2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-4-2009 

# P ark e r v . V e ri zon P A Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4829

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P arke r v . V e ri z on P A Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1924. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1924T he H onor abl e Thom as N . O ’ N ei l l , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4829 RA Y A . PARK ER; CA ULETTE PARK ER

v. V E R IZ O N P E N N S Y L V A N IA , IN C .; KI M BE RL Y K. ONE S KO; GE OR GE ONE S KO R ayA . P ark er, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- 00435) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber2, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

O ’ N E I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge

*The District Court dismissed without prejudice Parker’s state la w claim of tre spass but 1 the dismissal of this claim is notan issue on appe al. 2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed February4, 2009)

OP I NI ON O ’ N E I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge A p p e llan t R a yA . P a rk e r a p p e a ls f ro m a n o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof appe l l ee V er i zon Penns y l vani a I ncorpor at ed on hi s empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on a n d r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms u n d e rth e Ame r i c a n s wi th Di s a b i l i t i e s Ac t( ADA ) , 4 2 U. S . C. §§ 12101, ets eq. , and hi s i nt er fer ence and r et al i at i on cl ai m s underthe Fami l yM edi cal L e a v e A c t (F M L A ), 2 9 U .S .C . § § 2 6 0 1 , et s e q . F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill 1 a f f ir m . I. B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , o u r f

a c tu a l su m m a ryis b rie f. T h e se f a c ts a re v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to P a rk e r, w h o w a s h ire d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 to w or k i n V er i zon’ s R obi ns on T ow ns hi p C al l C ent eras a C us t om erSal es and Servi ce C o n su lt an t. H is prim aryjob d u tyw as to an sw er telep h o n e c all s fro m V erizo n cu stom ers w ith s e rv ic e o r b illin g is s u e s a n d e n te r t h e re le v a n t in f o rm a tio n in to a c o m p u te r. In A u g u st 2 0 0 4 , P a rk e r’s tre a tin g p h y sic ian , D r. K a m les h B . G o sa i, dia g n o se d h im w ith sarc o ido sis, an au toim m u n e d isease ca u sing inf lam ati o n o f th e lun g s, an d p u lm o n ary fi br os i s , the form at i on of s cart i s s ue i n the l ungs cr eat i ng an i nabi l i tyt o excha nges gas esAs explained by appellants, Verizon contracts with MetLife to administer all employee 2 disability and re striction claims. Verizon defers to MetL ife’s de cisions with reg ard to a ny restric tions which areplace d on the employee’ s ability to perfor m his or her job. Verizon employees w ith medical problems are re fer red to MetLife, a

nd MetL ife g ather s information on the employee’ s medical problem and conveys the employee’ s restrictions to Verizon. 3 re s u ltin g in h yp o x e m ia . T h is c o n d itio n a f f e c te d P a rk e r’ s a b ility to b re a th e a n d ta lk . T h i s s a me mo n th , h e b e g a n h i s f i r s to f th r e e s h o r t - t e r m d i s a b i l i tyl e a v e s . He re tu rn e d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 to th e sa m e jo b . H e b e g a n h is s e c o n d sh o rt-te rm d isa b ili ty le a v e s h o rt ly th e re a f

te r a n d re tu rn e d to w o rk in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 5 . Pr i ort o Par ker ’ s r eturn i n February2005, D r . G os ai s enta l ett ert o V er i zon 2 r e c o m m e n d i n g th a t : ( 1 ) P a r k e rb e p e r m i t t e d t o w o r k a s h o r t e rw o r k w e e k a n d w o r k d a y; (2) P ark er b e a ssign ed w o rk th at do es n o t i n v o lve talkin g o n the telep h o n e; (3) P ark er’s comm ut e be s hor t ened; and ( 4) Par keri ni t i al l yw or k thr ee da y s perw eek w i th one dayoff i n betw een e ach da y . O nes ko, an abs ence admi ni s tr at or , s poke t o Par keraboutthe r eques t ed ac comm odat i ons . Par kerw as gi ven a r educe d s chedul e of f ew erhour s eac h dayi ns t ead of

w or ki ng thr ee da y s w i th a dayoff i n betw een. Par kerw as pl ace d i n an “off -l i ne” p osi t i on w here he w as r equ i red t o input cust om er i nfo rm at i on i nto a dat abase butno ext ernal ori nt ernal cus t om ercont actw as r equi r ed. V er i zon di d nottr ans ferPar ker to V e riz o n ’s G re e n sb u rg o r U n io n to w n f a c ili ties to a c c o m m o d a te a sh o rte r c o m m u te b e c a u s e it d e e m e d th e re q u e s t u n re la te d to P a rk e r’ s a b ility to p e rf o rm h is jo b . Par kerr eques t ed a tr ans fert o a l es s phy s i cal l ydemandi ng j ob i n the s pr i ng of 2005. I n M ay2005, Par kerl earned of a pos i t i on i n the G r eens bur g offi ce f orempl oy ees w ith m ed ical restr ict ion s tha t al low ed cu stom er c o n tact bu t no sales. P ark er c o n tacted D r.4

G os ai , w ho change d Par ker ’ s r es tr i ct i ons t o al l ow cus t om ercont actw i th no s al es . Par ker te s tif ie d th a t th is c h a n g e w a s d u e to a s lig h t s ta b iliz a tio n o f h is c o n d itio n . I n N ovember2005, Par kerw as deni ed a s chedul ed payr ai s e. H e fi l ed a gr i evanc e a n d re c e iv e d th e p a yra is e . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , P a rk e r b e g a n h is th ird lea v e o f a b se n c e a n d re tu rn e d to w o rk in February2006 w i th r es tr i ct i ons ; he w as nott o t al k on the t el ephone ort o have c us t om er co n tact. U p o n h is r eturn , P ark er c lai m s tha t B rog g i y ell ed at him in f ron t of co -w o rke rs aft erl earni ng of hi s r es tr i ct i ons and tr i ed t o for ce hi m t o r es i gn. Par keral l eges that B r oggi y el l ed that“thi s i s a ca l l cent erand i f y ou can’ tt ake c al l s then w e have nothi ng fory ou t o do. ” H e cl ai m s thatB r oggi r epea t edl yas ked hi m i f he w as t el l i ng herthathe w as r es i gni ng. W hen Parkert ol d herthathe di d noti nt end t o r es i gn, Par keral l eges t hat B r oggi s ai d “i f y ou’ r e nott aki ng cal l s ther e’ s no w or k fory ou t o do her e s o y ou m us tbe t el l i ng m e thaty ou’ r e r es i gni ng. ” Parkerw as agai n r es tr i ct ed fr om havi ng cus t om er c o n ta c t o r s a le s . T he nextdayPar kerw as as s i gned t o the “of f- l i ne” gr oup of r es tr i ct ed empl oy ees thathad bee n t r ans ferr ed t o V er i zon’ s W as hi ngt on, Penns y l vani a fa ci l i ty , w hi ch w as c lo se r to h is h o m e . A F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 e m a il fro m n o n -d e c isio n m a k e r O n e sk o to d e c isio n m a k e r B ro g g i an d N e lso n sta ted : “I se e - a ttac h e d b e lo w - th a t [ P a rk e r] h a s h is re stric tio n s b a c k . I re a llyh a te to se n d h im to th e W a sh in g to n o f f ice , b e c a u se h e liv e s in B ent l eyvi l l e. ” O nes ko admi t t ed thats he made thi s comm entbeca us e s he w as frus tr at ed5

