UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

KENYON BRADY CLARK, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CACHE VALLEY ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, a Utah corporation, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 13-4119 

(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00461-DN) 

(D. Utah)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Kenyon Brady Clark filed this action alleging that his employer, Cache Valley 

Electric Company (“Cache Valley”), unlawfully discriminated against and retaliated 

against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e-2000e-17. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cache 

Valley. It reasoned (1) Mr. Clark’s discrimination claim was based solely on his 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 25, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

supervisor’s alleged voluntary romantic affiliation with a female subordinate, and 

therefore failed to state a claim for relief under Title VII; and (2) Mr. Clark failed to 

demonstrate that Cache Valley’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his 

employment were pretextual. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

1. Background

Mr. Clark began working for Cache Valley, an electrical contracting company, 

in 1998. In 2006, he became a project manager, responsible for managing projects 

for customers in the Teledata Division. Myron Perschon supervised the Teledata 

Division’s project managers, including Mr. Clark and one female with project 

manager duties, Melissa Silver. 

In his district court complaint, Mr. Clark alleged that Mr. Perschon favored 

Ms. Silver with respect to job assignments, bonuses, and other working conditions 

because Mr. Perschon was or had been romantically involved with Ms. Silver. The 

complaint also included conclusory statements that Mr. Perschon favored females 

generally, but Mr. Clark presented no evidence to support these statements. 

Beginning with his summary judgment response brief, however, Mr. Clark 

attempted to distance himself from the allegations of his complaint. In this appeal, 

he argues that his discrimination claim was not based on a purported romantic or 

sexual relationship, because (1) the alleged sexual conduct occurred years before he 

first complained to Cache Valley of discrimination and retaliation, and (2) Cache 
- 3 - 

Valley eventually investigated the matter and informed him that no romantic or 

sexual relationship existed. Mr. Clark denies that his complaint asserts favoritism 

based on what turned out to be a non-existent affair. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 39-40. 

 Unfortunately for Mr. Clark, however, the plain language of his complaint 

does not support this revisionist interpretation. Instead, the complaint alleged an 

inappropriate relationship between Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver involving conduct of 

a sexual nature, and favoritism resulting from that relationship, that affected his 

employment at all times relevant to the complaint. See Aplt. App., Vol. I at A24-25. 

Moreover, although it contained conclusory allegations concerning Mr. Perschon’s 

general favoritism toward females, Mr. Clark later admitted in his summary judgment 

response that he had not presented any evidence that Mr. Perschon provided favored 

treatment to any other female employee besides Ms. Silver. See Summary Judgment 

Response, Clark v. Cache Valley Elec. Co., No. 2:11-cv-00461-DN, doc. 39, at 8 

(D. Utah Apr. 26, 2013) (characterizing as “[u]ndisputed” Cache Valley’s contention 

that Mr. Clark “has not specifically alleged, or provided any evidence that 

Mr. Perschon provided favored treatment to any other female employee besides 

Ms. Silver”).1

 

 

1

 We have consulted the district court’s electronic docket to review this 

summary judgment response, see Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(2), which should have been 

included in Mr. Clark’s appendix, see 10th Cir. R. 10.3(D)(2), 30.1(A)(1), but was 

not. 
- 4 - 

In sum, the basis of his discrimination claim was that Mr. Perschon favored 

Ms. Silver over Mr. Clark because Ms. Silver and Mr. Perschon were in a romantic or 

sexual relationship. Although Mr. Clark complains that the district court “construed 

allegations in [his] complaint against him,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 39, in fact, it simply 

read the complaint as written. 

The summary judgment evidence also supports the district court’s 

understanding of the complaint. During his deposition, Mr. Clark was asked about 

the allegations that he had suffered personally and professionally due to the 

relationship between Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver. He explained that they “acted 

like they were married.” Aplt. App., Vol. I at A157. 

 Mr. Clark acknowledged that he could not be certain Mr. Perschon and 

Ms. Silver were in a sexual relationship. But he stated “whether they were having 

sex or not, there was favoritism.” Id. at A172. He was then asked “where do you 

think that favoritism was coming from?” Id. He responded: 

[I]t goes back to just the way that, you know, they interacted with each 

other. Whether they were having sex or not, off of what I witnessed 

from Myron [Perschon] he definitely had – it wasn’t business. It should 

have been a business relationship. It was not a business relationship. 

