Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opi nio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 9U .S .C

. §§ 2 6 0 1 -2 6 5 4
. 1 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40709 Su m m ar y Cal endar

T IN A P O W E R S , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. W O O D LA N D S R E LIG I O U S C O M M U N I TY I N C

. , doi ng busi nes s as In te r fa ith o f th e W o o d la n d s , D efen da n t–A pp el l ee .

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V

- 11

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T i n a P ow ers a p p ea l s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t t o W o o dl and R el i gi o us Com m uni t y I nc . , d/b/ a I nt e r fai t h o f t he W o o dl and s ( Inter fai t h ) den yi n g P ow ers’ s c l ai m s u n d er t h e F am i l y M edi calL eave A ct 1 United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40709

2 9U .S .C .A

. §§ 6 2 1 -6 3 4
. 2 Jam es v. Tex. Colli n County , 5 3 5F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 3( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 3 2 (F M L A ) a n d t h e A g e D is c r im in a tio n in E m p lo y m e n t A c t (A D E A ). W e a ffir m in 2 pa rt , vacate i n part, an d rem an d f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. I I n January 2 001, I nt er fai t h hi r ed Pow er s. Pow er s’ s at t end a n ce w as ac c ept abl e f

r om 2001 t o 2 005. Bet w ee n A ugust 2005 and January 1 1, 2006, Po wer s was a b s e ntf r o m wo r k f

or thi r t y - f

i v e - a nd

- o ne - ha l f

d a y s o n no n- FM LA l eave. Pow ers w as absen t f or an ad di t i on al ei gh t y- f i ve d ays f

or l eave taken und ert he FM LA be t w ee n January 12, 2006, and A pri l7, 2006. Af t era f our - day
a b s e n c e in M a y 2 0 0 6 , I n t e r fa it h t e r m in a t e d P o w e r s fo r a b s e n t e e is m . P o w e r s ’s po s i t i o n was a bs o r be d b y t h ree i ndi vi dua l s w ho w e r e f o r t y- s i x, f

o r t y- ni ne , a nd f i f t y- t w o y ear s of

age att he t i m e o f

Pow er s’ s t er m i nat i on. Pow ers w a s f or t yn in e -y e a r s o ld w h e n s h e w a s fir e d

. Power s s ue d, a l l e gi ng t hatI nt e r fai t h r e t al i at e d aga i n s t he r b e c aus e s he
ex ercised h er righ ts u n d er th e F M L A

. P ow ers a lso a l l eg ed tha t I n terfait h d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h e r b e c a u s e o f h e r ra c e a n d g e n d e r in v io la tio n o f T itle V II , becau se of

her age i n vi ol ati on of t h e A D E A , a n d becau se of her al l eged di sabi l i t y i n vi ol ati on of t h e A m e ri can s w i t h D i sabi l i t i es A ct(A D A )

. Pow ers vol u n t ari l y di sm i ssed her cl ai m s un der T it l e V II an d the A D A

. Th e di st ri ct court gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of I n t erfai t h o n Pow ers’ s c l ai m s un der t he AD EA a nd FM LA

. Po w e r s t i m e l y ap pe al e d. II W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m a ry ju dg m en t de n ovo. 3 S u m m ary j u dg m en t i s app ropri ate i f “ t h e pl ead i n gs, t he di s c o ve r y anddi s c l osure
m a terial s o n f

i l e, a n d an y a ff

i d a vits sh ow tha t t h ere i s n o g en u i n e issu e a s to
an y m ater i al fact an d that t h e m ovan t i s en t i t l ed to j u dg m en t as a m att er ofN o. 08- 40709

F ED . R. C IV . P

. 5 6 (c). 4 Ro bins on v. OrientMarin e C o. L td

. , 5 0 5F .3 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 5 Delta & Pine Land

C o. v. Natio nwide Agrib usin ess I ns. Co. , 53 0 F .3d 3 95, 399(5th 6 Cir. 2008) (qu oti ng Lit tle v. L iquid Air Cor p. , 3 7F .3 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 4))

