oyer’s ad ve rs e act io n, un le ss th e em pl oyer pr ov es th at th e act io n wou ld ha ve

be en ta ke n in th e ab se nc e of m em be rs hi p in th e arm ed se rv ic es

. Ma xf ie ld v. Ci nt

as

Co rp

. , 56 3 F.3 d 69 1, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ( Max fi el d II ). The em pl oyee m us t in it ia ll y
sh ow th at m il it ary st at us was a m ot iv at in g fact or in an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t de ci si on , bu t an em

pl oyer can th en de feat th e cl ai m by pr ov in g “ by a pr ep on de r an ce of

ev id en ce, th at th e act io n wou ld ha ve be en ta ke n de sp it e th e pr ot ect ed st at us .” Id

. In

de te rm in in g whe th er ve te ran st at us m ot iv at es th e em pl oyer’s co nd uc t, al l reco rd

ev id en ce m ay be co ns id er ed

, in cl ud in g an y ex pl an at io n fo r th e act io n ta ke n.

Ma xf ie ld v. Cin ta s C

or p. , 42 7 F .3d 54 4, 5 51 -5 2 (8 th Cir . 20 05 )( Max fi el d I ).

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Lis da hl fai le d to pr es en t a pr im a faci a cas e un de r USERRA, be cau se he di d no t sh ow an y ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n by Go l d Cro ss

or Jo hn so n. Fu rth er, th e co u r t fo un d no ev id en ce th at an y pa rti cu la r em pl oym en t

act io n by Jo hn so n or Gol d Cro ss was m ot iv at ed by an ti -v et eran an im us , or th at su ch

an im us was a m ot iv at in g fa ct or in pro m pt in g t he act io n t ha t was tak en

.

Lis da hl fo cu se s hi s ap pe al on th e co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha r g e c la im

, whi ch is

act io na bl e un de r USERRA. Se e Kno wl es v. Ci ti co rp Mo rt

ga ge , In c. , 14 2 F.3 d 10 82

, 10 85 -8 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). A co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e o c c u rs whe n an em pl oyer
de li be rat el y ren de rs an em pl oyee’s wor ki ng co nd it io ns in to le rab le wit h th e in te nt of

fo rci ng th e em

pl oyee to le av e th e em

pl oym en t. Id

. at 1 08 6. A p la in ti ff can sa ti sf y

th e i n t e nt req ui rem en t by de m on st rat in g th at th e res ig na ti on was a reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le co ns eq u en ce of th e em pl oyer’s act io ns

. Id

. The in to le rab il it y of th e

wor ki ng co nd it io ns is jud ge d by an ob jecti ve st an da rd ; co nd it io ns are co ns i de red

in to le rab le “ if a reas on ab le em pl oyee wou ld fin d th em as su ch .” Br ad fo rd v. Nor

fo lk

So ut her n Co rp

. , 54 F.3d 14 12 , 14 20 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

Lis da hl cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by req ui rin g hi m to de m on st rat e no t on ly

th at hi s wor ki ng co nd it io ns at Gol d Cro ss were ob jecti ve ly in to le rab le

, bu t al so th at

Gol d Cro ss an d Jo hn so n in te nd ed to fo rce hi m to qu it

. Lis da hl a s s e r t s t ha t th e

-8

-Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Pen ns yl va ni a St at e Pol ic e v. Su de rs li m it ed an y Eig ht h

Ci rcu it cas es req ui rin g an in te nt -to -fo rce- ou t in or de r to pr ov e co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e

un de r USERRA. Se e Pa. St at e Pol ic e v. Sud

er s , 54 2 U.S. 12 9

, 1 4 7 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. In

Su de rs , t he Co u r t he ld th at in a Tit le VII act io n al le gi ng ho st il e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t

se xu al ha ras sm en t by a su pe rv is or , a co ns t r u c t i v e d is ch arg e cl ai m is su bjec t to an

em pl oyer’s affi rm at iv e de fen se th at 1) no ta ng ib le em pl oym en t act io n was ta ke n; 2)

th e em pl oyer ex erci se d reas on ab le care to pr ev en t an d co rrec t ha ras sm en t; an d 3) th e

em pl oyee fai le d to ta ke ad va nt ag e of th e em pl oyer ’s pr oc ed ur es fo r ad dr es si ng

wor kp la ce ha ra s s m en t. Se e id

. , 54 2 U.S. at 14 1- 50

. The Co ur t de sc rib ed a

co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m as an ob jecti ve in qu iry as ki ng : “ Did wor ki ng co nd it io ns
be co m e so in to le rab le th at a reas on ab le pe rs on in th e em pl oyee’s po si ti on wou ld ha ve

fel t co m pe ll ed to res ig n? ” Id

. at 1 41

.

