2008 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 5-30-2008 

# D o e v . C A R S P rot ec t ion P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4508

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" D oe v . C A R S P r ot e ct ion" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1083. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1083P 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 os . 06- 3625, 06- 4508

___________ J AN E DO E, A ppel l antatN o. 06- 3625

v . C. A. R. S P RO T E CT I ON P L US , I NC
. ; F RE D KOHL

__________ J ANE DOE
v . C. A. R. S P RO T E CT I ON P L US , I NC
. ; F RE D KOHL

C .A .R .S P ro te c tio n P lu s , In c ., A ppel l antatN o. 06- 4508

___________ O n 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
. N o. 01- cv- 02352)*H onor abl e James F. M cC l ur e, J r . , D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

___________ A R G U E D O C T O B E R 31, 2007 B E F O R E : R E N D E L L and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

and M cC L U R E , D i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: M ay30, 2008)

___________ G aryM . D avi s , E s q. ( A r gued) 428 Forbes A venue Sui t e 1700 Law y er s B ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el forA ppel l ant/ C r os s A ppel l ee
R ober tJ . W ai ne, E s q. ( A r gued) C
. A
. R . S. Pr ot ect i on Pl us , I nc. 4431 W i l l i am P enn H i ghw ay M ur r y s vi l l e, PA 15668 C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s A ppel l ant___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. J ane D oe s ued herform erempl oy er , C
. A
. R . S. Pr ot ect i on Pl u s , I n c . ( CA RS) , a l l e g i n g e mpl o yme n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n b as ed on gende r, in v iol at i on of Ti t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct , 42 U. S. C. § 2000e ets eq . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the empl oy er ' s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , fi ndi ng t hatD oe had fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e c a se o f

d isc rim in a tio n . W e w ill
r ever s e. I . W e e x e r c i s e p l e n a r y r e v i e w o v e rth e D i s t r i c tC o u r t 's g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d a p p ly th e s a m e s ta n d a rd , i.e ., w hethert her e ar e anygenui ne i s s ues o f m at er i al fac ts uch that
a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld re tu rn a v e rd ic t f o r t h e p la in tif

f
. F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ); D ebi ec v . C abotC or p. , 352 F. 3d 117, 128 n. 3 ( 3dPag e -4- C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( c it a tio n o m itt e d ). W e v iew th e f a c ts o f th is c a se in th e li gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the non m ov i ng partyand draw all in f e re n c e s in th a t p a rt y ' s f

a v o r. A r m b r u s te rv . U

n is y s C o r p ., 32 F . 3 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). I n an em p loy m entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas e, t he bur den of per s uas i on on s um m ary j udgm ent r emai ns unal t er abl y w i t h t he empl oy eras m ovant . T he em pl oy er m us t per s uade us t hateven i f al l of the i nfer ence s w h ich coul d r eas onabl ybe dr aw n fr om t he evi den t i ary m at eri al s of record w ere vi ew ed in the li gh tm ost favor able to t he pl ai nt i ff, no r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd i n t he p la in tif f ' s f a v o r. See Sor ba v. P enns ylvani a D r i l l i ng C o. , I

nc ., 8 2 1 F .2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 1 -0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ), cer t . deni ed , 48 4 U. S. 1 0 1 9 (1 9 8 8 ). A
. C A R S do es busi ness i n several st at es insuri ng used ca rs . C A R S h i r e d J a n e D o e a s a g r a p h i c a r t i s ti n J u n e 1 9 9 9
. D o e 'sPag e -5- sist er-in -law , L eo n a D u n n ett , w as th e C A R S o ff ice m an ag er. Fr ed K ohl , V i ce- Pr es i dentand part - ow nerof t he company , w as D oe' s su p ervi s or . I n M ayof 2000, D oe l earned thats he w as pr egnant . W hen s he t o ld K ohl s he w as pr egnant , s he as ked K o h l a b o u t m a k in g u p a n ytim e m is s e d f o r d o c to r's app ointm ents . K oh l t old D oe theyw ou l d "playi tbyear. " O n M onday , A ugus t7, 2000, D oe' s doct ort el ephoned heratw or k t o i nform herthatpr ob lem s w er e det ect ed i n her
r e c e n t b l o o d t e s t a n d t h a t f u r t h e r t e s t s w e r e n e c e s s a r y . An amni ocent es i s t es tw as s chedul ed fort he next day
. K ohl w as not i n t he off i ce on A ugus t7, 2000, s o D oe t ol d L eona D unnettand A l i vi a B ab ich (w ho w as K ohl ' s per s onal s ecr et ary ) , thats he neede d t o be off

w or k on T ues day , A ugus t8, 2000. B abi ch
n o tifie d K o h l th a t D o e w o u ld b e a b se n t. T he amni ocent es i s t es tw as notper form ed on the 8th, but
a s onogr am w as , and addi t i onal t es t s w er e s chedul ed forthePag e -6- fol l ow i ng day
. D oe' s hus band t el ephoned K ohl and i nform ed hi m t h a tt h e r e wer e p r o b l e ms wi t h t h e p r e g n a n c ya n d t h a tt he t es tw oul d be per form ed on A ugus t9t h. K ohl appr ov ed the
a b s e n c e a n d s a i d t o c o n t a c th i m th e n e x td a y. O n W ednesd ay , A ugus t9t h, D oe l earned thatherbaby had s ever e def

or m i t i es and herphy s i ci an re comm ended thather p re g n a n c yb e ter m in a ted
. T h a t a f ter n o o n , D o e ' s h u sb a n d a g a in t el ephoned K ohl and t ol d hi m t hat D oe w oul d not be atw ork t he
n ex t day
. K o h l app rov ed the a b sen ce an d ask ed that D o e’s h u s b a n d c a ll h im th e f

o llo w in g d a y . D o e h a d a n a d d i t i o n a l d o c t o r 's a p p o i n t m e n t o n T h u r s d a y, A u g u st 1 0 th . D o e ' s h u sb a n d tes tifie d th a t h e c a lled C A R S a g a in on t hatT hur s day , and fi rst s poke t o L eona D unnett . T hen, he
s poke w it h K ohl and t ol d hi m t hatt he pr egnanc yw oul d be t erm i nat ed the fol l ow i ng day
. D oe' s hus band r eques t ed thats he be perm i t t ed t o t ake one w eek of vaca t i on the fol l ow i ng w eek.Pag e -7- Acc o r d i n g t o Doe ' s h u s b a n d ' s t e s t i mon y , Koh l a p p r o v ed t he
r eques tfora one- w eek va cat i on. H erpr egnanc yw as t erm i nat ed
on Fr i day , A ugus t 11, 2000. N ei t herD oe norherhus band ca l l ed K ohl overt he w eeke nd of A ugus t12th. A f u n e r a l w a s a r r a n g e d f