. Celotex Corp . v. Catrett , 4 7 7U .S

. 3 1 7 , 3 2 4( 1 9 8 6). 7 4 1 1 U .S

. 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ). 8 See Els e ns oh n v . St. Tammany ParishSheriff’sOffice , 53 0 F .3d 3 68, 372(5th Cir. 9 200 8) (applying

th e McDonne ll Douglas rub ric toFMLA c laim s) ; Rus sell v. McKin ney Hosp. Vent ure , 23 5 F .3d 2 19, 222n .3 (5 th Cir. 2 00 0) ( ap p ly ing the McDonne ll Douglas rub ric to ADEA c laim s)

. Elsensohn , 5 3 0F .3 d at 3 7 2 (citati on s o mitt ed). 10 3 l aw. ” Any r e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s a re to b e dr awn i n fav o r o f t he no n- m o vi ng 4 pa rt y. “ H ow ever, a party c an n ot defeat s u m m ary j u dg m en t w ith concl u sory

5
a lle g a tio n s , u n s u b s ta n tia te d a s s e r tio n s , o r ‘ o n ly a s c in tilla o f e v id e n c e .’ ” “R u le 6 56(e)

. . . requi res t h e non m ovi n g p a rty to go beyon d the pl ead i n gs an d by her
o w n a f f i da vi t s , o r b y t he ‘ de po s i t i o ns , a ns w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , a nd a dm i s s i o ns o n fi le ,’ d e s ig n a t e ‘s p e c if ic fa c t s s h o w in g th a t th e r e is a g e n u in e is s u e fo r tr ia l.’” 7 Bec aus e Po w ers pr o duc e d o nl y c i r c um s t ant i ale vi de nc e o f di s c r i m i nat i o n, t he bur de n- s hi f

t i ng ana l ys i s s e t f

o r t h i n McD on n el lD ougl as C orp. v. G ree n gu i des 8
our i nqui r y. 9 A T o m a k e a p rim a fac ie ca se for re ta li a tion u n d e r t h e F M L A , a p la in tiff
m usts how t hat : ( 1) s he w a s p rotected under t he FM LA ; ( 2) s he s uf fer ed an
a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n ; a n d e ith e r (3 a ) s h e w a s t r e a te d le s s fa v o r a b ly t han an e m pl o ye e w ho ha d not requ es t e d l e av e und e r t he FM LA , o r ( 3b ) t he ad verse deci si on w as m ad e becau se s h e t ook F M L A l eave. “ [ T ] h e pl ai n t i f f does 10
n ot ha ve t o show t h at th e p rot ect ed acti vi t y i s t h e onl y cau se of herN o. 08- 40709

Maude r v. Metro. TransitAut h. , 4 4 6F .3 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 3( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 11 Id

. 12 Seei d

. (“Whe n ev alu atin g wheth er the adverse employ ment acti on was causally 13 related t o th e FMLA

pro tecti on, the court shall consi der the ‘temporal proximity’ b etweenth e FMLA l eav e, a n d th e te rm in ati on .”). Se eMcDonnell Dou

glas Cor p. v. Green , 4 1 1 U .S

. 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ); Hu n tv . Rapides 14 He al thcare Sys. , LLC, 2 7 7 F

. 3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( a p p lyi n g the M cD on nell-Douglas fr a me wo rkt o cl aim s o f re tali ato rydis ch arge u n de r th e FMLA ). 4 term i n a ti on . ” Inste a d , the plain ti ff n ee d on l y sh ow th a t “ th e p rotecte d activi ty 11
a n d th e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n a r e n o t c o m p le te ly u n r e la te d .” 12 P ow ers h as p rovi ded su f f i ci en t ev i den ce to est abli sh a pri m a faci e case of di scr i m i n ati on un der t h e F M L A

