# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 36 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Aaro n C . Roo ne y ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,

v.

Ro ck -Ten n C on ve rti ng Co m pa ny; Ro ck -Ten n S erv ic es , Inc ; West ro ck Co m pa ny;

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 6 , 20 17
Fil ed : J an ua ry

9, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON an d BENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d GERRARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

GERRARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

Aaro n C. Ro on ey was fir ed an d su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, al le gi ng th at he was
di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t fo r be in g m al e an d no n- Je wis h. Bu t hi s fo rm er em pl oyer,

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.Ro ck -Ten n Serv ic es , In c., co nt en ds th at Ro on e y w a s fir ed fo r po or pe rfo rm an ce. 2

The di st ric t co ur t gra nt ed su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Ro ck -Ten n. We affi rm

. 3

I.

Ro on ey was hi red in Mar ch 20 10 by Dean Met te r, Ro ck -Ten n’s vi ce-p res id en t

of bu si ne ss de ve lo pm en t an d ke y ret ai le rs , as a n a cco un t ex ecu ti ve in Ro ck -Ten n’s

Ben to nv il le

, Ark an sa s of fic e. Ro ck -Ten n was in th e bu si ne ss of m ak in g pa ck ag in g

an d di sp la y s fo r ret ai l m erch an ts

, an d R o o n e y was res po ns ib le fo r de ve lo pi ng an d

se ll in g in -s to re di sp la y s in th e m ark et se rv e d b y t h e Ben to nv il le of fic e. One of hi s

pr im ary res po ns ib il it ie s was Ro ck -Ten n’s ac co un t wi th Alco n.

Ro on ey rep or te d to Met te r un ti l Sep te m be r 20 13

, wh e n N a nc y Co ll om was

hi red a n d b e c am e Ro on ey ’s di rect su pe rv is or

. Bu t Ro on ey ’s Nov em be r 20 13

pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on was st il l co m pl et ed by Met te r, who ga ve Ro on ey an ov eral l

rat in g of 3 ou t of a po ss ib le 5, de sc rib ed as “ Met Exp ect at io ns /S ol id Perf or m er.” At

s ev eral po in ts

, ho wev er, Met te r no te d is su es wit h of fic e at te nd an ce an d

co m m un ic at io n, an d R o o n e y was on ly rat ed 2 ou t of 5 on so m e as pe ct s of

pe rfo rm an ce affe ct ed by th os e co nc ern s : “ Met Mo st Exp ect at io ns /In co ns is te nt

Perf or m er.” Met te r cri ti ci zed Ro on ey ’s “ co ll ab or at iv e te am wor k s ki ll s” an d no te d

th at Ro on e y d i d “ no t co m m un ic at e effe ct iv el y in th e of fic e,” an d al so no te d th at

Ro on ey “ fig ht s th e ne w of fic e al ig nm en t,” pr es um ab ly refe rri ng to Co ll om ’s hi rin g.

Ro on ey al so na m ed Ro ck -Ten n Co nv ert in g Co m pa ny as a de fen da nt

, be cau se 2

he th ou gh t th at en ti ty was hi s act ua l em pl oyer. And in 20 15

, Ro ck -Ten n Serv ic es be cam e W es tR oc k Serv ic es as th e res ul t of a co rp or at e m erg er. The di st in ct io n is no t si gn ifi can t, an d we wi ll refe r to th e d efen da nt s co ll ect iv el y as “ Ro ck -Ten n.”

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis t r i c t Ju dg e fo r th e 3

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Acco rd in g to Co ll om , Ro on ey was “ po l i t e b ut di sr es pe ct fu l” to he r aft er sh e

be cam e hi s su pe rio r. Co ll om , li ke Met te r, was di ss at is fie d wit h Ro on ey ’s

co m m un ic at io n; in pa rti cu la r, Co l lo m di d no t be li ev e Ro on ey ke pt he r su ffi ci en tl y

ap pr is ed of h is sch ed ul e an d wh erea bo ut s.

The reco rd al so refl ect s is su es wit h th e Alco n a c c ou nt

. The res po ns es on
Alco n’s Ju ne 20 14 Ro ck -Ten n cu st om er sa ti sf act io n su rv ey in di cat e ge ne ral

sa ti sf act io n wit h Ro ck -Ten n’s pe rfo rm an ce: al th ou gh th e Alco n rep res en ta ti v e

co m pl et in g th e su rv ey co m

pl ai ne d ab ou t Ro ck -Ten n’s m an ag er at Alco n’s si te

, Ja ke

K r a mer , t he su rv ey sa id th at Alco n was ot he rwis e “ pl eas ed ” wit h th e acco un t

m an ag em en t. Bu t la t e r th at m on th

, Ash le y Ols on , Alco n’s m an ag er fo r ret ai l

di sp la y s, e mai le d Ro ck -Ten n se ek in g a “ fu ll pr oc es s rev ie w” of Ro ck -Ten n’s

op erat io ns du e to rece nt pr ob le m s, an d li sti ng th e Ro ck -Ten n em pl oyees sh e ex pe ct ed

to att en d t he m eet in g a t Al co n.