o rD o e 's b a b y o n W e d n e s d a y, A u g u st 1 6 th . K o h l g a v e L e o n a D u n n e tt (the b a b y' s a u n t) p e r mi s s i o n t o t a k e o n e h o u ro f f wo r k t o a t t e n d th e f

u n e r a l
. As
s he w as l eavi ng fort he fune r al , L eona not i ced Babi ch pac ki ng
u p D o e ' s p e rso n a l b e lo n g in g s fr o m h e r de sk
. A f ter th e f u n e ra l, L e o n a to ld D o e w h a t sh e h a d s e e n . D o e c a lled K o h l w h o to ld hert hats he had be en di s char ged. A ft erD o e w as di s char ged fr om herempl oym entat C A R S, s he fi l ed a t i m el ychar ge w i t h t he EE O C and w as i s s ued
a r i ght
- t o- s ue l et t er . D oe fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t , al l egi ng empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on gend er, a vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I , as amended byt he Pr egnanc yD i s cr i m i nat ion A ct( PD A ) , 42Pag e -8- U . S. C
. § 2000e( k)
. D oe m ai nt ai ned t hat C A R S t erm i nat ed her
e m p lo ym e n t b e c a u s e s h e u n d e rw e n t a s u rg ic a l a b o rt io n . W e not e at t he out s et t hat D oe does not as s erta typi cal pr egnanc ydi s cr i m i nat i o n cl ai m . She does notcl ai m , for exampl e, t hats he w as di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tbec au se s he w as p reg n an t ort hats he had be en fi r ed w hi l e on mat erni tyl eave . I ns t ead, s he ar gues that she w as di s char ged bec aus e s he underw enta s ur gi cal abor t i on. W hethert he pr ot ect i ons gener al l y aff

or ded pre gnant w om en under t he P D A al s o ext end t o w om en w ho hav e el ect ed t o t erm i nate theirpregna ncies i s a q u e s tio n o f

f ir s t im p re s s io n in th is C ir c u it.

II. A
. T h e P D A m ak es itan “u n law fu l em p loym en t prac ti ce for an empl oy ert o di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tany o f hi s empl oy ees b e c a u s e h e h a s o p p o s e d a n yp r a c t i c e ma d e a n u n l a wfulPag e -9- e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e b yth is s u b c h a p te r.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 (a ); s ee al

s o C ur ay- C r am erv. U rs ul i ne Acad. of W i lm i ng t on , D el aw are , 450 F. 3d 130 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. I n C ur ayC r am er , t he A pp el l ant argued t hat T i t l e V II ' s opp osi t i on cl ause pr ot ect s anyempl oy ee w ho h as had an a bor t i on, w ho cont empl at es havi ng an abor t i on, or w ho s uppor t s t he r i ght s of
w o m e n w h o d o s o . Id
. a t 1 3 4 . A lth o u g h w e d id n o t d ire c tly addr es s t he ques t i on i n t hatcas e, w e poi nt ed t o a deci s i on of the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S ix th C irc u it w ith a p p ro v a l: W e n o te th a t t h e S ix th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s h e ld th a t “a n e m p lo y e r m a yn o t d isc rim in a te agai ns ta w om an empl oy ee be caus e ‘sh e has exer ci s ed herr i ghtt o have a n abor t i on. ’ ” Turi c v. H ol l and H os pi tal i t y, I nc ., 8 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 4 (6 th C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng H . R . R E P. N O
. 95- 1786 ( 1978) ( C onf. R ep. ) , r epr i nt ed i n 1978 U . S. C
. C
. A
. N . 4749, 4765- 66)
. E xt endi ng that pr i nci p le, t he Si xth C i r cui tfur t herhel d t hatan empl oy er“ca nnott ak e adver s e empl oym ent a c tio n a g a in st a f

e m a le e m p lo y e e f

o r m e re ly t hi nki ng aboutw hats he has a ri g h tt o do. ” I d. L ik e w is e , th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ityPag e -10- C om m i s s i on ( E E O C ) has t aken the pos i t i on t hat i ti s an unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce t o fi r e a w om an “be caus e s he i s p regnantorhas had an ab o rt ion
. ” 2 9 C
. F . R . p t. 1 6 0 4 , A p p . (19 8 6 ). Id . a t 1 3 4 n .2
. T h e P D A sta tes th a t t he t erm s “bec aus e of s ex” or“on the bas i s of s ex” i ncl ude, butar e notl i m i t ed t o, becaus e of or o n t h e b a s i s o f

p r e g n a n c y , c h i l d b i r t h , o rr e l at ed m edi cal condi t i ons ; and w om en af fect ed by pr egnanc y , chi l dbi r t h , o rr e l a t e d me d i cal c o n d iti o n s s h a ll b e tre a ted th e sa m e f o r a ll empl oym en t- related purpos es , i ncl udi ng r ece i ptof benefi t s underfr i nge bene fi tpr ogr ams, as ot her p e rso n s n o t s o a f

f e c ted b u t sim ilar in th e ir a b ili ty ori nabi l i t yt o w or k. 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 e (k ). T h e E E O C g u id e lin e s in terp r e ti n g th is
s ect i on, t o w hi ch w e gi ve a hi gh degr ee of defe r ence under G r iggs v. D uke Pow er , 4 0 1 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 3 -3 4 (1 9 7 1 ), ex p re ss ly stat e tha t an a b o rt ion is co v ere d b yT it le V II: T he bas i c pr i nciple o f the [PD A ] i s t hatw om en affecte d b yp re g n a n c ya n d re late d c o n d iti o n s m ust be tr eat ed the s ame a s o t herappl i cant s andPag e -11- e m p lo y e e s o n th e b a sis o f th e ir a b ili tyo r in a b ili ty t o w ork. A w om an is therefore prot ect ed ag ai nst such p ract i ces as bei ng fi red .
. . m e re lybecau se s he i s pr egnantorhas had an a bor t i on. A ppendi x 2 9 C
. F. R . pt . 1604 A pp. ( 1986)
. Si m i l ar l y , the l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof s ect i on 2000e( k) pr ovi des th e fol l ow i ng gui dance : B e c a u se [ th e P D A ] a p p lies to a ll situ a tio n s in w h i c h w o m e n a r e “ a f f e c t e d b y p r e g n a n c y, c h ild b irth , an d re late d m e d ica l co n d iti o n s,” its b a sic lan g u a g e c o v e rs w o m e n w h o c h o se to t erm i nat e thei rpr egnanc i es . T h u s , no empl oy er m ay , forexampl e, fi r e orr efus e t o hi r e a w om an s i m pl ybeca us e s he has exer ci s ed herr i ghtt o have an abort i on. H .R . C o n f. R e p . N o . 9 5
- 1 7 8 6 a t 4 (1 9 7 8 ) a s re p rin ted in 9 5 th C ong. , 2d Ses s . 4, 1978 U . S. C
. C
. A
. N . 4749, 4766. C l ear l y , the p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e s ta tu te , to g e th e r w ith th e le g is la tiv e h is to ry and t he E E O C gui del i nes , s uppor t a concl us i on t hatan empl oy er
m aynotdi s cr i m i nat e aga i ns ta w om an empl oy ee becaus e s hePag e -12- has exer ci s ed herr i ght to have an a bor t i on. W e now hol d t hat th e te rm “ re la te d m e d ic a l c o n d itio n s ” in c lu d e s a n a b o rt io n . B . W e turn now t o D oe’s pregna ncydis cri m i nati on cl ai m s. A s ear l i ernot ed , Ti t l e V I I pr ohi bi t s empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on an i n d ivi dual ’ s s ex. 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e- 2( a)
. T he pr ohi bi t i on i s br eac hed “w her ever an em pl oy ee’ s pr egnanc y[or
r el at ed medi cal condit i on] i s a mot i vat i ng fac t orforthe empl oy er ’ s adver s e empl oym entdeci s i on. ” In re: C arneg i e C tr. A s s oc. , 1 2 9 F .3 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e P D A d o e s n o t, ho w ever, requi re preferent i al t reatm ent fo r pr egn ant em ploy ees. I ns t ead , i tm andat es t hatempl oy er s tr eatpr egnantempl oy ees the
sa m e a s n o n -p re g n a n t em p lo y e e s w h o a re sim ilarlysitu a ted w ith
re s p e c t to th e ira b ility to w o rk
. Id
. at297; s ee al s o Tys i ngerv. P oli ce D ept. C i t