. It i s u n di spu t ed t h at P ow ers w as au t h ori zed t o t ak e FM LA l e av e a nd was f i r e d app r o xi m at e l y o ne m o nt h af t e r herr e t ur n. 13 A d d i ti on a l l y, P ow ers h a s p rov i d ed u n reb u tted e vid en ce th a t I n terfait h ch a ra cterized h er F M L A l ea ve a s p a rt of “T i n a ’ s a b sen ces.” B eca u se In terfait h
c la im s th a t it te r m in a t e d P o w e r s d u e to e x c e s s iv e a b s e n t e e i s m , I n t e r fa it h ’s
c h a r a c t e r iz a t io n o f h e r F M L A le a v e p r o v id e s a c a u s a l lin k b e t w e e n P o w e r s ’s FM LA l e av e a nd h e r t e r m i nat i o n. B e c a u s e P o w e r s h a s p r o v id e d s u ffic ie n t ev id e n c e to e s ta b lis h a p r im a fa c ie
ca se , t h e b u rd en of p rod u cti on sh i ft s to In terfait h to pro ff er a l eg i ti m a te
n o n d i scr i m i n ator y reason f or i t s deci si on . I n t erfai t h ’ s s t ated reason f or 14 P ow ers’ s t erm i n ati on
— absen t eei sm — i s a l egi t i m ate non di scr i m i n ator y reason f or i t s d eci si on . Inter fai t h ’ s em pl oyee m an u al st ates t h at exc essi ve absen t eei sm
w i l lr e s u l t i n d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g i m m e d i a t e t e r m i nat i o n. P ow ers m i ssed t h i rt y- f i ve- an d-one- h al f da ys f or n on - F M L A l eave over a span of
s ix m o n th s a n d a n o th e r fo u r d a y s in th e m o n th fo llo w in gh e r F M L A le a v e . Bec aus e I nt e r fai t h ha s s t at e d a no ndi s c r i m i nat o r y r e as o n f o r i t s de c i s i o n, P ow ers m u st sh ow b y a prepon deran ce of the evidence t h at I n t erfai t h ’ s r easonN o. 08- 40709

Hunt , 27 7 F .3d at 7 68. 15 44 6 F .3d at 5 83 (affirmingth e di strict court’s conclusio n that theplaintiff faile d to 16 make th e requisiteshowingthat the employer’s stated reaso n for di schar ginghim was mere pr et ext fo r re tali ati on).

See Rhodes v. Gu ib erso nOi l To ols , 75 F .3d 9 89, 994(5th Cir. 1 996) (“[A ] plaintiff ca n 17 avoid summaryj udg ment and ju dgment as a matter of l aw if the evidence t aken as awhol e (1) c reat es afac t i ssue a s to wheth er e achof the employer’s stated reaso ns was what actu ally mo tiv ate d th e em pl oyer . . . .”), overru led on ot her gro unds by Reeves v. SandersonPlumbin g Pro ds., In c. , 5 3 0U .S

. 1 3 3( 2 0 0 0). 5 i s a pret ext f

or r et al i ati on . T h e r e co rd show s t h at I n t erfai t h t erm i n ated 15 Power s o ne m o nt h a f t e r s he r e t ur ne d f

r o m F M LA l e av e . The f i nale ve nt l e ad i ng t o her t erm i n ati on w as a si n gl e absen ce of f ou r consecuti ve da ys du e t o a severe spi der bi t e. Pow ers h as provi ded e v iden ce t h at her i m m edi ate s u pervi sor a p p rov ed this f

i n a lab sen ce. F u rth er, P ow ers p rov i d es ev i d en ce th a t I n terfait h
u t i l i zed i t s progress i ve di sci p li n a ry program w i t h ot h er em pl oyees bu t di d n ot
us e t hi s pr o gr am i n Po w e r s ’ s c as e . U nl i ke i n Ma u d erv. Me tr op o litan Tra n sit A u th o r ity , i n w h i ch the em pl oyer ha d alr ead y i n st i t u t ed d i sci pl i n ary m easu res for exc ess i ve tard i n ess be fore th e p l a i n ti ff took F M L A l ea ve , In terfait h ad m i ts 16 th a t it d id n o t re p r im a n d P o w e r s fo r ta k in g le a v e fo r w h ic h s h e w a s n o t e lig ib le betw een A u gu st 2 005 a n d Jan u ary 11, 2 006
. E xam i n i n g t h e evi den ce presented i n t h e l i gh t m ost favorab l e t o P ow ers, w e concl u de th a t a gen u i n e i ssue of
m a terial fac t ex i st s as t o w het her I nt er fai t h’ s purpor t ed r eas on w as w hat act u al l y m ot i vated i t t o t erm i n ate Pow ers. Th erefor e, w e vacate t h e di st ri ct 17
c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n P o w e r s ’ s F M L A cla im