w ith P a rk e r. In Ju lyo r A u g u st 2 0 0 6 , P a rk e r p u rc h a se d a n d w a s c o n stru c tin g a ra n c h -sty le m odul arhom e bec aus e of hi s di ffi cul tyi n cl i m bi ng s t ai r s . D ur i ng the cons truct i on, P a rk e r l iv e d w ith h is a u n t w h o s e h o m e w a s th re e b lo c k s f ro m th e s ite o f

h is n e w h o m e . O n Sept ember14, 2006, Par kercal l ed i n s i ck at7: 45 a. m . H e t es t i fi ed thathe had ta k e n h is m e d ic in e th e n ig h t b e f o re a n d h a d n a u s e a a n d d ia rr h e a th ro u g h th e n ig h t. Par kerw entt o t he cons truct i on s i t e of hi s new hom e. H i s w i fe, C aul ett e Parker , had t aken a hal f- dayoff f

r om w or k and cons truct i on w or ker s and C aul ett e Parker ’ s father w e re s c h e d u le d to b e w o rk in g o n th e h o u s e th a t d a y . A ndr ew R obert s s aw Par keratthe cons truct i on s i t e and c al l ed hi s w i fe, V er i zon m a n a g e r D e b ra R o b e rt s , to in f o rm h e r t h a t h e s a w P a rk e r u n lo a d in g m a te ri a ls f ro m a v a n . P a rk e r d e n ied h e lp in g to m o v e m a ter ials o r d o in g w o rk o n th e h o u se . D e b ra R o b e rts comm uni cat ed herhus band’ s obs ervat i ons t o O nes ko and Sus an N el s on, anotherabs ence admi ni s tr at or . O nes ko and N el s on deci ded thatO nes ko w oul d conducta home vi s i t , and O nes ko as ked herhus band G eor ge O nes ko t o acc om panyher . O nes ko obs erved Parkerat the cons truct i on s i t e, and af t erconfe rr i ng w i th V er i zon LaborR el at i ons M anage rC i ndy M ar i nar i deci ded t o appr oach hi m . O nes ko cl ai m s thats he hea r d an el ectr i c s aw bei ng us ed i n the bas ementand thatPar kercame up fr om the bas ementper s pi r i ng and w i pi ng hi s hands on a r ag. O nes ko pr epar ed a typed mem or andum of t he eve nt s thatnot ed that “[a ] tthi s poi ntthe s aw s t opped runni ng. ” I n thei rconver s at i on, Par kert ol d O nes ko t hat6

h e w a s f e e lin g b e tte r b u t n o t w e ll e n o u g h to g o in to w o rk . O n Sept ember15, 2006, Par kerw as s us pended f r om empl oym entpendi ng fur ther i nves t i gat i on of pot ent i al fal s i fi cat i on of hi s m edi cal condi t i on. O n Sept ember26, 2006, m anage m entempl oy ees Susa n N el s on, C i ndyM ar i nar i , R or i B r oggi and M i chae l B i l l ups d e c id e d to d isc h a rg e P a rk e r b a se d o n h is m isre p re se n tatio n o f h is h e a lth c o n d iti o n in v io latio n o f

V e riz o n ’s C o d e o f

B u sin e ss C o n d u c t. V e riz o n ’s C o d e o f B u sin e ss C o n d u c t, S ect i on 3. 3. 1 C om pan yB enef i t s, st at es: V er i zon’ s benef

i t s pl ans and pr ogr ams ar e pr ovi ded as compensa t i on and m us tbe us ed hones t l y . Y ou m us tnotm i s r epr es enty ourheal th s t atus , y our cover ed mem ber s , y ourbenef i ci ar i es , oranyotherfac t s , i ncl udi ng r eas ons fo r ab sen ce , in o rde r t o claim b en ef it s to w h ich y o u , o r som eo n e e lse, are e n title d . P a rk e r d isa g re e s th a t h e m isre p re se n ted h is h e a lth c o n d iti o n . H e a lso tes tifie d in h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e c o u ld n o t “th in k o f a n y ” in sta n c e w h e re V e riz o n p e rso n n e l re f u se d to d i s c u s s a n yr e a s o n a b l e a c c o mmo d a t i o n s wi th h i m. P ark er f il ed a c o m p lai n t w ith the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia. O n N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f V e riz o n o n a ll cla im s. T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t P a rk e r f a iled to e sta b lish a p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

d isa b ili tyd isc rim in a tio n u n d e r th e A D A . T h e C o u rt h e ld thatPar kerar guabl yes t abl i s hed thathe w as di s abl ed and a qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual butthathe “present ed n o ev i den ce t o creat e a m at eri al i ssue of fac tthat he suffered an adv ers e e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n a s a re su lt o f d isc rim in a tio n ” b yV e riz o n ’s te rm in a tio n o f h is7

e mp l o yme n t , i t s f

a i l u r e t o a c c o mm o d a t e h i s d i s a b i l i tyo ri t s f a i l u r e t o e n g a g e i n th e ADA in ter a c tiv e p ro c e ss in g o o d f a ith . D e sp ite f

in d in g th a t P a rk e r f

a iled to m a k e a p rim a f

a c ie s how i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tal t ernat i vel yfound thatPar kerfai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci ent e v id e n c e th a t V e riz o n ’s r e a so n f o r d isc h a rg in g h im w a s p re tex tu a l. T h e C o u rt a lso h e ld thatPar kerfai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on beca us e he f ai l ed t o pr es ent s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

a c a u s a l lin k b e tw e e n h is p ro te c te d a c tiv ity a n d h is te rm in a tio n . T he C our thel d t hatPar ker ’ s FM L A i nt er fer ence cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e he pr es ent ed no evi dence thatV er i zon i nt er fer ed w i th hi s FM L A r i ght s and V er i zon w as m or e than r eas onabl e i n i t s acc om m odat i on of hi s condi t i ons . Fi nal l y , the C our tdi s m i s s ed the s t at ela w tr e s p a s s c la im w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . P a rk e r t h e re a f

te r t im e ly ap p e a le d . II. Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s d i v e r s i tya c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe fi nal or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm ent . N B T B ank N at ’ l A s s oc. v. Fi r s tN at ’ l C om m . B ank, 393 F. 3d 404, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “A ffi r m i ng the gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s pr operw her e ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law .” Id . (cita tio n o m itt e d ). W e re so lv e a ll fa c tu a l d o u b ts a n d d ra w a ll rea so n a b leParker has not appe aled the D istrict Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of 3 Veri zonfo r his ADAdis c rimin atio n f ailureto ac c omm od atec laim. Hi s b ri e f doe s n ot a rguethi s c laim. Ins te a d, theAD A disc rimin atio n s e c tio n o f his b ri e f a rgue s o nly

that V e ri zonfaile d to eng ag e in the interactive proc ess in g ood faith and that his termination was prete x tual. There fore , this iss ue has be en waived on appe al and weneed not c onsider it. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 ( 3d Cir. 1993), holding that a failure under Fe deral Rule of Appe llateProc e du

re28 (a)( 3) and

(5 ) a nd Th ird Circuit

L oc a l App e llateRul e28 .1 (a) to s e t f or th the issues raise d on appeal and to present an argument in support of those issues in an opening brief results in waiver of

the issues on appe al. 8 i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng party . See D L R es . I nc. v. Fi r s t E ner gySol ut i ons C o rp., 5 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 9 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . Par keral l eges thatV er i zon di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m underthe A D A by d i s c h a r g i n g h i m a n d b yf a i l i n g t o e n g a g e i n th e i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s a n d u n d e rth e FM LA 3 b yin ter f e rin g w ith h is rig h ts w h e n it t e rm in a ted h im ra th e r th a n re sto rin g h im to h is p o sitio n a f

ter h e to o k F M L A lea v e . P a rk e r a lso a lleg e s th a t V e riz o n d isc h a rg e d h im in r e t a l i a t i o n f

o re n g a g i n g i n p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i tyu n d e rth e ADA a n d F M L A. A . Par ker ’ s D i s cr i m i nat i on and R et al i at i on C l ai m s I nvol vi ng hi s T erm i nat i on W e appl ythe fa m i l i arbur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k s etfor th i n M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. G r een, 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973) , t o di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai m s underthe A D A and the FM L A . U nderthi s s cheme: ( 1) pl ai nt i ff be ar s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on; ( 2) the bur den of pr oduct i on then s hi ft s t o defe ndant t o art i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on; a n d ( 3 ) i f d e f e n d a n tm e e t s i t s b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n , p l a i n t i f

f m u s tp r o v e b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatdefe ndant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on w as a pr et extforAlthough theDistrict Court found that Parker did not establish a prima facie c ase f or 4 these c laims, for Parker’s AD A discrimination claim it alternatively considere d whether