y of Zan esville , 4 6 3 F . 3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 5 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ).Pag e -13- D i s par at e tr eatm ent d isc r i m i nat i on i s pr oven byei t her
us i ng di r ect evi dence of i nt entt o di s cr i m i nat e orus i ng i ndi r ect evi dence fr om w hi ch a c our tcoul d i nfer i nt ent t o di s cr i m i nat e. D oe s uppor t s hercl ai m w i t h ev idence fr om w hi ch di s cr i m i nat i on m aybe i nferr ed. W e ther efor e us e t he fa m i l i ar McD onnel lD ougl as bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k t o anal y ze he r T i t l e V II pregna ncydis cri m i nati on cl ai m s. McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 41 1 U . S
. 79 2, 80 2 (197 3). U nd er this analy si s, t he empl oy ee mustfi r s tes t abl i s h a p rim a f aci e cas e. I f the
e m p lo y e e is a b le to p re se n t su c h a c a se , the n th e b u rd e n sh if ts to t he empl oy er t o pr ovi de a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on f o r its a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n . If th e e m p lo y e r i s a b le to d o so , the b u rd e n sh if

ts b a c k to th e e m p lo y e e , w h o , to d e f e a t a
m o t i o n f o rs u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , m u s ts h o w t h a tt h e e m p l o ye r 's
ar t i cul at ed r eas on w as a pr et extfori nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on.Pag e -14- T he D i s t r i ctC our t rec it ed a c orr ectpr éci s of a p r i ma f aci e ca se o f g en d er d iscri m inatio n . Itd id n o t, h o w ev er, acknow l edge the “uni quenes s ” of pr egnanc ydi s cri m i nat i on
cas es and i ns t ead, i ncorr ect l yt r eat ed D oe’ s cl aim s as i f they
we r e a n o r d i n a ry c a s e o f g e n d e r d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . A p rim a fa c ie
c a s e c a n n o t b e e s ta b lis h e d o n a o n e -s iz e -f its -a ll b a s is
. Jones v. Sc h o o l D ist. o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 1 9 8 F . 3 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). I ndeed, w e have oft en r emar ked that“‘t h e n atur e of the
r equi r ed s how i ng’ t o es t ab li sh a pr i m a f aci e c a se o f

d isp a ra te t r eatm ent by i ndi r ect evi dence ‘ depends on t he ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e. ’ ” Torr e v. C as i o, I nc . , 42 F. 3d 825, 830 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( ci t i ng Massarsky v. G eneral Motors C orp . , 706 F. 2d 111, 118
n . 1 3 (3d C ir
. ), c e r t . deni ed , 4 6 4 U .S . 9 3 7 (1 9 8 3 ))
. C om pa re C l i ne v. C athol i c D i oces e of Tol edo , 2 0 6 F . 3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 8 (6th C ir
. 2000) ( s et t i ng for t h el ement s of a pr i m a f aci e cas e of pr egnanc y di s cr i m i nat i on) w i t h P el et i erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 388 F. 3d 984, 987Pag e -15- ( 6t h C i r . 2004) ( s et t i n g o u t e l ement s of a pr i m a f aci e cas e of g en d er d iscri m ination ). W e h a v e c a u tio n e d th a t “th e e lem e n ts o f th a t p rim a fa c ie
cas e m us t not be appl i ed w oodenl y , butm us tr atherbe t ai l or ed fl exi bl y t o fi t t he ci r cumst ance s of eac h t ype of i ll eg al di s cr i m i nat i on. ” G er aciv. Moody- Tot tr up, I nt 'l , I nc. , 82 F. 3d 578, 581 ( 3d C i r . 1996)
. M or eover , the S u pr eme C our thas caut i oned thatt he p r i ma f aci e re q u ire m e n t f

o r m a k in g a T itl e V II c la i m “ i s n o t o n e ro u s ” a n d p o s e s “ a b u rd e n e a s ily m e t.” T ex a s D e p 't o f C m ty . A

ffa irs v . B u r d in e , 4 5 0 U. S. 248, 253 ( 1981) ; se e a lso Sc h e id e m a n tle v . S lip p e ry R o c k

U n iv., S ta te S y s . o f Hig h e rE d u c ., 470 F. 3d 535, 539 (3d C i r . 2006)
. T he pr i m a f aci e p h a se o f