Su de rs di d no t in te rp ret USERRA, m uc h le ss ad dr es s whe th er a USERRA

co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m req ui res a pl ai nt iff to pr ov e an em pl oyer’s in te nt to fo rce

th e em pl oyee to qu it

. Reg ard le ss , an i n t e n t r e q u i rem en t is im pl ic it in th e Su de rs

te st –t he Co ur t ex pr es sl y de sc rib ed ho w th e co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e co nc ep t or ig in at ed

in th e 19 30 ’s whe n th e Nati on al Lab or Rel a t i on s Bo ard de ve lo pe d th e do ct rin e to

ad dr es s si tu at io ns whe n em pl oyers de li be rat el y fo rced em pl oyee s to res ig n by

crea ti ng in to le rab le wor ki ng co nd it io ns in ret al ia tion fo r en gagi ng in un io n act iv it ie s.

Id

. at 1 41

.

Eve n as su m in g th at Su de rs affe ct s USERRA co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha r g e la w,
Lis da hl ’s cl ai m st il l fai ls

. The bu rd en was on hi m to sh ow th at hi s st at us as a ve te ran

was a m ot iv at in g fact or in hi s co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e. S e e M a x f i e l d II at 69 4;

Kno wl es , 14 2 F.3 d at 10 85 -8 6; 38 U.S.C. § 43 11 (a ) (p ro hi bi ti ng on ly di sc riminat io n

ag ai ns t un ifo rm ed se rv ic e m em be rs “ on th e ba si s of th at m em be rs hi p, ap pl ic at io n fo r

m em be rs hi p, pe rfo rm an ce of se rv ic e, ap pl ic at io n fo r se rv ic e, or ob li ga ti on ”)
(em ph as is ad de d)

. Lik ewis e, th e b u r d e n was on Lis da hl to de m on st rat e th at hi s

wor ki ng co nd it io ns at Go ld Cro ss were o bjec ti ve ly int ol erab le

. Kno wl es , 14 2 F .3d

at 10 86

. The di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact ex pr es sl y reject Lis da hl ’s co nt en ti on th at

-9

-an y pu rp or te d di sc ha rg e by Gol d Cro ss was m ot iv at ed by an ti -v et eran an im us , or th at

th e c o nd it io ns at Gol d Cro ss were ob jecti ve ly in to le rab le

. Thi s co nc lu si on is

well -s up po rte d by th e reco rd be fo re the di st ric t co ur t. The ev id en ce sh owe d at be st

a pe rs on al it y co nf

li ct be twee n Jo hn s o n a n d Li sd ah l. Howev er, as in Tit le VII,

“ [p ]etty sl ig ht s an d m in or an no y an ces in th e wor kp l a c e , a s well as pe rs on al it y

co nf li ct s an d sn ub s by co -wo rk ers , are no t act io na bl e.” Sut her la nd v. Mo

. Dep ’t of

Co rr ect io ns , 58 0 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Rev ie win g th e reco rd as a who le an d

co ns tru in g USERRA br oa dl y , th is co ur t ag rees wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n

th at th ere i s i n s uf

fic ie nt ev id en ce th at Lis da hl ex pe rie nc ed ob jecti ve ly in to le rab le

wor ki ng c o n d i t i on s up on hi s ret ur n to Gol d Cro ss , or th at Gol d Cro ss to ok an y

act io ns ag ai ns t h im

on th e b as is of v et eran st at us

.

Fu rth er, co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m s fai l as a m at te r of l a w w h e re th e

em pl oyee ha s no t gi ve n th e em pl oyer a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to co rrec t th e

in to le rab le co nd it io n be fo re th e em pl oyee qu it s. Se e And

a v. Wi ck es Fur ni tu re Co

. , 51 7 F.3 d 52 6, 53 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); Kno wl es , 14 2 F.3 d at 10 86 (n ot in g th at an

em pl oyee’s du ty to act in a reas on ab le m an ne r in cl ud es an ob li ga ti on no t to as su m e

th e wor st an d jum

p to co nc lu si on s) ; Tid

wel l v. Mey er ’s Ba ke ri es

, In c. , 93 F.3 d 49 0,

49 4 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ An em pl oyee who qu it s wit ho ut gi vi ng hi s em pl oyer a

reas on ab le ch an ce to wor k ou t a pr ob le m ha s no t be en co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed .”).