. B P ow ers al so c on te n d s that t h e di st ri ctcourt err ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u dg m en t on h er A D E A cl ai m . “ T o m ak e ou t a p ri m a faci e case of di scr i m i n ator y tr e a tm e n t b a s e d o n a g e , th e p la in tiffs a r e r e q u ir e d to p r o v e : (1 ) th e y a r e w ith in t he p rotect ed c l as s; ( 2) t hey ar e q ual i f i ed f ort he pos i t i on; ( 3) t hey s uf fer ed an ad verse em pl oym en t d e ci si on ; an d ( 4) t h ey w ere r epl aced by som eon e you n gerN o. 08- 40709

Smit h v. Cityof Jackson , 3 5 1 F .3 d 1 8 3 , 1 9 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 18 See 29 U.S.C. § 631 (a) (stating th at the protec tion s inth e ADEA are limit ed to 19 in dividu alswh o areat le a stf ortyyearso f a ge)

. See Wyvill v. United

Cos. L ife I

ns. Co. , 21 2 F .3d 2 96, 305(5th Cir. 2 000) (“Therewas 20 no evidence, fo r ex ample, that United Companie s . . . compliedw it h standard di sciplinary procedures whe n filingrep orts o n yo unger w or k er s b ut flouted them when it came to [the pl aintiff s] .”). See Berq uistv. W

ash. Mut . Bank , 50 0 F .3d 3 44, 353(5th Cir. 2 007) (“I n disparate 21 treatment cases, the plainti f f-employee must sh ow ‘n early identical’ circu mstance s for em ployees to be cons ide redsim ilar ly situ ated .” (quot ing Perez v. T ex. Dep’tof Crimin al J ust ice , 3 9 5F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 0( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4)) ). 6 or t reat ed l ess f

avorab l y t h an si m i la rly situ a te d y o u n g e r e m p loy e e s (i. e ., su ffered f r o m di s pa r at e t r e at m e nt be c aus e o f m e m be r s hi p i n t he pr o t e c t e d c l as s )

. ” The 18 p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t P o w e r s s a t i s f i e s t h e f i r s t t h r e e e l e me n t s t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fa c ie ca s e . H o w e v e r , P o w e r s fa ils to s a tis fy th e fo u r th e le m e n t. P ow ers w as not r epl aced by som eon e outsi de of t h e prote ct ed cl ass. In stea d , P ow ers’ s p ositi on w a s ab sorb ed by thre e ind ivi dual s w ho w er e o ve r f orty years of a ge. T h u s, w e need onl y determ i n e w h et h er Pow ers w as t reat ed l ess

19 fa v o r a b ly th a n s im ila r ly s itu a te d y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e s . In her i n i t i al di scl osures, P ow ers cl ai m s t h at t w el ve peop l e w ere t reat ed bett er t h an h er. O f

t h ese t w el ve, seven are f ort y- years ol d or ol der. Th eref ore, by Pow ers’ s ow n accoun t , Inter fai t h t reat ed bot h you n ger an d ol der em pl oyees bet t ert han her. Pow er s al so c l ai m s t hat I nt er fai t h fai l ed t o f ol l ow t he nor m al d i scipli n a ry pr oce d u res b efore term i n a ti n g h er b eca u se In terfait h did n ot u se it s pr o gr e s s ive di s c i pl i ne po l i c y, Em pl o ye e Ass i s t an ce Program , or C orrec t i ve A ct i on P l an . Y et , P ow ers does n ot asser t t h at th e se p rocedu res w ere uti l i zed f or you n ger w orkers but not f or ol der ones. 20 Fu r t her , t he evi denc e fai l s t o sho w t hat any of t he peo pl e Pow er s l i st ed as bei n g t reat ed bett er t h an her w ere s i m i l arl y si t u ated. I n her “ L i st of 21 Em pl o ye e s Tr e at e d Be t t e r , ” Po w e r s do e s no t pr o vi de t he a ge s o f a ny o f t heN o. 08- 40709