Des pi te th at

, qu al it y co nt ro l an d sh ip pi ng pr ob le m s pe rs is te d. In Ju ly 20 14

, an
Alco n job was pr in te d up si de -d own , an d by Aug us t, Ols on in fo rm ed Ro ck -Ten n th at

be cau se of Ro ck -Ten n’s m is ta ke s, Al co n was in dan ge r of m is si ng it s own de li ve ry
de ad li ne s to W al m art

. And

, sh e wro te

, Alco n was lo si ng sa le s as a res ul t of red uc ed

in -s to re av ai la bi li ty. I f an ex pe ct ed de li ve ry was n’t m ad e on ti m e, Ols on wro te

, Alco n wo ul d e xp ect Ro ck -Ten n t o c ov er an y fin es W al m art im

po se d.

Late r in Aug us t, Met te r em ai le d R o o n e y ab ou t a pa rti cu la r Alco n pr ojec t,

in st ru ct in g hi m : “ Need to be pr oa ct iv e an d pu sh ev eryday

. W e wan t to m ic ro m an ag e

th is pr ojec t.” Bu t a few da y s la te r, Met te r wro te in a se pa rat e em ai l to Ro ck -Ten n’s

hu m an res ou rces di rect or th at de sp it e Ols on ’s req ue st to m ic ro -m an ag e th e p ro ject,

“ [Ro on ey ] di d no t fo ll ow up pe r [Ols on ]’ s req ue st .” Met te r al so fo rward ed an ov eral l

as se ss m en t of the Ben to nv il le of fic e, whi ch no te d Roo ne y ’s su cces s in gr owi ng th e
bu si ne ss , bu t op in in g th at Ro o n e y “ is la zy an d la ck s de si re to he lp gr ow th e lo cal

m ark et pl ace. His in te rn al co m m un ic at io n sk il ls are se ve rel y la ck in g bo th to hi s bo ss

-3

-[Co ll om ] an d th e of fic e. He sh ou ld be rep la ced be cau se of at ti tu de bu t we m us t fin d

Alco n re pl acement.”

In Sep te m

be r 20 14

, Ro ck -Ten n fai le d to de li ve r Alco n sa m pl e pr od uc ts to a

tra de sh ow. Ols on em ai le d Ro on ey an d Kram er on Sep te m be r 3, m ak in g th em aware

th at it was “ im

po rta nt th at [th e sh ip m en t] arri ve on [Sep te m be r 10 ], ” pr efer ab ly in th e

m or ni ng , fo r th e Sep te m

be r 11 ev en t. Bu t it was di sc ov ered on Sep te m be r 10 th at th e

p ro du ct s were da m ag ed

, an d th ey ha dn ’t be en sh ip pe d. At th e sa m e t i me, o n Sep te m be r 9, Olso n had em ai le d Roo ne y an d ot he rs at Ro ck -Ten n abo ut a di ffer en t

pr ob le m : an un ex pe ct ed su rp lu s of a pa rti cu la r di sp la y was sh owi ng in Ro ck -Ten n’s

in ve nt or y , wit ho ut ex pl a n a ti on

. It was di sc ov ered th at th e sh ip m en t tra ck in g ha d

be en in accu rat e, an d th at th e su rp lu s in ve nt or y was act ua ll y pr od uc t th at ha d no t be en
de l i v e r e d

. Ols on was “ ba ffl ed ho w t hi s ha s ha pp en ed twi ce no w,” an d was “ real ly

co nf us ed ” b y th e o ve rs ig ht . She wrot e, “ W e h av e to ge t t hi s u nd er co nt ro l.”

On Sep te m

be r 18

, Ols on em ai le d Met te r co m pl ai ni ng , no t jus t ab ou t m is se d

sh ip m en ts (an d th ere were m or e by th en ), bu t ab ou t th e la ck of res po ns e fro m Ro ck

Ten n to pe rs is te nt in qu iri es fro m Alco n’s rep res en ta ti ve s. Ols on wro te th at “ we ha ve

ou r pe op le wor ki ng to try to he lp res ol ve th e is su es bu t th at la ck of res po ns es is jus t

no t acce pt ab le .” Ro ck -Ten n, sh e wro te

, “ ne ed [ed ] to st op th e bl eed in g wit h m is se d

sh ip m en ts an d la te sh ip m en ts

. . . .” Alco n ha d be en fin ed th ree pe rcen t of in vo ic e by

W al m art fo r la te or de rs in Aug us t an d Sep te m be r, an d as ke d Ro ck -Ten n to rei m bu rs e

th os e ex pe ns es

.