Parker established that Verizon’s reason f or Parker’s ter

mination was prete x tual. Parker alleg es that the evidenc e of pretext he produce d for his ADAdiscrimination claim also applies to his other claims. Be causethe District Court would have be en justified in grantingsummary judgment on each claim involving his termination on the ground that Parker failed to establish proof of p re t ex t , we wi l lad dre s s th es e c l ai m s t o geth er atth e p re t ex ts t age . S ee Do rs ey v . P i tt s b urgh Assoc., 90 F ed. Appx. 636, 637 (3d Cir. 2004), aff irming theDistrict Court’s opinion but on alternative prete x t grounds, not the failureto establish a prima facie c ase grounds the District Court found. Parker ’s FMLA interferenc e claim and ADA f ailure to eng ag e in the interactive proce ss claim will be addre ssed sepa rate ly , as these c laims do not concer n Parker ’s termination. Parker arg ues that Verizon waived its right to move for summary judgment on his ADA 5 retaliation claim beca

use it was raised for thefirst time in Verizon’s reply brief to the D istrict Court. Parker c oncede s that the same evidenceof pre textapplies to his ADA retaliation claim as his FMLA re taliation claim and therefore he ha s not been pre judiced even if Verizon’s mot ion did not clearly

argue the AD A re taliation claim when it moved for summary judgment on all of his claims. Moreover , Parker filed a sur-reply

brief which addressed this issue. See Salazar v. City of Phila., 2007 WL1847402, at *1 n.5 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2007), holdingthat even ha ving the opportunity

to file a sur- reply

is sufficient to allow consideration of a claim first brief

ed in a reply . Addition a lly, Pa

rke r’ s c laim that th eDi stric t Co ur t di d n ot p roperly

a dd re ss t his c laim in its opini on fails. In discussing retaliation, the District Court mentioned that Verizon “had been a c c omm od atin gParke r’ s alle g e d disa bil iti e s f or a pp ro ximate ly

tw o ye ars prior

to his 9 d is c ri m in a tio n . M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s , 4 1 1 U .S . a t 8 0 2 . As s u mi n g th a tPa r k e re s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e f

o rh i s AD A an d FM LA di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai m s i nvol vi ng hi s empl oym entt erm i nat i on, V er i zon met 4 it s b u rde n o f d em o n str ati n g a leg it im ate, no n d iscri m inato ryjusti fica ti o n fo r P ark er’s di s char ge w i th evi dence thatPar kerw as t erm i nat ed form i s r epr es ent i ng hi s heal th s t atus i n v i ol a t i on of

V e r i z on ’ s Code of

Bus i ne s s Condu c t . Se e M c D on ne l l D ou gl a s , 41 1 U. S. a t 8 0 2 ; F u e n tes v . P e rsk ie, 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). P a rk e r a rg u e s th a t th is j us t i fi cat i on i s pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. M cD onnel l D ougl as , 411 U . S. at804. 5terminatio n. ”Altho ugh th eretaliatio n s e c tio n’ s a nalysis wa s b ri e f a

nd theAD A re taliatio n c laim appea rs to be integrate d with the FMLA re taliation claim, Parker offered identical evidenc e for both claims and the overall opinion from the District Court there foreestablishes that Parker’s ADA retaliation claim fails. 10 T o s how pr et ext , Par kerm us tpr es ent“s om e evi dence . . . fr om w hi ch a f act fi nder coul d r eas onabl yei ther( 1) di s bel i eve the empl oy er ' s art i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons ; or( 2) bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng or d eterm inative c au se o f th e e m p loy er' s ac ti o n . ” F u en tes, 3 2 F . 3 d at 76 4 -65 ; see a lso T o rre v. C as i o, I nc. , 42 F. 3d 825, 830 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . T o di s cr edi tthe pr offe r ed r eas on, Par ker cann ot s i m plyshow that the em ploy er' s deci si on w as w rong o r m i st aken bu tm ust demonstr at e s uch w eakne s s es , i m pl aus i bi 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 in th e e m p lo y e r' s p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s f o r its a c tio n th a t a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d r at i onal l yfi nd them “unw or thyof cr edenc e” a nd hence i nfer th a t th e e m p lo y e r w a s n o t a c tu a lly m o tiv a te d b yits p ro f f e re d n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n . Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at765, ci t i ng E zol d v. W ol f, B l ock, Shor r& Sol i s - C ohen, 983 F. 2d 509, 531 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . T o s how thatdi s cr i m i nat i on w as m or e l i kel ythan nota mot i vat i ng or det erm i nat i ve ca us e of V er i zon’ s act i on, Par ker“mustpoi ntt o evi dence w i th s uffi ci ent p ro b a tiv e f

o rc e ” f o r a f a c tf in d e r to m a k e th is c o n c lu sio n ; i. e . tha t V e riz o n h a s p re v io u sly d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im , tha t V e riz o n h a s d isc rim in a ted a g a in st o th e r p e rso n s w ith in P ark er' s p rotec ted c lass o r w ith in an o ther p rotec ted c lass o r th at V erizo n h as treated m o re favor abl ys i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed per s ons notw i thi n the pr ot ect ed cl as s . Si m ps on v. K ay J e w e le rs , D iv . o f

S te rl in g , In c ., 1 4 2 F .3 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 4 -4 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).11

P ark er a g u es th at th e f

o ll o w ing ev iden ce su p p o rt s h is co n tention that V erizo n ’s ju stif ica tio n is p re tex t f