In th is cas e, Lis da hl to ok m ed ic al le av e an d ne ve r ret ur ne d to Gol d Cro ss

. Dur in g hi s

em pl oym en t at Gol d Cro ss aft er ret ur ni ng fro m Iraq

, he ne ve r fil ed an y gr ie va nc es or

v oi ced an y co nc ern s to Gol d Cro ss ab ou t th e al le ge d m is tre at m en t by Jo hn so n.

In st ead

, Lis da hl si m

pl y res ig ne d, of

feri ng a r e as on in swo rn st at em en ts th at is

in co ns is te nt wit h th e ex pl an at io n he no w s u b mi t s

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

ru li ng th at Lis da hl was n ot co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed

.

III.

Am en do la an d Swo r ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to

Gol d Cro ss an d Jo hn so n on th ei r USERRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s. Su m m a ry jud gm en t

-1 0-is ap pr op ria te whe n th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g pa rty

is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c). Thi s co ur t revi ews

a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , dr a w i n g al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es , wit ho ut res or t to sp ecu la ti on , in fav or of th e no n- m ov in g pa rty. Se e Hi tt

v. Ha rs co Co rp

. , 35 6 F.3 d 92 0, 92 3- 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Onl y ge nu in e di sp ut es ov er

fact s th at m ig ht affe ct th e ou tc om e o f t h e s u it wil l pr ecl ud e th e en try of su m m ary jud gm en t. And

er so n v

. Li b e r t

y Lo bb y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 24 2, 24 8 (1 98 6)

. A di sp ut e
ab ou t a m at eri al f

a c t is “ ge nu in e” if a reas on ab le jury co ul d ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r th e

no nm ov in g p art y

. Id

.

USERRA pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m di sc riminat in g in em pl oym en t or ta ki ng

“ an y ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n” ag ai n s t an y pe rs on be cau se th e pe rs on : “ (1 ) ha s

ta ke n an act io n to en fo rce a pr ot ect io n affo rd ed an y pe rs on un de r th is ch ap te r, (2 ) ha s

te st ifi ed or ot he rwis e m ad e a st at em en t in or in co nn ect io n wit h an y pr oc eed in g un de r

th is ch ap te r, (3 ) ha s as si st ed or ot he rwis e pa rti ci pa te d in an in ve st ig at io n un de r th is

c h a p t e r , or (4 ) ha s ex erci se d a rig ht pr ov id ed fo r in th is ch ap te r.” 38 U.S. C

. §

43 11 (b) ( e mph as is ad de d)

. Thi s pr oh ib it io n ap pl ie s wit ho ut reg ard to whe th er th e

pe rs on se rv ed in th e un ifo rm ed se rv ic es

. Id

. An em pl oyer vi ol at es USERRA whe n

an em pl oyee’s pr ot ect ed act io n (s uc h as m ak in g a st at em en t in su pp or t of a ve te ran ’s

di sc riminat io n cl ai m ) is a m ot iv at in g f a c t o r in th e em

pl oyer’s a dv ers e em

pl oym en t

act io n , u n le ss th e em

pl oyer pr ov es th at th e act io n wou ld ha ve be en ta ke n in th e

ab se nc e o f th e em

pl oyee’s pro te ct ed co nd uc t. 38 U.S.C. § 43 11 (c)

.

Am en do la an d Swo r arg ue t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t in co rrec tl y ap pl ie d th e

“ m at eri al ly ad ve rs e” st an da rd fro m Title V II j ur isp ru de nc e in de ci ding th ei r USERRA

ret al ia ti on cl ai m s. To es ta bl is h a ret al ia ti on cl ai m un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts

Act of 19 64 (wh ic h fo rb id s em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n ba se d on an in di vi du al ’s race ,

co lo r, rel ig io n, se x, o r n at io na l or ig in ), a pl ai nt iff m us t de m on st rat e th at an
ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le em

pl oyee wou ld ha ve fo un d th e ch al le ng ed act io n “ m at eri al ly

ad ve rs e.” Bur li ng to n N. & Sa nt a Fe Ry. Co

. v. Wh i t e , 54 8 U.S. 53

, 68 (2 00 6)

.