d isc rim in a tio n lit ig a tio n “ m e re lyse rv e s to
r ai s e a r ebut t abl e pre s um pt i on of di s cr i m i nat i on by‘ el i m i nat i ng the m o st co m m o n n o n d iscri m inato ry rea so n s fo r th e e m p loy ers t r eatm ent ’ of a pl ai nt i ff. ” B ur di ne , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 2 5 3 -5 4
.Pag e -16- 1
. W e hav e pr evi ous l yi ndi cat ed thates t abl i s hi ng a p r i ma f aci e cas e of pr egnanc ydi s cr i m i nat i on di ffe r s fr om es t abl i s hi ng
a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of ge nderdisc r i m i nat i on. I n G er aci , we
w ro te th a t
w ere G era ci all eg ing th a t [h er e m p loy er] t erm i nat ed hers ol el ybeca us e s he i s a w om an, s he co u ld m ak e o u t her pr i m a f aci e c a se b ym e re ly show i ng t hat s he i s a m em ber of a p rot ect ed clas s, t hat s he w as qual i fi ed forherpos i t i on and thats he w a s d isc h a rg e d u n d e r c o n d iti o n s th a t g iv e rise to an i nfer ence of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. 82 F. 3d at580. W e modi fi ed the fi r s tel ementof a p rim a fa c ie
cas e of pr egnanc ydi s cri m inati on t o r equi r e thatan empl oy er have a ctual know l edge of an em pl oy ees ’ pr egnanc y , r eas oni ng t hat “p re g n a ncy , of co urse, i s di fferenti n thati t s obv i ou sness
var i es , bot h t emp o r al l yand as betw een di ffe r entaff ect ed i ndi vi dual s . ” Id
. at 581. T her efor e, i n a ca s e al l egi ng pr egnanc y di s cr i m i nat i on, t o r ai s e an i nfer ence of anyunl aw ful di s char gePag e -17- a pl ai nt i ff must adduce evi dence t hats he w as pr egnant , and, t hat th e e m p lo y e r k n e w it. Id . at 5 8 0 -8 1 ; accord P r ebi l i ch- H ol l and v. G aylor d E ntm ’ t . C o. , 297 F. 3d 438, 444 ( 6th C i r . 2002). B eca us e w e di d notneed t o address the r emai ni ng el ement s of t he p rim a fa c ie cas e of pr egnanc ydi s cr i m i nat i on i n G e r a c i, we
m us tdo s o her e. T he nextt w o el ement s of the p rim a fa c ie cas e r emai n t he
s ame as thos e of g en d er di s cr i m i nat i on. T he pl ai nt i ff mustbe qu al i fi e d fo r herj ob and she m usthav e suffered an adv ers e
e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n . T h e f o u rth e lem e n t re q u ir e s th a t a pl aint i ff s how s om e nexus betw een he rpr egnanc yand the ad v erse em p loym en t acti o n . T h e n ex u s b etw ee n a p lai n ti ff ’s pr egnanc yan d an ad v erse em p loym en t acti o n raises a n inf er ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. 2
.Pag e -18- N ei t herpar t ydi s put es t hat D oe has m etherbur den on the fi r s tt hr ee e l ement s of a p rim a fa c ie pr egnanc ydi s cr i m i nat i on
cas e: 1) s he i s or w as pr egnant and t hat her empl oy erknew s he
w as pr egnant ; 2) s he w as q u al i fi ed forherj ob; and, 3) s he
su f f e re d a n a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t d e c isio n . It i s th e f o u rth el ementt hati s i n di s put e, namel yw hetherther e i s s om e nexus betw een he rpr egnanc yand herempl oym entt erm i nat i on that
w oul d perm i ta fa ct - fi ndert o i nferunl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. T h e e v id e n c e m o st o f

ten u se d to e sta b lish th is n e x u s is t hatof di s par at e t r eatm ent , w her ebya pl ai nt i ff s how s t hats he
w as t r e a t e d l e s s f

avor abl ythan s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed empl oy ees w ho
are no t i n pl ai nti ff' s prot ect ed clas s. See I adi m ar co v. R unyon , 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); se e a lso In r e C a rn eg ie C ent erA s s oci at es , 129 F. 3d at 297. A l t hough w e have hel d t hat “the PD A does notr equi r e thatempl oy ers t r eatpr egnant empl oy ees bet t ert han ot her t empora r i l y di s abl ed em pl oy ees ” InPag e -19- r e C a r n eg ie C e n te r, 129 F. 3d at 295, t he PD A does r equi r e that empl oy er s t r eatpr egnantempl oy ees no w or s e. C om par i ng D oe t o ot hernon- pr egnantw or ker s w ho w er e t empora r i l ydi s abl ed,
w e concl ude t hat D oe has pr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence t o s at i s fy t he fourt h el ementof the p rim a fa c ie cas e and has t hus r ai s ed an inf ere n ce o f d iscri m ination su f ficien t t o d ef

ea t sum m ary ju d g m e n t. 3
. O ur factual anal y si s st art s w i t h C A R S ’ s om ew hat l ess t han compas s i onat e l eave pol i ci es . A m emora ndum author ed by K ohl r evea l s t hat C A R S em pl oy ees w er e gi ven no per s onal or
s i ck l eave . A ft er one y ear on t he j ob, empl oy ees w er e gi ven fi ve d ay s’ pa id v ac ati o n . A f te r f ive y ea rs’ em p loym en t, theyw ere gi ven t en day s . A ny t i m e t aken of f dur i ng a w or k dayw as t o be d e d u c te d f

ro m th e e m p lo y e e ’s v a c a tio n tim e o r b e u n p a id
.Pag e -20- K ohl t es t i fi ed thatw hen an e m pl oy ee i s s o i l l that he or sh e c a n n o t w o rk , C A R S re q u ire d th e e m p lo y e e o r sp o u se to c a ll him or another desi gn at ed sup ervi sor on a d ailybasi s. E m p lo y e e s co u ld a lso a rra n g e in a d v a n c e if th e yk n e w th a t th e ir il lnes s o r co n d it ion w o u ld entail m issi n g m o re th a n o n e d ay ’s
w or k. K ohl also acknow l edged thatther e ar e ci r cumst ance s
w h e re it i s n o t n e c e ss a ryto c a ll ea c h d a y , p a rticu lar lyin situ ati o n s w h ere it is c lear fro m the n ature o f the il lnes s o r i n jury t hatt he empl oy ee c annotw o rk. T hi s s t at ementcontr adi ct ed K ohl ’ s s t at ement s to the E E O C w her ei n he t es t i fi ed t o the E E O C inv esti g ator that em p loy ee s “n ee d ed to ca ll o ff ev ery d a y .” T h e re co rd sh o w s th at diff ere n t C A R S em p loy ee s w ere tr e a te d d if

fe ren tl y . M ike K ing , fo r ex am p le, su ff ere d a h ea rt
a ttac k w h ile h e w a s e m p lo y e d b yC A R S a n d te s tifie d th a t, al t hough he orhi s w i fe di d cal l t o t ell K o h l h e w as s t i l l i n thePag e -21- h o sp ital, th e yd id n o t d o so d a ily , a n d th a t h e w a s p a id d u rin g h is
a b sen ce. K i ng m i ssed tw o an d a h al f day s of w ork du e t o h is heart at t ack. B abi ch al s o t es t i fi ed t hatK i ng' s w i fe c al l ed i n once to tell the o ff

ice h o w h e w as d o ing , b u t th at no o n e c all ed ev ery d a y. A not herem p l oy ee, B ruce Boy nt on, l eftw or k i n t he
m id d le o f

th e d a ya n d a d m itt e d h im se lf in to a p syc h ia tric hos pi t al
. K ohl cal l ed B oynt on w hi l e he w as i n the hos pi t al and t ol d hi m t o r epo rt b ac k t o w or k orbe fi r ed. O n another
o c c a s i o n , Bo yn t o n we n tt o th e e me r g e n c yr o o m a f t e rwo r k
. He
ca ll ed K o h l th e n e x t m o rn ing an d ca ll ed at l ea st on ce m o re d u r i n g t h e t h r e e d a y s h e mi s s e d f o r a h e r n i a a n d b a c k p r o b l e m. T h e t e s t i m o n y o f