o r a ll o f h is c laim s: (1 ) h is d e n ial th a t h e m isre p re se n ted h is heal th on Sept ember14, 2006 ordi d anyw or k on hi s hom e thatday ; ( 2) the i ncons i s t ency betw een O nes ko’ s acc ount s of eve nt s i n herm emora ndum aft erthe i nci dentand i n her depos i t i on t es t i m onyr egar di ng w hen the s aw s t opped runni ng; ( 3) the dec i s i onm aker s not havi ng s peci fi c i nform at i on r egar di ng Par ker ’ s i l l nes s t o know w hetherhe mi s r epr es ent ed hi s heal th and notcons ul t i ng anyheal th car e pr ovi der s on the i s s ue; ( 4) the pol i cythathe w as expec t ed t o s t ayhom e w hi l e on FM L A l eave neverbei ng comm uni cat ed t o hi m ; ( 5) the admi s s i on byO nes ko i n herdepos i t i on thats he s t at ed thats he “ha t ed” t o tr ans fer Par kert o the W as hi ngt on offi ce be caus e s he w as frus tr at ed w i th Par ker ’ s r es tr i ct i ons ; ( 6) the all eged i ncidentw here B roggi y el l ed at hi m and tri ed to force hi m t o resi gn becau se of hi s r es tr i ct i ons i n February2006; and ( 7) the s chedul ed payr ai s e deni ed t o hi m aft erhe d is c lo s e d h is c o n d itio n w h ic h h e h a d to f ile a g ri e v a n c e to g e t. Fi r s t , Par keratt empt s t o di s cr edi tV er i zon’ s r eas on fordi s char gi ng hi m bydeny i ng thathe mi s r epr es ent ed hi s heal th condi t i on on Sept ember14, 2006 and thathe di d any w or k atthe cons truct i on s i t e of hi s hom e. H ow ever , the ques t i on i s notw hether V erizo n ’s de cisi o n w as w ron g o r m ist ak en b u t w h ethe r V erizo n ac ted w ith d iscri m inato ry an im u s. G ed d is v. U n iv. of D el. , 4 0 F ed . A p p x . 6 5 0 , 6 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). P ark er’s co n ti n u ed d en ial that h e m isr ep rese n ted h is he alth is i n su ff ici en t t o d iscred itV erizo n ’s reas on for fi ri ng him ; he m usti nst ead d em on strat e w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es,12

inco n sist en cies, i n co h ere n cies o r co n tr ad ict ion s in this reaso n to p erm ita re aso n ab le j u ry t o fi nd V er i zon’ s j us t i fi cat i on unw or thyof cr edenc e. Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at765. H e has not pr es ent ed s uch evi dence . H i s deni al thathe pr eform ed anyw or k w hi l e atthe cons truct i on s i t e does notcontr adi ctV er i zon’ s deci s i on thathe mi s r epr es ent ed hi s heal th bycl ai m i ng he coul d notbe atw or k butcoul d be atthe cons truct i on s i t e of hi s hom e. Par kerdoes not denybei ng atthe cons truct i on s i t e on Sept ember14, 2006. T hus , hi s deni al thathe m i s r epr es ent ed hi s heal th condi t i on and thathe w or ked atthe cons truct i on s i t e i s not s uffi ci entevi dence t o di s cr edi tV er i zon’ s r eas on forhi s t erm i nat i on. A nym at er i al i s s ue thatthe evi dence of hi s deni al cr eat es goes s ol el yt o w hetherthe dec i s i on w as w r ong, not d is c ri m in a to ry. S e c o n d , P a rk e r a rg u e s th a t V e riz o n p ro f f e re d “ in c o n sis ten t” ju stif ica tio n s f

o r h is di s char ge bec aus e O nes ko’ s acc ountof w hen the s aw s t opped runni ng i n her m emora ndum di ffe r ed fr om herdepos i t i on t es t i m ony . Par keral l eges thati n the typed me mo r a n d u m a f

t e rth e i n c i d e n tOn e s k o s t a t e d th e s a w s t o p p e d ru n n i n g a f t e rP a r k e rc a me up fr om the bas ementand thati n herdepos i t i on O nes ko s t at ed the s aw s t opped runni ng befor e Parkercame up fr om the bas ement . W hi l e i ti s true thati ncons i s t encyi n the e m p lo y e r’ s re a s o n is in d ic a tiv e o f p re te x t, s e e , e .g ., F u e n t e s , 3 2 F . 3 d a t7 6 4 , V e r i z o n 's j us t i fi cat i on has notbeen i ncons i s t ent . W hen V er i zon fi r ed Parker , i tpr ovi ded the j us t i fi cat i on thati tw as beca us e he mi s r epr es ent ed hi s heal th condi t i on i n vi ol at i on of V e riz o n ’s B u sin e ss C o d e o f C o n d u c t. P a rk e r to o k F M L A lea v e b e c a u se h e w a s to o ill to13

w o rk b u t s p e n t th e d a ya t a c o n s tru c tio n s ite w ith h is w if e , f a th e r- in -l a w a n d c o n tr a c to rs . V e ri z o n h a s n e v e r p ro v id e d a d if f e re n t r e a s o n ; th e re a s o n h a s re m a in e d c o n s is te n t. Par kerar gues that , even i f V er i zon’ s r eas on w as noti ncons i s t entbeca us e of O n esk o ’s all eg ed inco n sist en t st atem en ts, K o w alsk i v. L & F P rod . , 8 2 F . 3 d 1 2 8 3 (3d C ir . 1996) , s uppor t s hi s cont ent i on thatO nes ko’ s al l eged i ncons i s t ents t at ement s m ade V erizo n ’s reli an ce o n O n esk o ’s ob serv ati o n s to justi fyP ark er’s term ination p retex tual. In K ow al s ki , thi s C our thel d t hatthe “f aci al acc ur acyand r el i abi l i tyof the [i nves t i gat i ve] reporti s probat i ve o f w hether[t he em ploy er] act ed in goo d faith rel i ance [ on i t s] concl us i ons : the l es s r el i abl e the r eportm ayappea r , the gr eat erthe l i kel i hood that[the empl oy er ’ s ] r el i ance on i tt o j us t i fy ” the adve r s e ac t i on w as pr et extual . See K ow al s ki , 82 F. 3d at1290. T hi s C our tfound thatther e w er e “ve rys er i ous ques t i ons r egar di ng the r el i abi l i tyof the i nves t i gat or ’ s r eport ” thatr ai s ed a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t r egar di ng w hetherthe r eas on forK ow al s ki ’ s t erm i nat i on w as pr et extual . I d. H er e, the al l eged i nco nsi st encybetw een O nesko ’s accou nts of w hen the saw st op ped did not exi st atthe t i m e V er i zon made i t s det erm i nat i on t o di s char ge Parker ; the al l egedl yi ncons i s t ent sta tem e n t ar o se f

ro m O n e sk o ’s d e p o sitio n w h ich w a s a f ter V e riz o n m a d e th e d e c isio n to t erm i nat e Parker . B eca us e Parkerfai l s t o s how anyi ncons i s t enci es i n the al l eged f act s on w hi ch V er i zon r el i ed t o m ake i t s det erm i nat i on thatcas t s doubton V er i zon’ s r eas oni ng, th is a rg u m e n t f

a ils to s u p p o rt h is c o n te n tio n th a t V e ri z o n ’s re a s o n in g w a s p re te x tu a l. T hi r d, Par kerar gues thatV er i zon’ s r eas on s houl d be di s cr edi t ed bec aus e none of14

th e d e c isio n m a k e rs h a d sp e c if ic in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g P a rk e r’s ill n e ss su f f icie n t to d eterm ine w h ethe r he m isr ep rese n ted h is he alth an d theyd id n o t con su ltan yh ea lth ca re pr ovi der s on the i s s ue. Par kerdoes notal l ege thatthe dec i s i onm aker s had no know l edge of hi s heal th condi t i on. D et ai l ed i nform at i on w as notr equi r ed forV er i zon t o det erm i ne that P ark er m isr ep rese n ted h is he alth co n d it ion b yclaim ing that h e w as to o sick fo r w o rk and then s pendi ng the dayatthe cons truct i on s i t e of hi s hom e. E ven i f Parkers how ed how m or e s peci fi c i nform at i on w oul d have de m ons tr at ed thatV er i zon’ s deci s i on w as w r ong, no evi dence exi s t s thatthe dec i s i on w as di s cr i m i nat ory . See Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at 7 6 5 . T h u s, this ev iden ce is i n su ff ici en t t o all o w a re aso n ab le j u ryto f ind V erizo n ’s re a s o n in g u n w o rt h yo f