-1 1-“ Mat eri al ly ad v e r s e” m ean s th e ret al ia to ry act “ m ig ht ha ve di ss ua de d a reas on ab le

wor ke r fro m m ak in g or su pp or ti ng a ch a r g e of di sc riminat io n.” Id

. (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Mi no r sl ig ht s an d d i s a gr eem en ts wit h

su pe rv is or s are no t pr ot ect ed by Tit le VII. Se e id

. The req u i r em en t of m at eri al it y

se pa rat es act io na bl e, si gn ifi can t ha rm fro m tri vi al ha rm s. Se e id

. (n ot in g th at Tit le

VII do es no t s e t f

or th “ a ge ne ral ci vi li ty co de fo r th e Am eri can wor kp la ce,” no r

pr ot ect ag ai ns t “ th e o rd in ary tri bu la ti on s o f th e wor kp la ce”) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Am e n d o l a an d Swo r arg ue th at th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e an ti -ret al ia ti on

pr ov is io n of USERRA pr ohi bit s “ any ad ve rs e em plo y m en t act io n,” no t an y mat er ia ll y

ad ve rs e act io n. 38 U.S.C. § 43 11 (b) (em ph as is ad de d) . Tru e, 38 U.S.C. § 4 31 1( b)

pr oh ib it s “ an y ” ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n—

bu t it st i l l req ui res an “ ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n,” a t e rm us ed th ro ug ho ut Tit le VII juri sp ru de nc e to de no te a

si gn ifi can t in

jury or ha rm

. Se e Cl eg g , 49 6 F.3 d at 92 6 (d efi ni ng “ ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n” as a “ ta ng ib le ch an ge in wor ki n g c o n di ti on s th at pr od uc es a

m at eri al em

pl oym en t di sa dv an ta ge ” s u c h as te rm in at io n, cu ts in pa y or be ne fit s, or
ch an ge s th at affe ct an em

pl oyee’s fu tu re care er pr os pe ct s, bu t no t “ m in or ch an ge s in

du ti es or wo rk in g c on di ti on s, ev en un pa la ta bl e o r un welc om e o ne s” ) (ci ta ti on s an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. In Bur li ng to n , th e Co ur t es ta bl is he d th e st an da rd

fo r re ta li at io n cl ai m s un de r Tit le VII, di st in gu is hi ng th e ret al ia ti on st an da rd (4 2

U.S.C. § 20 00 -e3 ) fro m th e di sc riminat io n st an da rd (4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 -e2 ). Se e

Bur li ng to n , 54 8 U.S. at 61 -6 7. Al t h o ug h th e di sc riminat io n pr ov is io n ex pl ic it ly

li m it s act io na bl e ha rm to act io ns “ th at affe ct e mp l o y m en t or al te r th e co nd it io ns of

th e wor kp la ce,” th e ret al ia t o r y a c t i o ns pr oh ib it ed by Tit le VII are br oa de r an d no t

li m it ed to ha rm s th at are em pl oym en t-r el at ed

—b ut ev en act io na bl e ret al ia ti on m us t

be “ m at eri al ly ad ve rs e.” Bur li ng to n , 54 8 U.S. at 62 -6 8 (n ot in g th at Tit le VII’s an ti

ret al ia ti on p r ov is io n “ pr ot ect s an in di vi du al no t fro m al l ret al ia ti on , bu t fro m

ret al ia ti on th at pr od uc es an in jury or ha rm ,” an d th at an em pl oyee’s de ci si on to rep or t

di sc riminat io n “ can no t im m un iz e t h a t em

pl oyee fro m th os e pe tt y sl ig ht s or m in or

an no y an ces th at oft en tak e p la ce at work an d t ha t al l em pl oyees e xp eri en ce”)

.

