N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PATR IC IA ANNE T. SAM SON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, N.A., a South Dakota c orporation; DOES, 1 through 100, inc lusive , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-55927 DC No. C V 16-4839 B R O
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KENNELLY, * * Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Patric ia

Sa m son a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e W e lls Fa

rgo B ank on 

# FIL ED JUN 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M a tthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Sa m son’ s c la im s of disa b i lity disc rim ination, re ta l iation, wrongful term ination in viola tion of publicpolic y , a

nd fa ilure to a c c om

m odate . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we re ve rse . Sa m son m a de out a prim a fa c ie c a se of disa

bility disc rim ination. W e lls Fargo the n offe re d a

le gitim a te , nondisc rim inatory re a son for he r firing: it sa y s Sa m son wa s fire d

be c a use he r position wa s e lim i nate d in fa vor of a highe r-pa

y ing, oste nsibly m ore produc tive position. Thus, the que stion we m

ust de c ide is whe the r Sa m son provide d suffic ie nt e v ide nc e from whic h a re a s ona ble jury c ould find tha

t W e lls Fa rgo’ s e xp la

nation for he r firing wa s untruthful or pre te xtua l. S e e Guz v
. Be c hte l N at’l, Inc
. , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113–14 (C a l. 2000) (a dopting the thre e -part te st for disa bility disc rim i nation c la im s unde r Mc Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). A nonm oving pla intiff m ay re ly

e ntire ly on c irc um sta

ntia l
e vide nc e tha

t is spe c i fic and substa

ntia l to m ake suc h a

showing, so long a s the
e vide nc e provide s a

ba sis to infe r pre te x t . Se e Re e v e s v . Sande rson Plumbing Prods. , 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000); Godw in v . Hunt W e sson, Inc
. , 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th C ir. 1998). Eve n whe re no single pie c e of e vide nc e is indepe nde ntly suffic i e nt to support a

n infe re nc e of pre te xt, the pla intiff m ay m e e t he r burde n at the s um m ary -judgm e n t sta ge ba se d on “ the e vide nc e a s a whole .” Guz , 8 P.3d a

t 1117.
2A re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t Ja son Gwin’ s m e e t ing invita tion unde rc uts W e lls Fa rgo’ s c o n te ntion tha

t it be ga n the proc e ss of firing Sa

m son we e ks be fore he r le a ve . On Oc tobe r 28, 2014, Sa m son a nnounc e d to he r supe rvisors a t W e lls Fargo tha t she would ta

ke a m e dic a l le ave of a

bse nc e from

he r position a s a portfolio m ana ge r to re c o ve r from a se ve re e pisode of c hronic e ndom e triosis. The ne xt da

y , Gwin, he r supe rvisor, se nt a m e e t ing invita

tion e n title d “ Sa m son Displa c e m e nt C onve rsa tion” to his boss, Ste n de r Swe e ne y . In the m e ssa ge , Gwin
e xpla ine d tha

t he wa nte d to “ run a

n ide a by [Swe e n e y ] re ga

rding Pa tric ia Sa m son.” W he n she re t

urne d from he r m e dic a l le ave , Sam son wa s fire d. The pa rtie s forc e fully disa g re e a

bout the im

port of Gwin’ s words. W e lls Fa rgo c onte nds tha

t Gwin sought a m e e t ing m e re ly to upda te Swe e ne y

on a n a lre a dy -ongoing proc e ss of firing Sa

m son in light of he

r m e dic a l le ave , c iting dep osition te stim ony from Gwin, a n d a hum an re sourc e s offic ia l, Kim Pham . B oth Gwin a

nd Pha m te s tifie d that the y le arne d a bout Sa m son’ s pla

ns to ta ke m e dic a l le av e on or a

bout Oc tobe r 28, 2014, a

t whic h point the y unde rtook to c onfirm whe the r or not the y

c ould proc e e d with the ir displa c e m e nt pla ns. Sa m son, on theothe r ha n d, a rgue s tha t Gwin’ s use of the phra se “ I wan t to run a n ide a by y ou,” is indic a tive of som e thing to be disc usse d for the first tim e , not a de c ision a lre a dy m a de
.