c re d e n c e . Four th, Par kercl ai m s thatV er i zon’ s r eas on i s pr et extual beca us e an a l l eged unw r i t t en pol i cythathe w as expec t ed t o s t ayhom e dur i ng FM L A l eave w as never com m un i cat ed to hi m . H ow ever, P arkerw as di scharged fo r vi olat i ng V eri zon ’s B usi ness C o d e o f C o n d u c t b ym isre p re se n tin g h is h e a lth c o n d iti o n , n o t f o r le a v in g h is h o m e w h ile on FM L A l eave . T hus , anyfai l ur e t o i nform hi m of s uch a pol i cycannotes t abl i s h pr et ext beca us e i ti s i m m at er i al i n det erm i nat i ng w hetherthe pol i cyhe w as fi r ed forvi ol at i ng w as p retex t fo r discrim ination . T h u s, this argu m en t fail s to su p p o rta c lai m that V erizo n ’s re a s o n w a s p re te x tu a l. P ark er’s fifth , sixth a n d sev en th claim s sh ifth is fo cu s fro m d iscred it ing V erizo n ’s ju stif ica tio n s to su g g e stin g “ in v id io u s d isc rim in a to ryre a so n [ s th a t] m o re lik e lyth a n n o t”15

m ot i vat ed V er i zon’ s deci s i on. Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at764. H i s fi fth cl ai m ar gues that O nes ko’ s admi s s i on i n herdepos i t i on thats he s t at ed i n a February2006 emai l thats he

“ h a t e d ” t o tr a n s f

e rP a r k e rt o th e W a s h i n g t o n o f f i c e , wh i c h wa s c l o s e rt o h i s h o me b e c a u s e s h e w a s f

ru s tr a te d w ith P a rk e r’ s re s tr ic tio n s , is s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

p re te x t. P a rk e r’s six th c laim a rg u e s th a t h is a lleg e d e x c h a n g e w ith B ro g g i in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 , in w h ich sh e y e lled a t h im a n d tried to f o rc e h im to re sig n b e c a u se o f h is re stric tio n s, a lso is s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

p re te x t. I n cons i der i ng w hethers tr ayr emar ks , s uch as the comm ent s m ade byO nes ko and B roggi, are pr ob at i ve o f dis cri m i nati on , this C ou rthas con si dered t he fo l l ow i ng fact ors:

“ ( 1 ) th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f

th e s p e a k e rt o th e e m p l o ye e a n d w i th i n th e c o rp o r a t e h i e r a r c h y; ( 2) the t empora l pr oxi m i tyof the s t at ementt o the adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on; and ( 3) the purpos e and c ont entof the s t at ement . ” R y derv. W es t i nghous e El ec. C orp. , 128 F. 3d 128, 133 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ; s ee a l s o K el l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance , I nc. , 130 F. 3d 1101, 1 1 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). “S tr ayrem ark s b yn o n -de cisi o n m ak ers o r byd ec isi o n m ak ers u n related to the d ec isi o n p roc ess a re rare lyg iven g rea t w eigh t, p arti cu larl yif th eyw ere m ade t empora l l yr emot e fr om the dat e of de ci s i on. ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at767, quot i ng E z o ld , 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 5 4 5 . A s s um i ng thatthe r emar ks byO nes ko and B r oggi w er e made as Par keral l eges , t he r emar ks occurr ed s even mont hs befor e hi s t erm i nat i on and di d notdi r ect l yr el at e t o the deci s i on. A ddi t i onal l y , thr ee otherV er i zon manager i al empl oy ees w er e i nvol ved i n t he16

deci s i onm aki ng pr oces s w i th B r oggi and ther e i s no evi dence thatthes e thr ee manager i al empl oy ees demonstr at ed di s cr i m i nat oryani m i s . I n the mont hs aft erthe r emar ks and b e f o re P a rk e r’s ter m in a tio n , the re c o rd sh o w s th a t V e riz o n c o n tin u e d to a c c o m m o d a te Par ker ’ s di s abi l i tyand hi s need f ori nt erm i t t entFM L A l eave . Forexampl e, V er i zon al l ow ed Parkert o t ake i nt erm i t t entl eave , tr ans ferr ed hi m t o the W as hi ngt on offi ce, perm i t t ed r educe d w or k hour s and pr ovi ded an of f- l i ne pos i t i on forhi m w hi l e m ai ntai ning his rat e of p ayand ben efi t s. E ven view i ng the fa ct s i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o rab le t o P ark er, w e d ec li n e to d ep art fro m the p ri n ciple tha t suc h str ayrem ark s are ra re lyg iv e n g re a t w e ig h t w h e n m a d e tem p o ra llyre m o te f ro m th e d e c isio n to ter m in a te Par ker . See K el l er , 130 F. 3d at1112 , hol di ng thatw her e pl ai nt i ff' s m anage rcomm ent ed dur i ng a meet i ng fi ve mont hs pr i ort o the t erm i nat i on thatpl ai nt i ff s houl d hi r e addi t i onal as s i s t antm anage r s i f he w as gett i ng t oo ol d t o tr avel , m anage r ' s comm entcoul d not “r eas onabl ybe vi ew ed as s uffi ci entt o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatage w a s a d e te rm in a tiv e c a u s e o f K e lle r's s u b s e q u e n t te rm in a tio n ” ; E z o ld , 9 8 3 F .2 d a t 5 4 5 . T h e re co rd a s a w h o le do es n o t sup p o rtthat tw o str ayco m m en ts m ad e m o n ths b ef o re P ark er’s d isch arg e, an d fo ll o w ed b yco n ti n u ed ac co m m o d ati o n s, su p p o rtthat V erizo n ’s deci s i on t o di s char ge Parkerw as actual l ym ot i vat ed bydi s cr i m i nat oryi nt entand nott he re a s o n p ro f

f e re d . P arkerfurther ar gu es that these straycom m ents supp orthis con t enti on that tho se w i th di s cr i m i nat oryani m us i nfl uence d orpart i ci pat ed i n the dec i s i on w i th the other17

m anag eri al em ploy ees. Iti s true that, “[u]nd er our case l aw , i ti s suffi ci ent i f t ho se exhi bi t i ng di s cr i m i nat oryani m us i nfl uence d orpart i ci pat ed i n the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e. ” A b ram so n v . W il li am P aterso n C o ll eg e o f N ew Jerse y , 2 6 0 F . 3 d 2 6 5 , 2 8 6 (3d . C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), ci t i ng A br ams v. L i ght ol i erI nc. , 50 F. 3d 1204, 1214 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . H ow ever , unl i ke the cas es on w hi ch he r el i es , Par kerfai l ed t o devel op evi dence thatthe peopl e w ho inf luen ce d o r pa rt ici p ated in the d ec isi o n to term inate h im ex h ibit ed d iscri m inato ry ani m us . A s di s cus s ed above , a s tr aycomm entfr om O nes ko and one f r om B r oggi do not s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s h di s cr i m i nat oryani m us as t o fi nd thatB r oggi ’ s i nvol vement , orany inf luen ce that O n esk o m ayh av e h ad , tai n ted th e d ec isi o n to term inate P ark er’s empl oym entform i s r epr es ent i ng hi s heal th condi t i on. F in a lly , P a rk e r a rg u e s th a t h is d e n ial o f a sc h e d u led p a yra ise a f ter h e d isc lo se d h is condi t i on i s s uffi ci entevi dence of pr et ext . T he deni al occurr ed i n N ovember2005 and he s ubs equent l yr ece i ved the payr ai s e af t erfi l i ng a gr i evanc e. Par kerhas notpr ovi ded e v id e n c e to sh o w th a t th is d e n ial w a s c o n n e c ted to h is d isa b ili ty , let a lo n e e v id e n c e to es t abl i s h thatthe deni al s how s a di s cr i m i nat oryani m us thatcaus ed hi m t o be t erm i nat ed a y earl at er . V er i zon w as aw ar e of r es tr i ct i ons thatPar kerr eques t ed i n February2005 and w as cont i nui ng t o acc om m odat e hi m i n N ovember2005. M or eover , the ac comm odat i ons m a d e b yV e riz o n a n d th e F M L A lea v e a p p ro v e d in th e p e rio d b e tw e e n th is d e n ial a n d h is ter m in a tio n su g g e st th e c o n tra ry . T h e re f o re , this e v id e n c e , ev e n w h e n c o n sid e re d w ith P a rk e r’s o th e r e v id e n c e , lac k s th e p ro b a tiv e f o rc e to sh o w th a t V e riz o n ’s ju stif ica tio n is18