Ols on rep eat ed ly em ai le d Ro ck -Ten n’s rep res en ta ti ve s– in cl ud in g Met te r,

Kram er, an d Ro on ey

–c om pl ai ni ng ab ou t Ro ck -Ten n’s fai lu re to res po nd to Alco n’s

req ue st s for in fo rm at io n and as si st an ce. In la te Sep te m be r, th ere was an ot he r de la y

in sh ip pi ng Alco n pr od uc ts

, oc cas io ne d in pa rt by in te rn al qu esti on s ab ou t pr od uc ti on

go in g un an swe red

. In O c t o b e r , an ot he r se t of di sp la y s th at were su pp os ed to ha ve
be en sh ip pe d wen t m is si ng , an d Ols on ha d to em ai l rep eat ed ly be cau se Ro ck -Ten n’s

-4

-in ve st ig at io n in to th e m at te r di d no t pr oc eed pr om pt ly. In th e en d, Met te r wro t e ,

“ [Alc on ] is tre m en do us ly fru st rat ed

. Key co m m en t is aro un d Alco n is why sh ou ld we

us e th es e fo lk s. The y al way s sc rew up an d th ey are far a w a y

. . . .” Alco n, Met te r

wro te , “ al so feel s t ha t we d o n ot care ab ou t re sp on di ng qu ic kl y .”

At aro un d th e sa m e ti m e, Met te r di rect ed Ro on ey to m ov e hi s “ ba se lo cat io n”

to hi s ho m e, an d ou t of th e Ben to nv il le of fic e. Ro on ey was to be “ fo cu se d on Alco n”

an d th e m ov e wou ld

, Met te r wro te

, “ m ax im iz e” Ro on ey ’s ti m e. Des ig n act iv it y an d

pr ojec t m an ag em en t fo r Alco n was m ov ed to Ro ck -Ten n’s Wi ns to n- Sal em of fic e.

Bu t t he same sor t o f pr ob le m s wi th th e Alco n acco un t pe rs is te d. On Decem be r 19

, Ols on em ai le d Ro on ey t o as k whe n a pa rti cu la r pr od uc t wou ld be sh ip pe d. On

Ja nu ary 8, 20 15

, Ols on em ai le d ag ai n as ki n g f o r a n up da te

. Ro on ey rep li ed

,
pr om is in g up da te d co st s fo r th e pr ojec t in a f e w d a ys , to be su bm it te d to Alco n fo r

ap pr ov a l

. O l s o n rep li ed th at sh e di d no t “ un de rs ta nd wha t [was ] ta ki ng so lo ng to

rep ric e” be cau se th e is su e th at req ui red rep ric in g “ was di sc ov ered pr i o r t o t he

ho li da y s.” Ro on ey ex pl ai ne d th at th ere ha d be en di ffi cu lt y “ al ig ni ng al l th e te am

m em be rs ” an d th at cert ai n pr ic e qu ot at io ns were ru nn in g m or e sl owl y

. Ols on rep li ed

ag ai n– th is ti m e in cl ud in g Met t e r o n th e em ai l– em ph as iz in g th at sh e di d no t kn ow why it was ta ki ng so lo ng , an d as ki ng fo r th e m at te r to be ex pe di te d. Met te r pr om is ed

to tak e car e o f th e p ro bl em

.

Met te r de ci de d to fir e Ro on ey , an d Ro on ey was fir ed on Feb ru ary 5. Ro on ey

sa y s he was to ld he was fir ed be cau se of “ di ffi cu lt ie s wit h in te ract in g wit h co wor ke rs

an d fai lu re to su pp or t Alco n.” Bu t Ro on ey ha s a di ffer en t ex pl an at io n fo r why he

was fir ed : he as se rts th at he was di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t by Met te r an d Co ll om fo r no t

be in g J ewis h, an d b y

Co ll om for be in g a m an

.

To b eg in wit h, Ro on ey te st ifi ed to hi s be li ef th at Met te r, who is Je wis h, h a d

ex pe rie nc ed a “ Je wis h res ur ge nc e” an d was bu il di ng a “ Je wis h em pi re” at Ro ck -Ten n

th at in cl ud ed Co ll om

. Acco rd in g to Ro on ey , Met te r m ad e rem ark s ab ou t ne two rk in g

-5

-wit h th e “ Je wis h ne two rk ” of po te nt ia l cu st om ers

. Met te r al so , acco rd in g to Ro on ey ,

de sc rib ed Co ll om as a “ gr eat Je wis h la dy fro m Ph il ad el ph ia ” an d to ld Ro on ey th at he

wou ld “ ha ve to st art le arn in g to ta ke di rect io n fro m a Je wis h wom an .” Ro on ey al so

sa id he ov erh eard Co ll om an d an ot he r em pl oyee sp eak in g ei th er Yid di sh or Heb rew

i n t h e of fic e. (Ro on ey was no t su re he co ul d di st in gu is h be twee n th e t w o 4

la ng ua ge s.) And Ro on ey says th at aft er he was fir ed he was rep la ced on th e Alco n

acco un t by a Je wis h em

pl oyee, whi le Kram er– who was al so Je wis h– was tra ns ferr ed

to an ot he r of

fic e in st ead of b ei ng fir ed for m is ha nd li ng th e Alc on acco un t.