3B oth side s’ inte rpre tations a re pla usible . On sum

m ary judgm e nt, it is not our pla c e to de c ide be twe e n suc h c om pe t ing infe re nc e s. Se e Ande rson v . Libe rty Lobby , Inc
. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). R a the r, we m

ust vie w the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to Sa m son, the non-m oving pa rty . Se e S c ott v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Apply ing tha t sta nda rd, a jury c ould re a sona

bly infe r that the d e c ision to fireSa m son ha d not y e t be e n m a de a s of Oc tobe r 29 a nd, inste a d, that Gwin wa s a

bout to propose

it for the first tim e . This would unde rm ine Gwin
and Pha m ’ s te stim ony

tha t the y de c i de d to fire Sa m son two we e k s e arlie r. 1 B e c a use a re a sona ble jury c ould infe r that the de c ision to term inate Sa m son wa s m a de , or at le a st initia te d, on Oc tobe r 29, one da y a fte r Sa m s on ga

ve notic e of he r m e dic a l le a ve , the te m pora l proxim ity

of tha t de c ision to Sa

m s on’ s le ave supports a

re a sona ble infe re nc e of pre te xt. W e have re pe a te dly sta t e d tha t, “ [i] n som e c a se s, te m

pora l proxim i ty

c an by itse l f c onstitute suffic ie nt c irc um s ta ntia l
e vide nc e of re ta lia

tion for purpose s of both theprim a fa c ie c a s e and the showing of

1 The disse nt insists tha t Gwin’ s Oc tobe r 30 e m a il “ i s not a sm oking gun,” Disse nt a

t 3, a nd we a gre e . B ut, of c ourse , “ a sm oking gun [is] not . . . ne e de d to ove rc o m e a

m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e nt.” He nde r

son v . Unite d Stude n t Aid Funds, Inc
. , 918 F.3d 1068, 1082 (9th C ir. 2019) (B y be e , J., disse nting) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d), as ame n d e d on de nial of re h’g and re h’g e n banc (M ay 6, 2019). It is suffic ie n t, a s we e xpla in a bove , that the e m a il is subje c t to c om pe ting re a sona

b le infe re nc e s , a

nd so, is a dispute d fa c t or in de fe a ting W e lls Fa rgo’ s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. 4pre t e xt.” Daw s on v . Ente k Int’l , 630 F.3d 928, 937 (9th C ir. 2011); se e also, e .g. , Ste g all v
. C itade l Broad. C

o. , 350 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Te m pora l proxim ity be twe e n prote c te d a c tivity and a n a d ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion c an by itse lf c onstitute

suffic ie nt c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e of re ta lia

t ion in som e c a se s.” (quoting Be ll v . C

lac k a mas C ounty , 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th C ir. 2003))); Passantino v . J

ohnson & J ohnson C onsume r Prods., Inc
. , 212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ [E] vide nc e ba s e d on timing c an be suffic ie nt to le t the issue go to the jury , e ve n in the fa c e of a lte rna tive re a sons proffe re d by the de fe nda

nt.” ). Adm itte d ly , C a lifornia

c ourts ha v e rule d tha

t te m pora l proxim ity

“ doe s not,
w ithout more , suffic e . . . to show a tria ble issue of fa c t

on whe t he r the e m

ploy e r’ s artic ulate d re a s on wa s untrue and pre te xtua l.” Loggins v
. K aise r Pe rmane nteInt’l , 60 C a l. R ptr. 3d 45, 54 (C t. App. 2007) (e m pha sis a dde d). B ut Sa

m s on doe s not
re st on tim

ing “ without m ore ” ; tim i ng is he re only pa rt of the c um

ulative e vide nc e that supports a

n infe re n c e of pre te xt. C

f. Ste gall , 350 F.3d 1061 (“ [W ] e do not
ne e d to re ly

sole ly on tim ing in this c a se be c a u se the re e xists substa

ntia lly m ore .” ). The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t pre te xt a lso m ay

be infe rre d whe re an “ e m

p loy e r ha s give n

shifting . . . justific a tions for its a c tions.” Guz , 8 P.3d at 1119. Thedistric t c ourt ove rlooke d tha t a re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t the re we re shifting justific a t ions for W e lls Fa rgo’ s te rm i nation of Sa

m son.
5Sa m son ga

ve unre butte d te stim ony

tha t she wa s initia l ly

told tha t she wa s te rm inate d in pa

rt be c a use Gwin wa s “ not ha

ppy with [he r] pe rform anc e ” a s a portfolio m ana ge r. On Oc tobe r 30, Gwin wrotein his e m a il to Swe e ne y tha t if his te rm ination pla