A l i v i a B a b i c h , K o h l ’ s s e c r e t a r y, co n firm s this disp ara te trea tm en t. B ab ich test ifi ed that fo r ev ery empl oy ee, C A R S had a “s epar at e s etof rul es ” and thatt her e w as
no u n i f o r ml ye n f

o r c e d ru l e c o n c e r n i n g t h e u s e o f v a c a t i o n orPag e -22- s i ck t im e. She s peci fi cal l yi ndi cat ed thatt her e w as no rul e at C A R S w hi ch r equired an empl oy ee w ho w as s i ck t o cal l t he
c o m p a n y e v e ry d a y to re p o rt th a t th e yw o u ld m iss w o rk d u e to i l l nes s . B abi ch al s o t es ti fi ed thatw hen C A R S em pl oy ee M i chae l K i ng s uffe r ed a heart at t ack, nei t herK i ng norhi s w i fe
c a l l e d
- i n e v e r y d a y . F u r t h e r , Ba b i c h t e s t i f i e d t h a ta tl e a s tt wo ot herempl oy ees w ho m i s sed w o rk due t o i l l nes s w er e not
r equi r ed t o t el ephone the company every day
. See A ppendi x at 215- 216. T hi s t es t i m onyi ndi cat es thatal t hough other
em p loy ee s w ere n o t exp ec ted to ca ll the o ff ice e v eryd ay , D o e’s
e m p lo ym e n t w a s te r m in a ted f o r p re c ise lyth is re a so n . T h is t es t i m onyal one s at i s fi es D oe’ s bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t hatother
e m p lo y e e s w h o w e re sim ilarly situ a ted w e re tre a ted d if f e re n tly t han her
. B ut , t her e i s m or e. T he D i stri ct C ou rt dis m i ssed t his dis crepancy b e cause none of thes e empl oy ees r epor t ed t o K ohl — theyhad otherPag e -23- s upervisor s . W hethert hes e otherempl oy ees had other
su p ervi sors i s i rr el evan t– b ased on K oh l ’s ow n tes t i m on yin
w hi ch he i ndi cat es t hathe and he al one coul d gi ve empl oy ees perm i s s i on t o be off

s i ck. I n hi s depos i t i on, he t es t i fi ed: Q : . . . w as t her e a pol i cy[reg ar di ng

sick leav e a n d ca ll ing -i n ]? A : Y es, y ou had t o cal l i n t o m ake

so m eb o d yaw are that y o u w ere n ’t comi ng i n orw hen y ou pl anned on comi ng back. Q : W h o d id y o u n e e d to c a ll? A : M y s el f. Q : W as i tacc ept abl e t o cal l anyb o dy

el s e? A : I f I w asn’ tt her e, M r . T edes co

w oul d have be en. Q : W o u ld it h a v e b e e n a c c e p tab le to

cal l A l i vi a B abi ch? A : N o. Q : W o u ld it h a v e b e e n a c c e p tab le to

c a ll L e o n a D u n n e tt? A : N o . Q : D id y o u h av e to c all in y o u rself? If

y ou, i f y ou w ere unabl e ors i ck, c o u ld y o u h a v e a sp o u se c a ll? A : A b s o l u t e l y.Pag e -24- A p p e n d ix a t 1 0 3 -1 0 4
. A c c o rd in g to th is te stim o n y , all empl o y e e s h a d t o r e c e i v e p e r mi s s i o n f r o m K o h l t o b e o f

f s i ck and thatt he di s cr et i on w as hi s al one t o gr antordenyperm i s s i on t o m i s s w or k w hen an empl oy ee w as s i ck. I ti s i r r el evantthat t he otherempl oy ees i n ques t i on ( K i ng, et c. ) had other
su p e rv iso rs. B a b ich d id re p o rt d ire c tlyto K o h l an d d id n o t ca ll
everydayor g ive a pr eci s e r eturn dat e w hen s he w as out . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that D o e coul d notpoi ntt o anyevi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ury co u l d fi nd s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed C A R S empl oy ees w er e t r eat ed di ffe r ent l yr egar di ng cal l i ng off
w or k beca us e theyw er e sick
. T hatfi ndi ng i s nots uppor t ed. B abi ch’ s t es t i m ony as w el l as K ohl ’ s ow n t es t i m onyes t abl i s hes t hatt he tr eatm entgi ven other empl oy ees di ffe r ed fr om t hat gi ven t o D oe. T h is raises an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on
s uffi ci entt o s at i s fyherm i ni m al bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a p r i ma fa c ie cas e.Pag e -25- T he D i s t r i ctC our t also i ndi cat ed thatthes e empl oy ees h a d a ll m a d e a rra n g e m e n ts b e f o re m iss in g w o rk . T h e re is evi d e n c e , h o wev e r , t h a tDoe d i d e x a c t l yt h a t . Herh u s b a nd tes tifie d th a t h e c a lled K o h l to re q u e st a w e e k o f v a c a tio n f

o r h is
w i fe t o r ecove rfr om hers ur gi cal pr ocedur e and th at K ohl agre ed t o t he r eques t . D oe’ s hus band t es t i fi ed thatal l of the p h o n e c all s to K o h l w ere m ad e fro m h is fathe r’s ho u se. D o e’s h u s b a n d f

u r t h e rt e s t i f

i e d t h a th e t a l k e d t o K o h l o n T h u r s d a y, A ugus t10t h and gotK ohl ’ s perm i s s i on forhi s w i fe to t ake a
v a c a tio n th e f

o llo w in g w e e k
. T h e D istric t C o u rt d isc o u n ted th is tes tim o n yb e c a u se tele p h o n e re c o rd s d o n o t sh o w a p h o n e c a ll fro m D o e’s f

athe r-i n -l aw ’s nu m b er to C A R S tel ep h o n e n u m b er. D oe’ s hus band’ s t es t i m onyon t hi s poi nt , how ever , at l eas tr ai s es an i s s u e of mat er i al fac t . D oe t es t i fi ed thatthe ca l l fr om her father
- i n- l aw ’ s hous e may have or i gi nat ed fr om a ce l l phone as