p re te x tu a l. Par kerpr es ent ed i ns uffi ci entevi dence fora r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o concl ude that V e ri z o n ' s le g itim a te , n o n d is c ri m in a to ry ju s tif ic a tio n f o r h is d is m is s a l w a s p re te x tu a l. W ith o u t evid en ce ind icati n g that V erizo n ’s de cisi o n w as b ase d o n a d iscri m inato ry m ot i ve, i t s deci s i on w i l l notbe j udged eve n i f the dec i s i on i s w r ong. See Ezol d, 983 F. 2d a t 5 2 7 . In a n ye v e n t, P a rk e r h a s n o t p ro v id e d su f f icie n t ev id e n c e f

o r a re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r to d isc re d it V e riz o n ’s ju stif ica tio n f o r P a rk e r’s ter m in a tio n o r to f in d th a t a d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s w a s m o re lik e ly th a n n o t a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r i n V e ri z o n ’s d e c is io n . W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thes e cl ai m s on the al t ernat i ve gr ound of fa il ing to p rov ide s u ff

ici en t evid en ce that V erizo n ’s l eg it im ate, no n d iscri m inato ry ju s tif ic a tio n f o r h is d is c h a rg e w a s p re te x tu a l. B . P a rk e r’s A D A F a ilu re to E n g a g e in th e In ter a c tiv e P ro c e ss C laim Par keral l eges thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thathe di d notes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e thatV er i zon fa i l ed t o engage i n the A D A i nt er act i ve pr oces s i n good fai th. T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatPar kerdi d notpr es entevi dence t o es t abl i s h that V er i zon fa i l ed t o engage i n t he i nt er act i ve pr oces s and thati n fac tevi dence of the a c c o m m o d a tio n s a f

f o rd e d to P a rk e r s u p p o rt e d th e c o n tr a ry. T he A D A pr ohi bi t s “cove r ed empl oy er s fr om di s cr i m i nat [i ng] agai ns ta qual i fi ed in d iv id u a l w ith a d is a b ility b e c a u s e o f th e d is a b ility o f

s u c h in d iv id u a l in re g a rd to . . . hi r i ng, advanc ement , ordi s char ge[. ] ” 42 U . S. C . A . § 12112. A s w e not ed i n J ones v.19

U ni t ed Par cel Ser vi ce, 214 F. 3d 402 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , the EE O C ’ s i nt erpr et i ve gui del i nes sta te th a t o n c e th e q u a lifie d e m p lo y e e “ h a s re q u e ste d p ro v isio n o f a re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n , the e m p lo y e r m u st m a k e a re a so n a b le e f f o rt to d e ter m in e th e a p p ro p ria te acc om m odat i on . . . thr ough a fl exi bl e, i nt er act i ve pr oces s thati nvol ves both the empl oy er and the [e m pl oy ee] . ” J ones , 214 F. 3d at407, ci t i ng 29 C . F. R . Pt . 1630, A pp. § 1630. 9, at 361. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s underthe A D A ar e eva l uat ed undert he M cD onnel l D ougl as bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k. 411 U . S. at802. T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e “thatan empl oy erfai l ed t o part i ci pat e i n the i nt er act i ve pr oces s , a di s abl ed empl oy ee mustdemonstr at e: ( 1) the empl oy erknew about the empl oy ee' s di s abi l i ty ; ( 2) the empl oy ee r eques t ed ac comm odat i ons oras s i s t ance for hi s orherdi s abi l i ty ; ( 3) the empl oy erdi d notm ake a good fai th eff or tt o as s i s tthe e m p lo y e e in se e k in g a c c o m m o d a tio n s; a n d (4 ) th e e m p lo y e e c o u ld h a v e b e e n re a so n a b ly acc om m odat ed butforthe empl oy er ' s l ack of good fai th. ” Tay l orv. Phoeni xvi l l e Sch. D i s t . , 184 F. 3d 296, 319- 20 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . “Em pl oy er s can s how thei rgood fai th i n a num berof w ay s , s uch as t aki ng s t eps l i ke the fol l ow i ng: m eetw i th the empl oy ee w ho r eques t s an ac comm odat i on, r eques ti nform at i on aboutthe condi t i on and w hatl i m i t at i ons the empl oy ee ha s , as k t he empl oy ee w hathe ors he s peci fi cal l yw ant s , s how s om e s i gn of havi ng cons i der ed empl oy ee' s r eques t , and off erand di s cus s avai l abl e al t ernat i ves w hen the r eques ti s t oo bur dens om e. ” I d. at317. P a rk e r a rg u e s th a t th e f o llo w in g e v id e n c e su p p o rts th a t V e riz o n f a iled to e n g a g e in20

the i nt er act i ve pr oces s : ( 1) V er i zon s upervi s or s ’ r efus al t o perm i tPar kert o tr ans fert o a perm anentpos i t i on unl es s hi s r es tr i ct i ons w er e l i ft ed; ( 2) B r oggi ’ s al l eged c om m entt hat Par kerhad t o r es i gn aft err eturni ng fr om l eave w i th r es tr i ct i ons ; ( 3) V er i zon’ s deni al of h is re q u e st to p a rk h is c a r in a sp a c e lo c a ted c lo se r to th e o f f ice ; an d (4 ) P a rk e r a n d /o r h is phy s i ci an’ s excl us i on fr om a conve r s at i on thatO nes ko, B r oggi and N el s on had r egar di ng th e p o ss ib ili tyo f

“ d o w n g ra d in g P a rk e r o r h a v in g h im u n d e rg o a f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity eval uat i on. ” W hen Parkerr eques t ed ac comm odat i ons t o conform w i th the r es tr i ct i ons not ed by D r . G os ai , V er i zon ac comm odat ed hi m . A l though V er i zon di d notconform w i th the exac tr es tr i ct i ons , i tw or ked w i th Par kert o pr ovi de ac comm odat i ons and he c hal l enged o n lyV e riz o n ’s f

a ilu re to lim it h is c o m m u te. H o w e v e r, V e riz o n ’s f a ilu re to a c c o m m o d a te Par kerbyl i m i t i ng hi s comm ut e w as notr equi r ed. See K vor j ak v. M ai ne, 259 F. 3d 48, 53 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) , hol di ng that“the [e m pl oy er ’ s ] deci s i on t o r ej ectan acc om m odat i on bas ed on [the empl oy ee’ s ] comm ut e does notdemonstr at e a di s r egar d fori t s obl i gat i ons under the A D A ”; L aR es ca v. A T & T , 161 F. Supp. 2d 323, 333 ( D . N . J . 2001) , hol di ng that