n did not work, the

n the y “ will c o ntinue to work with Pa tric ia to try to bring he r pe rform anc e up to pa r.” B ut be fore the distric t c ourt a nd now on
a ppe a l, W e lls Fa

rgo a rgue s tha t Sam son’ s pe rform a

n c e wa s “ irre le va

n t” be c a use the firing de c ision “ wa s not pre m ise d on poor pe rform anc e by Sa m son.” It a

rgue s inste a d tha

t the sole re a son for he r te rm ination wa s the re struc turing of the de pa rtm e nt a nd the e lim inat ion of he r position. Vie wing the re c ord in the light
m ost fa vora ble to the Sa m son, a

re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s shifting ra

tiona le s for the te rm i nation support a n infe re n c e of pre t e xt. To be sure , “ this is a

c lose c a se ” ste e pe d with unc e rta inty a bout the e ve nts that le d to Sa m son’ s te rm ination. Se e Mc Gine st v . GTE Se rv ic e C

orp. , 360 F.3d 1103, 1124 (9th C ir. 2004). B ut “ [s] uc h unc e rta inty a t the sum

m a ry judgm e nt sta ge m ust be re solve d in fa

vor of the pla intiff.” Id. “ C re dibility de te rm inations, the w e ighing of the

e vide nc e , a

nd the drawing of le g itim a te infe re nc e s from the fa c t s a re jury func tions, not those of a judge ” a sse ssing a

m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. Ande rson , 477 U.S. a t 255. B e c a

use a re a sona ble jury c ould, ba se d on

6the e vide n c e in the re c o rd, find in Sa m son’ s favor on he r c la im s of disc rim ination,
we re ve rse . B e c a use Sa m son ra ise d a

tria ble issue of fa c t on he r disa b ility disc rim ination
c la im , we a lso re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt on Sa

m son’ s re m a ining c la im s of re ta lia t ion, wrongful te rm ination in viola tion of publicpolic y , and fa ilure to a c c om

m odate . Se e Yanow i tz v . L’Ore al USA, Inc
. , 116 P.3d 1123, 1130 (C a l. 2005) (sta

ting tha t re ta lia tion c la i m s unde r the FEHA a re a lso gove rne d by the Mc Donne ll Douglas burde n-shifting fra m e work). B e c a

use the distric t c ourt did not re a c h W e lls Fa

rgo’ s c o nte ntion tha

t Sam s on fa i le d to provide e vide nc e tha t punitive dam a g e s a

re a ppropria te in this c a se , it would be ina p propria te for us to
re a c h it in the

first insta nc e . W e thus le ave it to the distric t c ourt to a ddre ss on re m and. RE V E RSE D
.

7Samson v . W e lls Fargo Bank

, No. 17-55927 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting

“ [M ] e re a l le gation a

nd spe c ulation do not c re a te a fa c tua l disputefor purpose s of sum

m ary judgm e nt.” N

e lson v . Pima C

mty . C oll. , 83 F.3d 1075, 1081–82 (9th C ir. 1996). B e c a use nothing in the

re c ord ra ise s a ge nuine issue of
m a te ria l fa c t tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s sta te d re a son for firing Sa

m s on, to re pla c e he r with
a m ore e xpe rie nc e d portfolio m ana ge r, wa s pre t e xtua l, I would a ffirm the distric t
c ourt. Taking the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa v ora ble to Sa m son, the re c ord shows that the de c isionm a ke rs pla

nne d to te rm inate he r position long be fore the y be c am e aware of he r disa

bility . Sam son worke d a s a le ve l one portfolio m ana ge r (PM 1). He r boss, Ja son Gwin, wa nte d to hire a

se c ond PM 1, but wa s thwa rte d by a ne w he a d of the W e ste rn R e gion who intende d to ke e p the num be r of e m ploy e e s down. Gwin a n d Kim Pham , a hum an re sourc e s offic e r, c am e up with a worka round. In a phone c onve rsa tion on Oc tobe r 13, 2014, the y de c i de d to proposee lim inat ing Sa m son’ s position, a

nd re pla c ing he r with a le v e l two portfolio m ana ge r (PM 2),
som e one with m ore e xpe rie nc e who c ould ge t m ore done
. Gwin’ s boss, Ste nde r Swe e n e y , a