“ th e re w a s a lo t g o in g o n a t th a t tim e .” A p p e n d ix a t 5 1 -5 2
.Pag e -26- A d d iti o n a lly , D o e p o in ts to tes tim o n yo f L e o n a D u n n e tt t o re- enfo rce the p oint
. L eon a D un nettt est i fi ed t hat on A ug ust 10t h, K ohl as ked herabout cover age of t he r ece pt i on des k for t he fol l ow i ng w eek: Q : W hatw as the s ubs tanc e of the

co n v ersa ti o n [w ith K o h l] ? A : A boutco v er age f ort he r ece pt i on d e s k f o rth e f o l l o wi n g we e k
. He as ked me i f I had eve r yt hi ng cover ed. Q : D i d [D oe] r egul ar l ycovert he

r ece pt i on des k? A : Y es. Q : A l l dayl ong? A : N o . Ju st fo r th e lun ch h o u r. Q : W hatw as s ai d? A : T her e w as s peci fi c per s onnel that

h e di d notw antans w er i ng t he phones , s o I nee ded t o r earr ange l unch s chedul es so tha ti tw as cov ered w i t ho ut havi ng tho se per s ons answ er i ng the phones for t he fol l ow i ng w eek. Q : D id [ K o h l] sa yth a t [ D o e ] w o u ld

notbe i n w or k forthe nextw eek? A : H e s ai d w e nee ded t o arr ange

cover age f

orthe nextw eek.Pag e -27- A p p en d ix at179. D oe poi nt s t o t hi s as confi r m at i on t hatthe A ugus t10t h phone ca l l di d t ake pl ace – K ohl w ant ed t o m ake
s ur e thatt he t el ephones w er e cove r ed bec aus e he knew D oe
w oul d be off

t he fol l ow i ng w eek. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t herfou nd t hatD oe had notm et thi s four t h el ementof the pr i m a f aci e ca se b ec au se th e re co rd
s how s no di s cr i m i nat oryani m us t ow ar d herforhavi ng an abor t i on. D oe count er s w i t h t he fol l ow i ng t es t i m onyof Leona D u n n e tt: Q : W hatw as t he s i tuat i on s urr oundi ng

y ou rl e a vi ng CA RS? A : O n a d ail yb asis, I go into M r.

K ohl ’ s o ffi ce t o chec k t he w arr ant i es , and I w as t her e as he and A l i vi a w er e w or ki ng on w hat ever , I w as chec ki ng t hr ough t he w arr ant i es and A l i vi a s ai d, “I don’ tknow w hatal l thi s s ecr ecy behi nd [the pl ai nt i ff] l os i n g her b abyw as. ” A nd M r. K oh l said “s he di dn’ t w an t t o t ake r es pons i bi l i t y . ” W hi ch ups etm e.Pag e -28- T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thes e t o be “s t r ayr emar ks ” and di d not gi ve them m uch w ei ght
. T rue enough, w e hel d i n Ez old t hat
s t r ayr emar ks bydeci s i on- m aker s , w hi ch w er e unr el at ed t o t he d e c isio n -m a k in g p ro c e ss , a r e r a re lyto b e g iv e n w e ig h t, par t i cul ar l yi f they ar e m ade t empora l l y r emot e fr om the dat e of t h e d e c is io n . See Ezold v. W ol f , B l ock, Schor r& Sol is - C ohen , 983 F. 2d 509, 545 ( 3d C i r . 1992)
. H ow ever , w e l at erexpl ai ned t hats uch r emar ks coul d pr ovi de bac kgr ound evi dence thatm ay be cr i t i cal t o a j ur y ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hethert he dec i s i onm ak er w as m o re li k elythan n o t acti n g o u t of a d is c ri m in atory
m o tiv e . A ntolv. P erry , 8 2 F . 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. As t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Ei ghth C i rcu it h as opi ned,

“ a lth o u g h
.. . stra yre m a rk s, sta n d in g a lo n e , m a yn o t g iv e rise to
a n in f e re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n , s u c h re m a rk s a re n o t ir re le v a n t.” F is herv. P har m aci a & U pj ohn , 2 2 5 F . 3 d 9 1 5 , 9 2 2 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ).Pag e -29- H er e, w e foc us on K ohl ’ s r emar ks i n w hi ch he i ndi cat ed t hatD oe “di d not w ant t o t ake r es pons i bi l i t y . ” A fi nderof fa ct
cou l d infer that K oh l w as r eferr i ng t o D o e ’s a bo rt i on becau se befor e thi s r emar k, B abi ch w as t al ki ng aboutherdi s agr eement
w ith the “ sec rec y ” su rrou n d ing D o e’s b ab y . It is u n clea r, how ever , w hat“r es pons i bi l i t y ” K ohl fel t D oe s houl d t ake. K ohl
m a yh a v e b e e n re f

e rrin g to D o e ’s f

a ilu re to tak e re sp o n sib ili ty forhers el ect i on of an abor t i on pr ocedur e. K ohl m ayhave be en
r efe r r i ng t o D oe’ s fai l ur e t o t ake r es pons i bi l i t yforherow n j ob t erm i nat i on. K ohl ’ s comm ent arycoul d al s o have be en i n s i n u a t i n g t h a tDo e d i d s o me t h i n g t o c a u s e th e l o s s o f h e ro wn baby
. O r , K ohl coul d have be en ca s t i gati n g D o e fornot acknow l edgi ng the abor t i on beca us e of a n ant i
- abor t i on envi r on m entatC A R S orK ohl ’ s ow n per s onal bel i efs about abo rt i on . W hat i s clear i s that t his part i cular rem ark m ayrai se
a re a so n a b le in f

e r e n c e th a t th e a b o rtio n w a s a f a c to r in1. A l t hough B evan w as on appea l fol l ow i ng a j uryver di ct i n favorof the pl ai n ti ff and the di s t r i ctcourt ' s deni al of the d e f e n d a n t ' s mo t i o n f

o rj u d g me n t a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, t h e S u p r e me C our ti n R eeves s t at ed t hat t he st andar d appl i ed i n r evi ew i ng a ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f la w is id e n tica l to th a t ap p lied in re v ie w in g a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See R ee ves v . Sanders on P l um bi ng P r oduct s , I nc. , 5 3 0 U . S
. 1 3 3 , 1 4 7 (20 0 0 ). Pag e -30- t erm i nat i ng D oe’ s empl oym ent . Such comm ent s ar e “s ur el yt he kind of factw hich cou l d cau se a r easona ble tri er of factt o rai se an ey ebr ow , t hus pr ovi di ng addi t i onal t hr eads of evi dence that
ar e r el evantt o t he j ury . ” B e v a n v . H o n e y w e ll, I n c ., 118 F. 3d 603, 610 ( 8t h C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) 1 Fi nal l y , D oe ar gues thatherdi s char ge onl ythr ee w or ki ng day s aft erhavi ng an abort i on r ai s es an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e the t empora l pr oxi m i t ybetw een he r
a b o rtio n a n d th e a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n is “ u n u su a lly
su g g e stiv e .” W e h a v e h e ld te m p o ra l p ro x im itysu f f icie n t to
c re a te a n in f