Ro on ey ’s gen de r di sc riminat io n a rg um en t i s pr em is ed on se ve ral rem ark s h e

at tri bu te s to Co ll om

. Acco rd in g to Ro on ey , aft er sh e was hi red

, Co ll om sa id th at sh e

co ul dn ’t “ wait un ti l th ere’s m or e la di es in th e of fic e.” And aft er hi rin g a n o th er

fem al e em

pl oyee, Co ll om sa id it m ean t th at “ we ha ve jus t as m uc h wom en in th e

of fic e as m en .” W he n a n o t h e r w om an was hi red

, Co ll om al le ge dl y sa id th at “ th e

wom en no w ov erp owe r th e m en .” And aft er an of fic e rem od el

, Ro on ey cl ai m s,

Co ll o m s i mi l arl y rem ark ed th at “ [n ]ow t he la di es ou tn um be r th e m en .” Acco rd in g

to Ro on ey , he was rep la ced on hi s St arb uc ks an d W al m art acco un ts by wom en be fo re
he was fi red

.

Afte r ex ha us ti ng hi s ad m in is tra ti ve re m ed ie s, Ro on ey su ed

, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns

of Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Rig ht s Act of 19 64

, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q ., an d pen da nt

st at e-l aw cl ai m s. Bu t t h e d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d Ro ck -Ten n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, fin di ng th at al th ou gh Ro on ey ha d es ta bl is he d a p r i m a fa ci e cas e of

di sc riminat io n ba se d on rel ig io n an d se x, R o c k -Ten n art ic ul at ed le gi ti m at e, no ndi sc riminat or y reas on s fo r fir in g hi m , an d Ro on ey was un ab le to sh ow th at th e

reas on s pro ffer ed by Ro ck -Ten n were pr et ex ts fo r di sc riminat io n. Ro on ey ap pe al s.

Co ll om te st ifi ed th at sh e ha s no t pr act ic ed Ju da is m si nc e sh e was 12 y ears ol d, 4

an d th at sh e s p e ak s ne it he r Yid di sh no r Heb rew. Bu t fo r pu rp os es of rev ie win g

su m m ary jud gm en t, t he Co ur t g iv es Ro on ey th e b en efi t o f th e d ou bt

.

-6

-II.

W e rev ie w th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on each of Ro on ey ’s cl ai m s de

no vo

. Bla ke v. MJ Opt ic al

, In c. , 87 0 F.3 d 82 0, 82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). W e affi rm

su m m ary jud gm en t if th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact

. Id

. (ci ti ng
Fed

. R

. Ci v. P. 56 (a))

. In as se ss in g whe th er su ch a di sp ut e ex is ts

, we vi ew th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Ro on ey an d affo r d h i m al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es

. I

d

. Bu t th ere m

us t st il l be en ou gh ev id en ce to al lo w a rat io na l tri er of

fact to fin d fo r Ro on ey

on th e req ui red ele m en ts of h is cla im s. Id

.

Mo re sp eci fi c a ll y , to su rv iv e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on a
di sc riminat io n cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t ei th er pr es en t ad m is si bl e ev id en ce d ire ct ly

in di cat in g un la wfu l di sc riminat io n, or crea te an in fere nc e of un la wfu l di sc riminat io n

un de r th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk es ta bl is he d in McDo nn el l Dou gl as C or p. v.

Gre en , 4 11 U.S. 7 92 (1 97 3 )

. C h e rr y v. Si emen s Hea lt hc ar e Dia gn os ti cs , I nc

. , 8 29

F.3 d 9 7 4

, 97 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Ro on ey do es no t co nt en d th at he pr ov id ed di rect

ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n, an d th e di st ric t c o u r t p r o ceed ed un de r th e McDo nn el l

Dou gl a s f

r a mew o rk

. Und er th is fram ewo rk

, if an em pl oyee carr ie s hi s bu rd en of

es ta bl is hi ng a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n, th e bu rd en th en s h i f t s t o th e

em pl oyer to art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e , no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r th e ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n. Id

. “ If th e em pl oyer m eet s th i s b u r d e n o f pr od uc ti on , th e

em pl oyee m us t th en ‘p r o v e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e le gi ti m at e

reas on s of

fere d by th e em

pl oyer were no t it s tru e r e a s o n s , b u t were a pr et ex t fo r
di sc riminat io n.’” Gra nt v. Ci ty of Blyt he vi ll e, Ark.

, 84 1 F.3 d 76 7, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(q uo ti ng Reeve s v. S

an de rs on Plu mbi ng

Pro ds ., Inc

. , 53 0 U.S. 1 33 , 14 3 (2 00 0) ).

Ro on ey ’s arg um en t on ap pe al is es se nt ia ll y two fo ld

. His f irs t arg um en t is

pr o c e d u r a l : he co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ex pa nd in g th e no ndi sc riminat or y gr ou nd s pr of fer e d fo r Ro on ey ’s di sc ha rg e be y on d th e reas on s

pr ov id ed to Ro on ey at th e ti me h e was fir ed

. Seco nd

, Ro on ey co nt en ds th at th e

-7

-di st ric t co ur t e rred in fin di ng Ro on ey ’s ev id en ce in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at th os e

reas on s wer e p ret ex tu al

.