“ c o m m u tin g to a n d f

ro m w o rk is n o t p a rt o f

th e w o rk e n v iro n m e n t th a t an e m p lo y e r is r equi r ed t o r eas onabl yacc om m odat e. ” Par kercl ai m s thatV er i zon’ s fai l ur e t o acc om m odat e hi m w i th a tr ans fert o a perm anentpos i t i on s how s thei rbad fa i th i n the i nt er act i ve pr oces s . V er i zon r eas s i gned Par kert o an off

- l i ne pos i t i on i n cons i der at i on of hi s r eques tforacc om m odat i on and the21

p o sitio n d id n o t ch a n g e h is b e n e f its o r p a y . V e riz o n e v e n sta ted it w o u ld w o rk w ith Par kert o fi nd a perm anentpos i t i on des pi t e notbei ng r equi r ed underthe A D A t o pr ovi de h im w ith a p e rm a n e n t p o sitio n w h e n it fo u n d a tem p o ra ryp o sitio n to a c c o m m o d a te h im w hi l e hi s r es tr i ct i ons exi s t ed. See Turne rv. H er s heyC hocol at e U . S. , 440 F. 3d 604, 614 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , hol di ng that“[t ] he A D A does notr equi r e an e m pl oy ert o cr eat e a ne w p o sit ion in o rde r t o ac co m m o d ate a n em p loy ee w ith a d isab il ity , o r tran sfo rm a tem p o rary lig h t d u typ o sitio n in to a p e rm a n e n t p o sitio n .” B ym a in tain in g h is s a lar ya n d b e n e f its w h ile p ro v id in g h im a p o sitio n th a t ad d re ss e d h is re stric tio n s, V e riz o n su f f icie n tly accom m od at ed h i s needs an d en gag ed in the int eract i ve p rocess w i th h i m t o d o so. T hu s, V erizo n ’s fa il u re to tran sfe r P ark er to a p erm an en t po sit ion fa il s to p rov ide e v iden ce fo r a r eas onabl e j uryt o fi nd thatV er i zon fa i l ed t o i nt er acti n good fai th. Par keral s o ar gues thatB r oggi y el l i ng athi m , and s t at i ng thathe had t o r es i gn b e c a u se th e re w e re n o a v a ilab le p o sitio n s f o r h im w ith h is re stric tio n s, d e m o n stra te V er i zon’ s fai l ur e t o engage i n t he i nt er act i ve pr oces s . H ow ever , thi s s i ngl e comm entw as m ade i m m edi at el ybefor e V er i zon tr ans ferr ed hi m t o a pos i t i on i n the off - l i ne gr oup att he fa cil ityclos er to h is ho m e a n d there fo re d o es n o t pro v ide e v iden ce fo r a rea so n ab le j u ry to c o n c lu d e th a t V e ri z o n f a ile d to e n g a g e in th e in te ra c tiv e p ro c e s s in g o o d f a ith . Fur ther , Par kerar gues thatr efus i ng hi m a parki ng s pace cl os ert o the off i ce demonstr at es V er i zon’ s fai l ur e t o engage i n the i nt er act i ve pr oces s . Par keradmi t t ed that he neve rm ade a r eques tt o park cl os ert o the bui l di ng t o hi s m anage r s . I tappea r s he22

m ade the r eques tt o a t empora r ys upervi s orw ho di d notr efus e t o di s cus s the r eques tand expl ai ned thatthe parki ng s pace s w er e notforcons ul t ant s . H e had r eques t ed and r ece i ved ac comm odat i ons befor e and ther efor e knew w hatneede d t o be done t o m ake such a requ est . P arkeradm i t t ed in hi s depo si t i on that he cou l d n ot i den t i fyanyrequest foran ac comm odat i on thatV er i zon fa i l ed t o addr es s . H i s br i ef s t at es that , w hen V er i zon p lac e d h im o n th e M e d ica llyR e stric ted P lan in M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , V e riz o n in ter a c ted w ith h im a n d a s k e d i f

h e c o u l d s u g g e s ta n yr e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm o d a t i o n s . T h u s , th e e v i d e n c e s h o ws th a t V e riz o n w a s w ill in g to a n d d id in ter a c t w ith P a rk e r to d e ter m in e a p p ro p ria te a c c o m m o d a tio n s w h e n h e m a d e s u c h re q u e s ts . Fi nal l y , Par kerar gues thatV er i zon fa i l ed t o engage i n the i nt er act i ve pr oces s by n o t in c lu d in g h im in a c o n v e rs a tio n a b o u t p o s s ib le a c c o m m o d a tio n s a n d e v a lu a tio n s . H o w ev er, no thing req u ir es e m p loy ers to inc lud e the em p loy ee an d /or th e e m p loy ee ’s phy s i ci an i n everydi s cus s i on of pos s i bl e ac comm odat i ons oreval uat i ons as partof e n g a g in g in th e in ter a c tiv e p ro c e ss . P a rk e r d o e s n o t alle g e th a t V e riz o n e x c lu d e d h im fr om otherconver s at i ons . B eca us e he a l l eges hi s excl us i on fr om onl ythi s conver s at i on a n d f a ils to id e n tifya n yre q u e st f o r a n a c c o m m o d a tio n th a t V e riz o n d id n o t ad d re ss , this a rg u m e n t f

a ils . A ft err evi ew i ng al l the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o Par ker , w e fi nd t hat no r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd thatPar kerr eques t ed an a ccomm odat i on t o w hi ch V er i zon fai l ed t o m ake a good fai th eff or tt o engage i n the i nt er act i ve pr oces s . W e w i l l aff i r m t he“Under this theory, the employee ne ed not show that he w as treated differently than 6 oth e rs [, and ] thee mpl oye r c ann ot j us tif y its a c tio ns by

e sta bli sh inga le g iti matebu sin e ss pur

po se for its dec ision.” Callison, 430 F.3d at 119-120. “An interferenc e ac tion is notabout discrimination, it is only

about whether the employer provided the employee w ith the entitlements guara

nteed by the FMLA.” I d. at 120. “B eca use the F MLA is not about 23 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f th is c la im . C . P a rk e r’s F M L A In ter f e re n c e C laim P ark er a ll eg es th at V erizo n interfe red w ith h is FM L A ri g h ts byfa il ing to restore h im to h is po sit ion af

ter he too k F M L A leav e o n S ep tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t “V e riz o n [ d id n o t] in a n yw a yin ter f e re [ ] w ith p lain tiff ’s e x e rc ise o f h is benef i t s underthe FM L A . T o t he contr ary , [i tfound] thatV er i zon w as m or e than r eas onabl e i n i t s acc om m odat i on of pl ai nt i ff’ s condi t i on. ” T he FM L A gr ant s el i gi bl e empl oy ees the r i ghtt o t ake up t o tw el ve w or kw eeks of l eave i n anytw el ve- m onth per i od i f a “ s er i ous heal th condi t i on . . . m akes the empl oy ee u n a b le to p e rf

o rm th e f u n c tio n s o f

th e p o s itio n o f

s u c h e m p lo y e e .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 6 1 2 (a )(1 )(D ). T h e F M L A a lso p ro v id e s th a t itsh a ll b e u n law f u l f o r a n e m p lo y e r to in ter f e re w ith , res tra in o r d e n ya n e m p lo y e e ' s e x e rc ise o f o r a ttem p t to e x e rc ise th a t rig h t. 29 U . S. C . § 2615( a) ( 1) . Fol l ow i ng a qual i fi ed abs ence , the empl oy ee i s ent i t l ed t o be r ei ns t at ed t o t he form erpos i t i on oran al t ernat e one w i th equi val entpay , benef i t s and w o rkin g co n d it ion s. 2 9 U . S . C . § 2 6 1 4 (a)(1). T o as s ertan i nt er fer ence cl ai m , “the empl oy ee onl yneeds t o s how thathe w as ent i t l ed t o benef