e re n c e o f c a u s a lityto d e f e a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t.Pag e -31- LeB oon v. Lancas t erJewis h C m t y. C tr . A s s ’ n. , 503 F. 3d 217, 232- 233 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. I n as s es s i ng caus at i on, w e ar e mi ndful
o f th e p ro c e d u ra l p o s tu re o f th e c a s e . S e e id
. at 27 9 n . 5 (“T h ere i s . . . a di ffe r ence betw een a pl ai nt i ff r el y i ng upon t empora l pr oxi m i t yt o s at i s fyherpr i m a f aci e cas e fort he purpos e of
s um m aryj udgm ent , and t o r ever s e a ve r di ct . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on
o m itted). H ere, D oe w as f

i red o n the dayher bab yw as buri ed, j ust t hr ee w or ki ng day s aft er s he not i fi ed K ohl t hats he w oul d have to un d erg o an ab o rt ion
. B ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d D o e’s d i s char ge t o coi nci de w i t h herfai l ur e t o “make fur t herphone cal l s t o K ohl as he had a s ked hert o do, ” i tr eason ed that t he t i m i ng w as notunus ual l ys ugg est i ve of di s cr i m i nat i on. T he tem p o ral pro x im ity , h o w ev er, i s su ff icien t here to m ee t D o e’s
m in im a l p r im a fa c ie cas e bur den as t o the ca us al connec t i on
e le m e n t. See e
. g. Fa so ld v. Jus t i ce , 409 F. 3d 178, 189- 90 ( 3dPag e -32- C i r . 2005) ( di s cus s i ng a per i od l es s t han one mont h and not i ng th a t “a sh o rt p e rio d o f

tim e ” m a y p ro v id e th e e v id e n tiary ba sis
o f a n inf ere n ce o f re tal iat ion )). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is to b e u se d sp a rin g lyin
e mp l o yme n t d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c a s e s , e s p e c i a l l y wh e r e , a s h e r e , we
a r e v i e w i n g t h e c a s e a t f i r s t g l a n c e . M i n d f

u l t h a tt h e p l a i n t i f

f 's bur den att hi s fi r s ts t age i s notpar t i cul ar l yoner ous , w e conc l ude t hatD oe has es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e c a s e . C
. Pr et ext T he D i s t r i ct C our t hel d t hat even i f D oe had e s t abl i s hed
a pr i m a f aci e ca se, sh e fa il ed to sh o w that the n o n d iscri m inato ry
r eas ons forherempl oym entdi s char ge w er e p ret extual
. T he
recor d refutes t he h oldi ng . O nce the plai nti ff est abli shes a pr i m a f aci e cas e, t he bur den of pr oduct i on s hi ft s t o the empl oy er t o ar t i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, nondi s cri m ina t oryr eas on forthe
a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . See M cD onnel lD ougl as , 41 1 U. S.Pag e -33- a t 8 0 2 ; s ee al

s o G oos by v. Johns on & J ohns on Med. , I

nc. , 228 F . 3d 31 3, 31 9 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). W hen t he p l ai nti ff m eet s this bur den, t he cour t ' s “fa ctual i nqui r ythen pr ocee ds t o a new l evel
o f s p e c if ic ity.” B ur di ne , 450 U
. S. at 2 5 5 . T he pr es um pt i on of di s cr i m i nat i on es t abl i s hed bythe p rim a fa c ie sh o w in g “ sim p ly d r o p s o u t o f

th e p ic tu re .” St
. M

ar y' s H onorC tr . v. Hi cks , 509 U .S . 5 0 2 , 5 1 1 (1 9 9 3 ). I f the defe ndant m eet s t hi s bur den, t he pl ai nt i ff mustt hen sh o w that the leg it im ate rea so n s o ff e re d b ythe d ef

en d an t are
m e re ly a p re te x t f

o r d is c ri m in a tio n . See J ones , 198 F. 3d at410. I n or dert o s how pr et ext , a pl ai nt i ff m us ts ubm i tevi dence w hi ch ( 1) cas t s doubtupon the l egi t i m at e r eas on pr offe r ed bythe empl oy ers uch t hat a fact
- fi nder coul d r eas onabl yconcl ude that t he r eas on w as a fabr i cat i on; or( 2) w oul d al l ow t he fa ct - fi nder to in f e r th a t d isc rim in a tio n w a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t a
m ot i vat i n g o rd e t e rmi n a t i v e c a u s e o f the empl oy ee' s t erm i nat i on.Pag e -34- S e e Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 3 2 F . 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (3 d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); C hauhan v. M
. A l

f i er i C o. , I

nc . , 8 9 7 F . 2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 (3d C ir
. 1990)
. Putanotherw ay , t o avoi d s um m aryj ud g m ent , t he p lain tiff ' s e v id e n c e re b u tti n g th e e m ploy er' s proff e re d leg iti m a te
r eas ons m us t al l ow a fact
- fi nder r eas onabl y t o i nferthateac h of t he empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons w as ei t her
a pos thoc fabr i cat i on orot herw i s e di d not actual l ym ot i vat e the
em ploym ent act i on (that i s, t hat the p roffered reas on i s a p retex t). S ee A nders on , 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 4 ; Bo d e n h e i merv . PPG I ndus
. , I nc. , 5 F . 3 d 9 5 5 , 9 5 8 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). L as t l y , i ti s i m por t ant to r emem bert hatt he p rim a fa c ie
cas e and pr et exti nqui r i es o ft en over l ap. A s ourj ur i s prudence
r ecogni zes , evi dence s up p o rt i ng t he p rim a fa c ie cas e i s oft en hel p fu l i n t he pr et exts t age, and nothi ng aboutthe McD o n n e ll D ou glas form ul a r equi r es us t o r at i on the evi dence betw een one
s ta g e o r t h e o th e r. Fa r r e ll, 2 0 6 F .3 d a t 2 8 6 ; s ee al s o I adi m ar co ,Pag e -35- 190 F. 3d at 166 ( expl i ci t l y r efe r r i ng t o the evi dence of the p r i ma fa c ie c a se in f

in d in g e v id e n c e s u p p o rtin g p re tex t); J a lil , 873 F. 2d at 709 n. 6 ( “A l t hough thi s fac ti s i m por t anti n es t abl i s hi ng plai nti ff’s pr i m a f

aci e cas e, t her e i s nothi ng pr event i ng i tfr om also b eing u sed to reb u t th e defenda nt ' s prof fe red ex p lana ti o n . ”). 1
. C A R S m ai nt ai ns t hati tfi r ed D oe becaus e s he aba ndoned herj ob ( t he w eek s he t hought s he w as ‘ on vaca t i on’ fol l ow i ng t he abort i on and the funer al )
. Speci fi cal l y , C A R S as s ert s t hat D o e w a s f

ire d b e c a u se n e ith e r s h e n o r h e r h u sb a n d c a lled to
r eques tFr i day , A ugus t 11th or t he w eek of A ugus t14t h off f