-1 2-Si m il arl y , th e an ti -ret al ia ti on pr ot ect io ns of USERRA do no t pr ov id e a rem ed y

fo r tri vi al ha rm s. As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d: “ Eve ry co ur t th at ha s e x a mi ne d th e

qu es ti on —at le as t ev ery d eci si on ci te d b y t h e pa rti es or lo cat ed by t hi s Co ur t in it s

own res earc h— of whe th er th ere is a m at eri al it y req ui rem en t in USERRA ha s he ld

th at th ere is .” Se e, e.g

. , Cr ews v. Ci ty of Mt

. V er no n , 56 7 F. 3 d 86 0, 86 9 (7 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (aft er rev ie win g th e m at eri al it y req ui rem en t in Tit le VII re t a l i a t i on act io ns , ho ld in g: “ The re is no reas on to un de rs ta nd ‘adv ers e em pl oym en t act io n’ di ffer en tl y

in th e USERRA co nt ex t.”) ; se e al so Cl eg g , 49 6 F

. 3 d at 93 0 (ack no wled gi ng th at

cl ai m s un de r USERRA do no t fo ll ow th e th ree- st ep fram e w o r k se t fo rth in

McDo nn el l Dou gl as , bu t no ti ng th at “ th e e mp l oyee m us t st il l ha ve su ffer ed an
ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n in or de r to su ccee d on a cl ai m .”). As th e Sev en th Ci rcu it

no te d i n Cr ews , “ te xt ua l di ffer en ces be twee n th e an ti -ret al ia ti on pr ov is io ns of Tit le

VII an d USERRA su gg es t th at th e la tt er ha s a m or e li m it ed sc op e.” Cr ews , 56 7 F.3 d

at 86 9. Un li ke th e si tu at io n i n Bur li ng to n , no co m pa rab le te xt ua l di st in ct io n ex is ts

be twee n USERRA’s an ti -d is cri m in at io n pr ov is io n, 38 U.S.C. § 4 3 1 1 ( a )

, an d th e

an ti -ret al ia ti on pr ov is io n, § 43 11 (b ). USERRA’s an ti -ret al ia ti on pr ov is io n ex pr es sl y

li m it s act io na bl e ha rm to “ ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n,” no t t h e br oa de r

“ di sc riminat io n” pro hi bi te d b y Tit le VII’s an ti -ret al ia ti on pro vi si on

.

In hi s affi da vi t, Am en do la as se rts th e fo ll owi ng ret al ia ti on : (1 ) Jo hn so n de ni ed

hi m va cat io n t im e an d t hr eat en ed hi m wit h a rev is ed sch ed ul e d es ig ne d t o d en y th e

us e of e a r ne d va cat io n ti m e; (2 ) Jo hn so n in di rect ly co m m un ic at ed th reat s to hi m

th ro ug h a su bo rd in at e reg ard in g hi s job se cu rit y aft er he ob jecte d to an y ch an ge in hi s

es ta bl is he d sc he du le ; (3 ) Jo hn so n req ui red Am en do la

, an as si st an t cap ta in

, to at te nd

cap ta in m eet in gs (cap ta in s su pe rv is e th e pa ram ed ic s as si gn ed to th ei r sh ift s; as si st an t

te am cap ta in s ac t as cap ta in s wh en th e sh ift cap ta in is away ); ( 4) Jo hn so n rid ic ul ed

hi m in fro nt of ot he r em

pl oyees; (5 ) Jo hn so n de ni ed hi m pa id ov ert im e to ad dr es s

sa fet y is su es in hi s cap aci ty as vo lu nt eer sa fet y of fic er, an un pa i d p o si ti on at Gol d

Cro ss ; (6 ) Jo hn so n rid ic ul ed an d be li tt le d hi s wor k on an nu al sa fet y in sp ect io ns ; (7 )

-1 3-Jo hn so n ig no red hi m in th e pr es en ce of ot he r em pl oyees; an d (8 ) Jo hn so n rai se d hi s

vo ic e an d s po ke an gr il y

to ward hi m

du rin g m eet in gs

.

At hi s de po si ti on , Am en do la de sc rib e d t he di sp ut e ab ou t va cat io n ti m e as
rel at ed to sch ed ul in g m at te rs , and sa id th at Jo hn so n ha d no t ta ke n an y act io n ab ou t

hi s sc he du li ng

. Am en do la ack no wled ge d th at th e cap ta in m eet in gs were ch an ge d to

a da y th at be tt er acco m

m od at ed hi s sc he du le

, an d te st ifi ed th at he ha s, “ [f]or th e m os t

pa rt,” be en ab le to ad dr es s sa fet y is su es d u r i n g h i s reg ul ar sh ift

. Am en do la

ack no wled ge d th at he ha s no t be en di sc ip li ne d si nc e Lis da hl ret ur ne d from m il it ary
le av e, si nc e Lis da hl ’s la wsu it be ga n, or si nc e hi s own la wsu it co m m en ced

. He al so

te st ifi ed th at he ha s n ot ex pe rie nc ed an y fin an ci al ha rm

fro m Jo hn so n’s ac ti on s.