A.

Fi rs t, Ro on ey arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pe rm is si bl y “ de pa rt[ ed ] fro m th e

ru br ic s of rev ie w whe n it ex pa nd ed th e ‘leg it im at e no n- di sc riminat or y r e as on s fo r
ad ve rs e act io n’ be y on d th e pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n” th at

, at th e ti m e he was fir ed

, Ro on ey

was to ld “ th at th e ba s i s of hi s te rm in at io n was hi s ‘int erac ti on wit h co wor ke rs an d

fai lu re to su pp or t Alco n.’” Ro on ey po in ts to th e di st ric t co u r t ’s o b s erv at io n th at

Ro ck -Ten n “ cl earl y an d sp eci fic al ly art ic ul at e[d ] a nu m be r of reas on s for Ro on ey ’s

di sc ha rg e, wit h th e m ai n reas on be in g Met te r’s be li ef th at Ro on ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce was

po or .” And he ta ke s is su e wit h th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at Ro ck -Ten n “ of fere d

nu m ero us le gi ti m at e no nd is cri m in at or y reas on s fo r Ro on ey ’s di sc ha rg e, in cl ud in g

po or pe rfo rm an ce, cu st om er co m pl ai nt s, an d ne ga ti ve in te ract io ns wit h co -wo rk ers .”

The se ob se rv at io ns , Roo ne y su gg es ts , “ in crea se d [h is ] bu rd en of d efen di ng ag ai ns t

Ro ck -Ten n’s” m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

Bu t th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as fram ewo rk is no t as na rro w as Ro on ey su gg es ts

. W hi le it is tru e th at th e di st ric t co ur t m en ti on ed so m e of Ro on ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce is su es

on acco un ts ot he r th an Alco n, th e em pl oyer’s bu rd en un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as
fram ew or k to ar tic ula te non- discri m in at or y reas on s fo r an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n
do es no t ari se whe n th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n is ta ke n– rat he r, it i s t r i g g e red

du rin g li ti ga ti on , wh en an em pl oyee m eet s hi s bu rd en of e st ab li sh in g a pr ima fa ci e

cas e of di sc riminat i o n

. Tit le VII do es no t im po se a le ga l ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e an

em pl oyee an art ic ul at ed ba si s fo r di sm is sa l at th e ti m e o f fi rin g, an d a n em pl oyer is

cert ai nl y no t bo un d as a m at te r of la w to wha te ve r reas on s m ig ht ha ve be en pr ov id ed

.

-8

-In st ead

, it is well -es ta bl is he d th at a em pl oyer m ay el ab or at e on it s ex pl an at io n

fo r an em pl oym en t de ci si on

. Se e Mer vi ne v. Pla nt Eng ’g Se rv s., LLC

, 85 9 F.3 d 51 9,

52 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ); Pul cz in sk i v. Tr in it y St ru ct ur al To wer

s, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 04
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); se e al

so Smi th v. All en Hea lt h Sy s., In c. , 30 2 F.3 d 82 7, 83 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 0 2 )

. Evi de nc e of a su bs ta nt ia l sh ift in an em pl oyer’s ex pl an at io n fo r a de ci si on

m ay be e v id en ce of pr et ex t, bu t an el ab or at io n ge ne ral ly i s no t. Mer vi ne , 8 59 F.3 d

at 52 8; Pul cz in sk i , 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 4.

So

, fo r in st an ce, in Smi th , we fou nd no m eri t t o a n e m pl oyee’s arg um en t th at

sh e ha d pr ov en pr et ex t by ch an gi ng it s exp la na ti on fo r fir in g her aft er the fact

. The

em pl oyee, a se cret ary fo r a ch ari ta bl e fo un da ti on , arg ue d th at sh e was or ig in al ly to ld

sh e was di sc ha rg ed fo r fai li ng to ti m el y m ai l do no r rece ip ts

, bu t th at th e fo un da ti on ’s

c h i e f e x ecu ti ve of

fic er la te r su gg es te d sh e was al so fir ed fo r co nc eal in g fro m he r

su pe rv is or ho w be hi nd sh e was in he r wor k. Smi th

, 30 2 F.3 d at 83 5. W e reject ed he r

arg um en t, ex pl ai ni ng th at th e fo un da ti on “ cert ai nl y di d no t ba ck of f fro m th e or ig in al

ex pl an at io n, bu t on ly po in te d ou t an ad di ti on al as pe ct of th e sa m e be ha vi or .” Id

. The

fo un da ti on ’s ad di ti on al ev id en ce was “ no t di ffer en t fro m th e reas on or ig in al ly gi ve n,
bu t on ly a sl ig ht el ab or at io n of th at reas on ”– an d so , it was no t a “ su bs ta nt ia l ch an ge ”

in th e fo un da ti on ’s exp la na ti on , and was “ no t p ro ba ti ve of p ret ex t.” Id

.