r om
w or k. U nexcus ed abs ence fr om w or k i s a l egi t i m at e,
n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so n f o r te rm in a tin g e m p lo ym e n t. B e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt a n d a g a in b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l, K o h l asserts th at h e n ev er rec eive d a telep h o n e c all fro m D o e’s hus band i nform i ng hi m t hat D oe w oul d be off w or k on Fr i dayPag e -36- t he 11th and w oul d need va cat i on t i m e for t he w eek of the 14th. A s w e not ed ea r l i er , th at fac ti s s ubj ectt o di s put e fr om contr adi ct or yevi dence
. D oe poi nt ed t o herhus band’ s t es t i m ony to the co n tr ary . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd isco u n ted D o e’s h u sb an d ’s tes ti m on y , fi nd i ng i t“beli ed b ythe tel eph on e records of cal ls f r o m [ D o e ’s h u sb a n d ’s] f a th e r’s tele p h o n e n u m b e r.” D ist. C t. O p. at12. H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti nappr opr i at el ynarr ow ed D oe’ s hus band’ s t es ti m ony , w ho i ndi cat ed thathe mayhave
c a lled f ro m a b o rro w e d c e ll p h o n e . A p p e n d ix a t 8 6
- 8 7 . T h is t es t i m onyi s al s o backe d- up b yD oe’ s ow n t es t i m onythatthe cal l “had t o be fr om a ce l l phone” a nd t h at “ t her e w as a l ot g o in g o n a t th a t tim e .” A p p e n d ix a t 5 1 -5 2
. A ddi t i onal l y , t he t es t i m onyof Leona D unnettcoul d be vi ew ed b y a fa ct - fi nderas s ubs t ant i at i ng D oe’ s cl ai m t hatt he cal l w as m ad e an d t hats he r ece i ved a w eek of vaca t i on fr om K ohl
. L eona D unnet tt es t i fi ed thatD oe’ s hus band cal l ed heronPag e -37- Fr i day , A u g u st 1 1 t h and as ked w hathe w oul d need t o do for D o e to u se v a c a tio n tim e f o r th e w e e k o f A u g u st 1 4 th . D u n n e tt
a lso tes tifie d th a t sh e e x p lain e d to D o e ’s h u sb a n d th a t h e w o u ld need t o r e q u e s t i t f

r o m Ko h l , a n d t h a t s h e t h e n t r a n s f e r r ed t he cal l t o K ohl
. She fur t hert es t i fi ed that , aft ert hatcal l , K ohl
as ked hert o m ake s ur e s he had t he r ece pt i oni s t s t at i on cover ed b yo th e r e m p lo y e e s d u rin g th e lu n c h h o u r f o r th e w e e k in q u esti o n (a task fo r w h ich D o e w as u su all yresp o n sible). K o h l’ s
aw ar enes s of a r ece pt i oni s t - cover age i s s ue perm i t s an i nfer ence th a t h e k n e w D o e w o u ld b e o n v a c a tio n th a t w e e k
. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d thatD oe pr oduced no e vi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d di s bel i eve CA R S’ as s ert ed
r eas on forfi r i ng herand conc l uded, i ns t ead, thats he w as d isc h a rg e d f

o r d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s. T h e re c o rd re f u tes th is concl us i on. T hi s t es t i m onycr eat es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i alPag e -38- fac t as to w hetherC A R S’ pr offe r ed r eas ons fort erm i nat i ng D o e ’s e m p lo ym e n t w e re a p re tex t. Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notbel i eve that D oe had poi nt ed t o anyevi dence w hi ch ca s tdoubton w hetherK ohl had a go o d f

a i t h b e l i e f

th a tDoe h a d a b a n d o n e d h e rj o b
. The
con v e r s a t i o n b e twee n K ohl and B abi ch, i n w hi ch K ohl r emar ked t hatD oe had nott aken r es pons i bi l i ty forherabor t i on i ndi cat es tha t K o h l m ayh av e h ad o ther rea so n s fo r t erm inating D o e’s
em p loym en t th an h er “ ab an d o n m en t” of h er job
. T h ese are ques t i ons fora j ur y– notones t hats houl d be r es o lve d on
s um m aryj udgm ent . D oe pr oduced t es t i m onyw hi ch cr eat es genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t , t he re s ol ut i on of w hi ch mayl ead a j ur y t o det erm i ne thatC A R S’ as s ert ed r eas ons fordi s char gi ng h e r a re p re te x t.2
. C A R S a l s o c h a l l e n g e s D o e s ’ u s e o f a p s e u d o n ym . We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a tt h e u s e o f p s e u d o n ym s t o c o n c e a l a p l a i n t i f f 's i de nt i t yha s no e xp l i c i ts a nc t i on i n the fe de r a l rul es. N o n e th e les s, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s g iv e n th e p ra c tice im p licit rec o g n it ion in tw o ab o rt ion ca ses , R o e v. W ade , 410 U
. S. 113 ( 1973) , and D oe v. B ol t on , 4 1 0 U. S
. 1 7 9 ( 1 9 7 3 )
. Al t h o u g h we h a v e y e tt o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e , t h e d e c i s i o n wh e t h e rt o a l l o w a (c o n tin u e d ...) Pag e -39- II I. C A R S has fi l ed a cross appea l al l egi ng t hatthe D i s t r i ct C our ti m pr oper lys eal ed the ca s e. “[O ] r der s r el eas i ng s eal ed
m aterial an d d en y ing a m o ti o n to u n sea l a re co ll ateral o rde rs
w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 2 8 U .S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 ,” R epubl i c of P hil i pp i nes v. W

est i ng ho use E l ec. C orp . , 949 F. 2d 653, 658 n. 4 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 9 1 ), and w e r evi ew the gr antorm odi fi cat i on of a conf iden t i al i t yor derforan abus e of di s cr et i on. P ans y v. B orou gh of Stroud

sburg , 2 3 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 3 (3 d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). T her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on. T he re cor d ful l y s uppor t s the D istri ct C o u rt ' s o rde r. 22. (
. . . cont i nued) pl ai nt i ff t o pr ocee d anonym ous l yr es t s w i t hi n the sound d is c re tio n o f

th e c o u rt . S e e Doe v . Fr ank , 951 F. 2d 320, 323 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Li nds ey v . D ayton- H uds on C or

p. , 592 F. 2d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 5 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 444 U . S. 856 ( 1979)
. A ft er a ca r eful r evi ew of al l t he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e ( i ncl udi ng t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s t hor ough hear i ng) , w e ca nnots ayt he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng D oe' s m ot i on t o pr ocee d a n o n ym o u s l y. I V . C oncl us i on D oe h as est abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e cas e. Fur t herm or e,
s he has poi nt ed t o s uffi ci ent evi dence fr om w hi ch a fac t - fi nder coul d i nfert hatt he C A R S' non- di s cr i m i nat ory r eas on forfi r i ng D oe w as a pr et ext . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derw i l l be r ever s ed and the caus e re m anded for fur t her pr ocee di ngs noti ncons i s t ent
w i t h t hi s opi ni on.