In hi s affi da vi t, Swo r cl ai m s th e fo ll owi ng ret al ia ti on : (1 ) Jo hn so n th reat en ed

to ta ke away hi s co m

pa ny cel l ph on e fo r rep eat ed ly vi ol at in g a res tri ct io n on us e; (2 )

Jo hn so n sen t accu sa to ry an d th reat en in g e-m ai ls rel at ed to in co ns eq ue nt ia l m at te rs ; (3 ) Jo hn so n an gr il y to ld hi m th at he ha d no rig ht to co py ot he r em pl oyees on e-m ai ls

,

an d req ui red hi m to si gn a co rrec ti ve act io n; (4 ) Jo hn so n be li tt le d an d de m ean ed hi m
du rin g cap ta in m eet in gs ; (5 ) Jo hn so n refu se d hi s req ue st fo r an in te rim as si st an t te am

cap ta in to ta ke Lis da hl ’s pl ace whe n Lis da hl to ok m ed ic al le av e (Lis d a h l w a s hi s

as si st an t ca pt ai n) ; an d (6 ) Jo hn so n c reat ed an atm os ph ere o f fea r an d i nt im id at io n.

W it h reg ard to Swo r’s co m pl ai nt ab ou t t he cel l p ho ne , J oh ns on ha d im po se d

a 50 0- m in ut e li m it pe r m on th on al l co m pa ny cel l ph on es

. Swo r rep eat ed ly ex ceed ed

th e li m it

, an d Jo hn so n rem in de d hi m of it an d as ke d hi m to a b i d e b y i t

. Swo r was

al lo wed to ke ep a co m

pa ny cel l ph on e. As to Swo r’s e-m ai ls to ot he r em pl oyees an d

th e co rrec ti ve act io n, Jo hn so n an d Swo r ex ch an ge d e-m ai ls whe th er a carp et sh ou ld

be cl ean ed or rep la ced

. Jo hn so n th ou gh t it sh ou ld be cl ean ed ; Swo r th ou gh t it sh ou ld

be rep la ced

. S w o r e-m ai le d ot he r em pl oyees to so li ci t th ei r th ou gh ts

. Jo hn so n’s

su pe rio rs rece i v ed th e e-m ai l, fo un d it in ap pr op ria te

, an d di rect ed Jo hn so n to

di sc ip li ne hi m

. The two m et

, Swo r si gn ed a co rrec ti ve act io n, an d th en Jo hn so n

-1 4-co nc lu de d th at co rrec ti ve act io n was no t ne ces s a ry an d de st ro y ed th e co rrec ti ve

act io n. As to th e as si s t a n t t e am cap ta in

, Jo hn so n ack no wled ge d refu si ng to al lo w

Swo r to na m e an ass is ta nt tea m cap ta in whi le Lis da hl was o n m ed ic al lea ve

.

App lying th e m at eri al ad ve rs it y st an da rd to th e cl ai m s of Am en do la an d Swo r,

th e act io ns of whi ch Am en do la an d Swo r co m pl ai n do no t ris e to th e l e v e l of

act io na bl e ret al ia ti on . Thes e are th e ga rd en -v ari et y co m pl ai nt s ab ou t m in or sl ig ht s

an d di sa gr eem en ts wit h su pe rv is or s th at are no t pr ot ect ed b y U SERRA. A fed eral

co ur t do es no t si t as a su pe r-p ers on ne l de pa rtment th at ov ers ees a co m pa ny’ s ge ne ral

em pl o ym e n t pr act ic es an d gu aran te es to each em pl oyee a ge ni al bo ss

. Se e, e.g

. , Gil be rt v. Des Mo in es Ar ea Cm ty

. Co ll

. , 49 5 F.3 d 90 6, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Ha rv ey

v

. A nheu se r-

Bus ch, In c. , 38 F.3 d 96 8, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Bec au se t h e

“ ret al ia ti on s” cl ai m ed by Amen d o l a an d Swo r were no t m at eri al ly ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng Gol d Cro s s an d

Jo hn so n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-