The sa m e is tru e he re: th ere is no co nt rad ic ti on be twee n th e ex pl an at io n gi ve n

to Ro on ey at th e ti m e of hi s te rm in at io n an d th e no n- di sc riminat or y reas on s fo r

te rm in at io n th at Ro ck -Ten n art ic ul at ed du rin g th is li ti ga ti on

. Ro ck -Ten n di d pr of fer

ad di ti on al ex am

pl es of Ro on ey ’s po or pe rfo r man c e , wit h cl ie nt s ot he r th an Alco n,

“ [b ]ut th is su pp le m en ta l ex pl an at io n is no t ev id en ce of a su bs ta nt ia l sh ift .”

Pul cz in sk i

, 69 1 F.3 d at 1 0 0 5

. “T he ad di ti on al jus ti fic at io n is co ns is te nt wit h th e

co m pa ny’ s pr of

fere d be li ef” th at Ro on ey in te ract ed po or ly wit h co wor ke rs an d fai le d

to su pp or t t he Alco n a cco un t. Id . As su ch , it is no t ev id en ce o f pr et ex t.

-9

-B.

Ro on ey al so co nt en ds th at he of fere d su ffi ci en t e v i de nc e th at Ro ck -Ten n’s

pr of fere d reas on s fo r fir in g hi m were pr et ex ts fo r di sc riminat io n. His arg um en t is

,

na tu ral ly, fo cu se d on th e on ly two reas on s fo r te rm in at io n he be li ev es were pr op erl y

art ic ul at ed

–a nd

, as ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, ou r in qu iry is no t so li m it ed

. Bu t ev en as to

th os e two reas on s, Ro on ey ha s n ot sh own pre te xt

.

An em pl oyee m ay de m on st rat e pr et ex t by two di ffer en t m et ho ds

. Se e

G u i m a r ae s v. Su

pe rVa lu

, In c. , 67 4 F.3 d 96 2, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); St al li ng s v.

Hus sma nn Co rp

. , 44 7 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). He may s h o w p ret ex t by

pe rs ua di ng th e Co ur t th at ret al ia to ry an im us m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed hi s em pl oyer. Se e

Gui mar ae s , 6 74 F.3 d at 97 5; St al li ng s , 4 4 7 F.3 d at 10 52

. Or he m ay sh ow th at th e

em pl oyer’s ex pl an at io n is un wor th y of cred en ce be cau se it ha s no ba si s in fact

. Se e

Gui mar ae s , 67 4 F.3 d at 97 5; St al li ng s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 52

. Ei t he r ro ut e am ou nt s to

sh owi ng th at a pr oh ib it ed reas on , r at he r th an th e em pl oyer’s st at ed reas on , act ua ll y

m ot iv at ed th e te rm in at io n. Gui mar ae s , 67 4 F .3d at 9 75

.

Ro on ey arg ue s th at Ro ck -Ten n’s ex pl an at io n is no t cred ib le be cau se it ha s no
b a s i s i n f

a ct

. Beg in ni ng wit h hi s al le ge d fai lu re to su pp or t th e Alco n acco un t

, Ro on ey po in ts to Alco n’s ge ne ral sa tis fa ct ion w ith Ro ck -T en n’ s ac co unt m an ag em en t

te am on it s J u n e 20 14 cu st om er sa ti sf act io n su rv ey , an d a Ja nu ary 6, 20 15

co nv ers at io n be twee n Met te r an d Ro on ey in whi ch Met te r sa id

, refe rri ng to th e Alco n

acco un t, th at “ we’re do in g m uc h be tt er, an d th ere’s no two way s ab ou t it [.]” “ Ro ck

5

Ro on ey ’s br ie f al so as se rts th at “ [o ]n or ab ou t 06 Ja nu ary 20 15

, [Alc on Head 5

of Mar ke ti ng Sh aw

n] Mi lle ri ck had gi ve n Met te r a pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on whi ch was

ve ry fav or ab le to th e acco un t m an ag em en t be y on d t he on -s it e po si ti on .” Bu t to

su pp or t th at as se rti on , th e br ie f ci t e s t o Ro on ey ’s te st im on y th at he ha d se en a fav or ab le pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on

. Ro on ey di d no t sa y whe n he ha d se en th e

ev al ua ti on , or wh en it ha d b een co m pl et ed , and we ha ve fo un d n o e va lu at io n i n t he

-1 0-Ten n,” Ro on ey arg ue s, “ of fere d no ev id en ce of any ‘fail ur e’ on Ro on ey ’s par t af te r

th is da te .”