i t s underthe FM L A and thathe w as deni ed them. ” C al l i s on v. C i tyof P h il a., 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cit ing 2 9 U . S . C . § § 2 6 1 2 (a), 2 6 1 4 (a). 6discrimination, a McDonne ll-Doug las burden- shifting a nalysis is notrequire d.” Sommer v. The Vanguard Group, 461 F .3d 397, 399 (3d Cir. 2006). 24 H ow ever , as w e not ed i n H ol pp v. I nt egr at ed C om m uni cat i ons C orp. , 214 Fed. A ppx. 176 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), th e rig h t to re in sta tem e n t does notent i t l e a r es t or ed empl oy ee t o a r i ght , benef i torpos i t i on t o w hi ch the empl oy ee w oul d not“have been e nt i t l ed had the empl oy ee nott aken the l eave . ” 29 U . S. C . § 2614( a) ( 3) ( B ) . T hus , forexampl e, i f an e m pl oy ee i s di s char ged d u rin g o r a t th e e n d o f

a p ro tec ted lea v e f

o r a re a so n u n re late d to th e lea v e , the re is n o ri g h t t o reinstatem en t. 2 9 C . F . R . § 8 2 5 . 2 1 6 (a)(1). I d. at178- 179, ci t i ng C onos hent i v. Publ i c Servi ce El ec. & G as C o. , 364 F. 3d 135 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T o m ake outa cl ai m fori nt er fer ence , a pl ai nt i ff musts how thathe i s an “el i gi bl e empl oy ee, ” 29 U . S. C . § 2611( 2) , w ho t ook l eave “forthe i nt ended purpos e of the leave, ” 29 U . S . C . § 2 61 4(a) (1) , and w ho m the em ploy er then den i ed a b enef i tas a r es ul tof thatl eave , 29 U . S. C . §§ 2614( a) ( 3) , 2615( a) ( 1) . T hus , an empl oy ercan de fea t an i nt er fer ence cl ai m bys how i ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatthe empl oy ee di d nott ake lea v e “ f o r th e in ten d e d p u rp o se .” S e e C ro u c h v . W h irlp o o l C o rp ., 4 4 7 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 6 (7 th C i r . 2006) . N othi ng i n t he FM L A pr event s empl oy er s fr om ens ur i ng thatempl oy ees w ho a r e o n l e a v e f

r o m w o r k d o n o ta b u s e th e i rl e a v e . Ca l l i s o n , 4 3 0 F. 3 d a t1 2 1 . Th e FM LA does nots hi el d an empl oy ee f r om t erm i nat i on s i m pl ybeca us e the al l eged mi s conduct conce rns us e of FM L A l eave . See, e. g. , H offmann v. Pr ofes s i onal M ed. T eam, 394 F. 3d 414 ( 6th C i r . 2005) , hol di ng thatther e w as no FM L A vi ol at i on w her e empl oy ee w as dis charged for un professi on al con du ctrel at ed to em ploy er’ s denial of F M L A l eave. J ust as s us pect ed fr aud orvi ol at i on of companypol i cyw oul d be a s uffi ci entbas i s t o di s char ge25

an empl oy ee noton FM L A l eave , i ti s a s uffi ci entbas i s t o di s char ge one w ho m i s us es FM L A l eave . I d. ; s ee a l s o K ar i ot i s v. N avi s t arI nt ern. T r ans p. C orp. , 131 F. 3d 672, 681 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; L e Bo e u f v . Ne w Yo r k Un i v . M e d . Ctr . , 2 0 0 0 WL 1 8 6 3 7 6 2 , a t* 3 ( S . D. N . Y . D ec. 20, 2000) , hol di ng that“[w ] her e an e m pl oy ee i s t erm i nat ed bec aus e the e m p lo y e r h o n e stlyb e liev e d th a t th e e m p lo y e e w a s n o t u sin g th e lea v e p e rio d f o r its i nt ended purpos e, an FM L A cl ai m w i l l notl i e”; C onnel v. H al l m ark C ar ds , I nc. , 2002 W L 1461969, at*2 ( D . K an. J une 19, 2002) , hol di ng thatempl oy erw ho di s char ges e m p lo y e e b a se d o n re a so n a b le a n d h o n e st b e lief th a t em p lo y e e h a s b e e n d ish o n e st w o u ld n o t b e in v io la tio n o f

th e F M L A e v e n if

its c o n c lu s io n is m is ta k e n . Par kerhas nots how n t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o FM L A benef i t s beca us e he ha s notm et hi s bur den of s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac toverthe r eas on he w as notr ei ns t at ed. H e al l eges thatV er i zon i nt er fer ed w i th hi s FM L A r i ght s byt erm i nat i ng hi m i ns t ead of

r es t or i ng hi m t o hi s pos i t i on aft erhe t ook FM L A l eave on Sept ember14, 2 0 0 6 . V e riz o n h a s d e m o n stra ted th a t P a rk e r w a s n o t term in a ted f o r h is u se , b u t ra th e r h is m i s us e, of m edi cal l eave i n vi ol at i on of i t s C ode of Busi nes s C onduct , w hi ch coul d have been the ca s e foranyempl oy ee w ho di s hones t l yus ed V er i zon’ s benef i t s . See Edw ar ds v. H ar l ey s vi l l e N at . B ank, 2008 W L 4589729, at*5 ( E . D . Pa. O ct . 14, 2008) . R egar dl es s of P arker ’s den i al that he actuall ym i sr epresent ed h i s heal th co nd i t i on , V eri zon ’s ho nest s us pi ci on thatPar kerm i s us ed hi s l eave pr event s i tfr om bei ng found l i abl e forvi ol at i ng th e F M L A ; P a rk e r w a s n o t en tit led to th e rig h t o f re in sta tem e n t if V e riz o n h o n e stly26

bel i eved thathe w as notus i ng FM L A l eave forthe i nt ended purpos e. Par kers houl d not autom at i cal l ybe g rant ed a g reat er degree of p rot ect i on from t erm i nati on si m plybecau se he happe ned t o be us i ng FM L A l eave i ns t ead of s i ck l eave . I d. T he evi dence s how s t hat Par ker ' s empl oym entw oul d have be en t erm i nat ed bec aus e of hi s vi ol at i on of company pol i cyr egar dl es s of the i nvol vementof FM L A l eave . See H ol m es v. Pi zza H utof A m er i ca, I nc. , 1998 W L 564433, at*7 ( E . D . Pa. A ug. 31, 1998) . Par kers t at es thatthe s ame ar gum ent s thathe br oughti n hi s pr et extcl ai m appl yt o r efut e the r eas on that V er i zon pr ovi des forw hyhe w as notent i t l ed t o r ei ns t at ement . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above, w e al s o concl ude her e thatnone of Parker ’ s ar gum ent s cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te ri a l f

a c t th a t V e ri z o n in te rf

e re d w ith h is ri g h t to re in s ta te m e n t u n d e r t h e F M L A . T h u s , w e w ill a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f th is c la im . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, a f

ter v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to P a r k e r , we wi l l a f

f i r m th e o r d e ro f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s mi s s i n g a l l o f P a r k e r ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t V e ri z o n .