pprove d the pla

n on Oc tobe r 21. A we e k la

te r, on Oc tobe r 28, Sa

m son first inform e d Gwin tha t she re quire d a
m e dic a l le a ve of a

bse nc e . The ne xt da

y , Gwin a s ke d hum a

n re sourc e s whe the r, in 

# FIL ED JUN 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSlight of Sa

m son’ s le a ve , he c ould still go forwa rd with his sta ffing pla

n. Gwin got
a pprova l from the hum an

re sourc e s de pa

rtm e nt. That

sa m e da y , he se nt a

n e m a i l to Swe e ne y , sa

y ing “ Ple a se le t m e know if y o u’ re ava ila b le and at wha

t num be r. I
want to run a

n ide a by y ou re ga rding Pa tric ia Sa m son.” Gwin la

te r te stifie d

tha t he
a ske d Swe e ne y

whe the r he c ould go still forwa rd with his sta ffing pla

n . Swe e ne y a pprove d
. On Oc tobe r 30, 2014, Gwin sent Swe e ne y an e m a il form a lly re que sting
re pla c ing Sa

m s on with a PM 2. The e m a il sta te d tha t “ [t] his pla

n only works if I have a c om

m itm e nt to hire a

PM 2. If I am

una ble to hire a

PM 2 we will c ontinue to work with Pa

tric ia [Sa m son] to try

to bring he r pe rform anc e up to pa r.” The
ne w W e ste rn R e gion he a d a pprove d the pla

n . B a se d on the e vide nc e in the re c ord, no re a sona ble juror c ould c o nc lude tha t Gwin, Pha

m , a nd Swe e ne y

kne w tha t Sam s on ha d a

disa bling c ondition be fore the y a gre e d to re pla c e he r. The re is no e v ide nc e in the re c ord c ontra dic ting Gwin’ s and Pha m ’ s te stim ony

tha t the y de v e lope d the pla

n to re pla c e Sa m son during the ir
c onve rsa tion on Oc tobe r 13. Nor is the re any e vide nc e in the re c ord c ontra dic ting Gwin’ s te stim ony

tha t his e m a il to Swe e ne y

on Oc tobe r 30 re late d

to the que stion whe the r he c ould go still forwa rd with the sta ffing pla

n. The m a

jority ha n gs its ha t sole ly on a single phra se in Gwin’ s Oc tobe r 30 e m a i l: “ I want to run a n ide a by y ou.” The m a

jority spe c ulate s tha

t this phra se c ould m e an tha t Gwin did notpropose to fire Sa m son until tha t da te . B ut te lling y o ur boss tha

t y ou “ want to run a

n ide a ” by

him is not a sm oking gun sugge sting tha

t the unre butte d te stim o ny of Gwin, Pha

m , a nd Swe e n e y

is pre t e xtua l. In fa c t, it is she e r spe c ulation to sugge st, a s the m a jority doe s, tha

t the phra se m e ans som e thing othe r tha n wha t Gwin sa id it m e ant. No re a sona ble juror
c ould find, ba s e d on this phra se , tha t Gwin, Pha

m and Swe e n e y

lie d whe n the y te stifie d tha

t the y ha d a lre a dy de c ide d to re pla c e Sa m son with a PM 2. Se e Guz v
. Be c hte l N at’l, Inc
. , 24 C a l. 4th 317, 354–55 (2000). B e c a use the re is no e vide nc e tha t W e lls Fa

rgo’ s sta te d re a son for te rm inating Sa

m son wa s pre te xtua l, the te m p ora l proxim ity

(be twe e n the sta

te m e nt

“ I want to run a

n ide a by y ou” and Sam son’ s te rm ination) is irre le va nt. Nor is it
re le va nt tha t Gwin re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t he would ha

ve to try to bring Sa m son’ s pe rform anc e up to pa r if he c ouldn’ t hire a

PM 2 . In fa c t , the re is not a
sc intilla of e v ide nc e tha

t W e lls Fa

rgo fire d Sam son for a

ny re a s on othe r tha

n the im ple m e ntation of its sta ffing pla n. The m a

jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Gwin’ s re que st to run a n ide a by his boss c re ate s a

ge nuine issue of m at e ria l fa c t tha t W e lls Fa

rgo fire d Sam son for disc rim inatory re a sons is c om

ple t e ly ba s e le ss. Ac c ordingly , I disse nt.