SeeW yv il l , 21 2 F .3d at 3 02-0 3 (“This court an d others have h eld that te stimonyfrom 22 for m ere mployees wh o h ad differe nt supervisors tha n the plaintiff, who worked indiffe rent parts of th e e mployer’s company, or wh ose t ermin atio ns w er e r em ov ed in time from th e plaintiff’ s terminationca nno t b e probative o f whether age was a de termin ative factor in the pl aintiff ’sdis ch arge. ”)

. See Tho rnb rough v. Columbus & G reenville R.R. Co. , 760 F.2 d 633 , 641 n.9 (5thC ir. 23 198 5) (“Inth e e mploy ment dis c r imin atio n cont ext, apri ma facie case is e stablishe d if the plaintiff merelysati sfies the stan ding requir ement s of the ADEA an d pre sents evidence o f diff er enti al tr eatm ent of

you n gera n d ol de r em ployee s. Giv en th es e mi nim al re qu ir em ents , the failure to e stablish a prima facieca se gene rally mean s that th ere are no materi al facts at is su e. ”) , overru led on ot her gro unds by St . Mary’sHono r Ctr . v. Hicks , 50 9 U .S. 50 2, 5 13 (1 9 9 3 ). 7 pe r s o n s l i s t e d ; i n s t e a d , s h e d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a lo f t h e p e r s o n s a s b e i ng

“ sub st an t i al l y you n ger. ” Pow ers al so fai l s t o detai lt h e nu m ber of absen ces f

or e ac h e m pl o ye e o r t he t i m e pe r i o d i n whi c h t he s e a bs e nc e s o c c ur r e d, e xc e pti n o ne case i n w h i ch s h e st ates t h at t h e person w as absen t f or a s i n gl e peri od of

m ore t han t hi r t y da ys af

t e r havi ng a m i s c ar r i ag e . Addi t i o nal l y, P o w e r s de s c r i be d t he posi t i on s of

onl y t h ree em pl oyees. O f t h e t w o em pl oyees w i t h a si m i l ar posi t i on as pre- em pl oym en t sc reeners, P ow ers doe s not al l ege t h at t h ese em pl oyees
m i s s e d wor k; s he c o m pl ai ns o nl y t hat t he y w o r ke d f r o m ho m e . Al s o , s i x o f t he l i st ed em pl oyees l ef

t I n t erfai t h of

t h ei r ow n vol i t i on an d on l y t w o em pl oyees
w ere ter m i n ated foru n l i st ed reasons. F i n al l y, P ow ers does n ot detai lt h e t en u re of t h e em pl oyees excep t i n one ci rcum st an ce not si m i l ar t o P ow ers. Su ch
a n e c d o ta l e v id e n c e d o e s n o t p la c e a n y o f th e s e cu r r e n t a n d fo r m e r e m p lo y e e s in a si m i l ar si t u ati on as Pow ers. 22 B ecau se Pow ers fai l s t o p re sent evi den ce t h at c reat es a genu i n e i ssue of
m at e r i alfac t a s t o w he t he r s he pr o ve d t hats he w as r e pl ac ed by s o m e o ne you n ger or t reat ed l ess favorab l y t h an si m i l arl y si t u ated you n ger em pl oyees, P ow ers’ s A D E A cl ai m fai l s. 23N o. 08- 40709

8 * * * W e A F F IR M i n part, VA C A T E i n part, an d R E M A N D f or f u rt h er proceedi n gs.