B ut it di d: jus t two da y s la te r, Alco n’s Ash le y Ols on ha d to em ai l Ro on ey t o

fo ll ow up on a pr ob l e m t h a t h ad go ne un ad dr es se d fo r th ree week s– a pr ob le m th at

ev en tu al ly req ui red Met te r’s in te rv en ti on . And th at cam e on th e he el s of th e se rie s

of m is ta ke s de ta il ed ab ov e, al l of whi ch cam e aft er th e ge ne ral ly (b ut no t co m pl et el y )

po si ti ve Ju n e 2 0 1 4 cu st om er sa ti sf act io n su rv ey

. Not hi ng in Ro on ey ’s arg um en t

reb ut s, or ev en m it ig at es , Ro ck -Ten n’s ev id en ce of rep eat ed erro rs an d om is si on s on

th e Alco n acco un t, an d th ere is no th in g in Ro on ey ’s arg um en t to su gg es t th at Ro on ey

was no t re sp on si bl e fo r th e m is m an ag em en t. 6

Nex t, Ro on ey co nt en ds it w a s “u n w or th y of cred en ce,” se e Gui mar ae s , 67 4

F.3 d at 97 5, th at he was fir ed fo r po or in te rac t i o n w i th co wor ke rs

. Bu t he be gi ns ,
ag ai n, by at te m

pt in g to na rro w Ro ck -Ten n’s ex pl an at io n: he as se rts th at “ [t]he on ly

c o- wor ke r Ro ck -Ten n id en ti fie d by na m e who ‘int erac te d’ wit h Ro on ey is Nan c y

Co ll om [,]” an d th en li m it s hi s arg um en t to Ro on ey ’s rel at io ns hi p wit h Co ll om

. Bu t

th ere are a nu m

be r of in st an ces in th e reco rd in whi ch Ro on ey was cri ti ci zed fo r hi s

reco rd aft er th e Ju ne 2 0 1 4 c u s t om er sa ti sf act io n su rv ey

. The m os t reas on ab le

un de rs ta nd in g of Ro on ey ’s de po si ti on te st im on y is th at he was refe rri ng to th e Ju ne 20 14 su rv ey

. Bu t at th e ve ry le as t, it is cl ear th at Ro on ey ’s ci ta ti on to th e reco rd do es

no t su pp or t hi s as se rti on

. Se e Roe mmich v. Eag le Eye Dev., LLC

, 52 6 F.3 d 34 3, 35 2

n.7 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Ro on ey al so sa y s he “ was su rp ris ed by hi s fir in g” be cau se th ere is “ no 6

ev id en ce [h e] was pu t on no ti ce th at he was in jeop ard y of lo si ng hi s job fo r ‘fail ur e
to su pp or t Alco n.’” It is no t cl ear why th is wou ld de m on st rat e pr et ex t. Bu t it is
in te res ti ng to no te th at Ro on ey su rrep ti ti ou sl y reco rd ed at le as t two co nv ers at io ns wit h co wor ke rs in th e m on th s be fo re hi s te rm in a t io n– on e rel at in g to su pp os ed
di sc riminat io n an d on e rel at in g t o h i s pe rfo rm an ce on th e Alco n acco un t– whi ch

wou ld be un us ua l be ha vi or fo r so m eo ne who di d no t at le as t su sp ect hi s job m ig ht be
in th e b al an ce.

-1 1-fai lu re to co m m un i c a t e wit h co ll eag ue s an d po or te am wor k. Ro ck -Ten n was no t

req ui red to reci te an of

fic e ro ll cal l to rel y on th os e sh or tc om in gs a s a b a s i s fo r

Ro on ey ’s ter m in at io n.

Eve n w it h res pe ct to Co ll om , Ro on ey ’s ev id en ce fal ls sh or t. Gen eral ly,

Ro on ey cl ai m s th at an y co nf li ct w it h Co ll om was he r fau lt

. Bu t it is im po rta nt to

rem em be r, as we ha ve of

te n sa id

, th at a fed eral co ur t is no t a su pe r-p ers o n ne l

de pa rtment wit h au th or it y t o rev ie w th e wis do m or fai rn es s of bu si ne ss jud gm en ts

m ad e by em

pl oyers. Se e Gui mar ae s , 6 74 F

. 3 d a t 9 7 7 ; St al li ng s , 4 47 F.3 d at 10 52 ;

W al la ce v. Sp ar ks Hea lt h Sy s. , 41 5 F.3 d 85 3, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The ev id en ce m us t

do m or e th an rai se do ub ts ab ou t th e wis do m an d fai rn es s of th e em pl oyer’s op in io ns

an d act io ns –i t m

us t crea te a real is su e as to th e ge nu in en es s of th e em pl oyer’s

pe rcep ti on s an d be li efs

. Her vey v. Ct y. of Ko oc hi ch in g , 52 7 F.3 d 71 1, 72 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ). The in st an ces po in te d to by Ro on ey –t ha t Co ll om was ag gr es si ve to ward s hi m , sh e d en ie d h im

pe rm is si on to co nd uc t a p ro ject rev ie w wit h a cl ie nt du rin g an o pe n
ho us e, an d sh e sh ou ld ha ve co ns ul te d hi s Out lo ok cal en da r in st ead of as ki ng hi m to

ke ep he r ad vi se d o f hi s s ch ed ul e– fal l wel l s ho rt o f cre at in g s uc h a n i ss ue

.

F i n al ly, Ro on ey arg ue s hi s ev id en ce sh owe d th at “ ret al ia to ry an im us mo r e

li ke ly m ot iv at ed hi s em

pl oyer” th an it s st at ed reas on s fo r fir in g hi m , se e Gui mar ae s , 67 4 F.3 d at 97 5, be cau se Je wis h an d fem al e em pl oyees were tre at ed m or e fav or ab ly

th an he was , and hi s re pl acements were ei th er J ewis h o r fem al e. Bu t to be gi n with

, it is no t cl ear ho w he was affe ct ed by an y al le ge d se x di sc riminat io n. Ro on ey di d no t

di sp ut e th at Met t e r , no t Co ll om , de ci de d to fir e hi m

. Ro on ey ha s pr es en te d no

ev id en ce su gg e s t i n g th at Met te r ha rb or ed an y an im us to ward m en

. Nor ha s he

pr es en te d an y ev id en ce su pp or ti ng a cat ’s-p aw t h e o r y o f li ab il it y , in whi ch an

em pl o ye r may be vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n if on e of it s

ag en ts –o th er th an th e ul ti m at e de ci si on m ak er– is m ot iv at ed by ret al ia to ry an im us an d

in te nt io na ll y an d pr ox im at el y cau se s th e act io n. Se e Ben ne tt v. Rice la nd Foo ds

, In c. , 72 1 F.3 d 54 6, 55 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 3 ) ; G u ima ra es , 67 4 F.3 d at 97 2; se e al so St au b v.

-1 2-Pro ct or Hos p. , 56 2 U.S. 41 1, 42 2 (2 0 1 1 ). The re is no ev id en ce th at Co ll om 7

in te nt io na ll y an d pr ox im at el y cau se d R o o ne y ’s te rm in at io n. And wit ho ut su ch

ev id en ce, th ere is no th in g to su gg es t th at ge nd er bi a s was co nn ect ed to Ro on ey ’s

fir in g. 8

Ro on ey ’s co nt en ti on th at Je wis h em pl oyees were tre at ed m or e fav or ab ly fare s

no be tt er. He po in ts to two in pa rti cu la r– Kram er, who he sa y s was rem ov ed fro m th e

A l co n acco un t an d tra ns ferr ed to Cal ifo rn ia in st ead of be in g fir ed

, an d Mar k

Ben jam in

, who he sa y s rep la ced hi m on th e Alco n acco un t. Bu t Met te r te st ifi ed th at 9

he act ua ll y di d reco m

m en d Kram er’s te rm in at io n– an d t h at la te r, Kram er was fir ed

. In an y ev en t, Ro on ey ’s on ly arg um en t wit h res pe ct to Kram er is th at Alco n was al so
di ss at is fie d wit h hi m

–a nd wit ho ut a reco rd of K ra m er ’ s pe rf or m an ce in ot he r res pe ct s,
si m il ar to th e ev id en ce pr es en te d wit h res pe ct to Ro on ey , th ere is no ba si s to co nc lu de

th at Kram er was “ si m il arl y si tu at ed in al l rel ev an t res pe ct s” to Ro on ey

. Se e W al la ce , 41 5 F.3 d at 86 0. And in th e ab se nc e of m or e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce of di sc riminat or y

an im us , th e fact th at Ro on ey was rep la ced on on e of hi s acco un ts by a Je wis h m an is

no t en ou gh to crea te a reas on ab le in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n. Se e Tu si ng v. D e s

Moi ne s In de

p. Cmt y. Sc h. Di st

. , 63 9 F .3d 50 7, 5 20 -2 1 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

The te rm is de riv ed fro m on e of Aes op ’s fab le s, in whi ch "a m on ke y in du ces 7

a cat by fla tt ery to ex tra ct ro as ti ng ch es tn ut s fro m th e fir e. Afte r th e cat ha s do ne so , bu rn in g it s pa ws in th e pr oc es s, th e m on ke y m ak es of f wit h th e ch es tn ut s an d le av es th e cat wit h n ot hi ng ." St au b , 56 2 U.S. at 41 5 n .1.

In de ed

, at hi s de po si ti on , Ro on ey te st ifi ed th at he was “ di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t” 8

be cau s e he was n’t a wom an , bu t th at he was fi re d fo r no t be in g Je wis h. The on ly
ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n pl aced at is su e in th is li ti ga ti on , ho wev er, is Ro on ey ’s

te rm in at io n.

The pa rti es di sa gr ee ab ou t whe th er Ben jam in act ua ll y rep la ced Ro on ey , b ut 9

Ro on ey ’s arg um en t fal ls s h o r t ev en if he is gi ve n th e be ne fit of th e do ub t on th at

po in t.

-1 3-III.

In su m , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at Ro ck -Ten n art ic ul at ed

le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat or y reas on s for fi rin g R oo ne y , and th at he was un ab le to

sh ow th e reas on s pr of

fere d by Ro ck -Ten n were p r e t e xt s fo r di sc riminat io n. The

di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 4-