Id. at A172-73. 

Nor did Mr. Clark cease complaining about the relationship once Cache Valley 

conveyed to him Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver’s denials. Mr. Clark described 

 
- 5 - 

a meeting with Nathan Wickizer, Chief Operating Officer at Cache Valley, that took 

place several months before Mr. Clark was fired: 

26. During this meeting, [Mr.] Wickizer . . . told me that he had 

discussed the alleged affair with Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver and that 

they had both denied any sexual or other personal relationship, and that 

[Cache Valley] was not concerned with what, if anything, the two of 

them did on their own time. 

 27. I took Mr. Wickizer at his word. However, I told him that 

I was still concerned about the amount of time [Mr.] Perschon was 

spending with [Ms.] Silver, their behavior together (that they acted 

unprofessionally for a business environment and more like a married 

couple), that [Mr.] Perschon performed most of [Ms.] Silver’s job 

functions as a Project Manager (e.g., bids, walkthroughs, takeoffs, 

manpower), and that she was being paid more for performing less work 

than the male Project Managers supervised by [Mr.] Perschon, including 

me, and that she was unfairly getting jobs from [Mr.] Perschon. 

Id. at A49. 

 When asked about the alleged favoritism during his deposition, Mr. Clark 

failed to articulate a discriminatory, rather than a relationship based, rationale for 

Mr. Perschon’s behavior. He was asked: 

Q. . . . So if they weren’t having an affair, what would explain all of 

those things that you’re so offended by? 

A. Favoritism. 

Q. Based on what? 

A. He’s spending all his time in her office. 

Q. Why is he spending all of his time in her office? 

A. You’re going to have to ask him. I don’t know that. 

Id. at A295 (emphasis added). 
- 6 - 

 Mr. Clark thus admitted that if the favoritism was not due to an affair, he did 

not know the reason for it. More to the point, he did not state that Mr. Perschon 

favored Ms. Silver due to the fact that she was a female. Moreover, as will be seen in 

our discussion of the retaliation claim, his complaints to Cache Valley management 

also were based on favoritism resulting from the alleged affair or romantic 

relationship, rather than gender bias. 

2. Analysis

We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, applying the 

same standard as the district court. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 

731 F.3d 1106, 1116 (10th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In reviewing 

a summary judgment disposition, “[w]e view the facts, and all reasonable inferences 

those facts support, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Abercrombie & Fitch, 731 F.3d at 1116 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

When the plaintiff’s evidence of gender discrimination is circumstantial rather 

than direct, we evaluate his claim using the burden shifting framework established in 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). “Under McDonnell 

Douglas, a plaintiff carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of 

discrimination.” Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). To 

assert a prima facie case of gender discrimination in the workplace, a plaintiff must 
- 7 - 

ordinarily show that “(1) the victim belongs to a protected class; (2) the victim 

suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the challenged action took place 

under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.” EEOC v. PVNF, 

L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790, 800 (10th Cir. 2007). In a reverse gender discrimination case 

like this one, however, a plaintiff “must, in lieu of showing that he belongs to a 

protected group, establish background circumstances that support an inference that 

the defendant is one of those unusual employers who discriminates against the 

majority.” Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1201 

(10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Alternatively, a plaintiff may 

produce facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that but for plaintiff’s status 

the challenged decision would not have occurred.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

“Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden 

shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the 

adverse action.” PVNF, 487 F.3d at 800. “If the employer does so, the burden shifts 

back to the plaintiff to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether the employer’s proffered reasons are pretextual.” Id. 

Mr. Clark presented no evidence that Cache Valley treated women more 

favorably than men, and no circumstances giving rise to an inference of 

discrimination. Indeed, as the district court concluded, Mr. Clark merely provided 

evidence that Mr. Perschon extended preferential treatment to one female employee: 
- 8 - 

Ms. Silver, a co-worker with whom Mr. Perschon allegedly was having an affair or 

some other form of “improper” relationship. Favoritism of a paramour is not gender 

discrimination. See, e.g., Taken v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1366, 1370 

(10th Cir. 1997) (“[P]referential treatment on the basis of a consensual romantic 

relationship between a supervisor and an employee is not gender-based 

discrimination.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Mr. Clark attempts to distinguish Taken by arguing that he merely accused 

Mr. Perschon of some other form of affiliation with, or vaguely “improper 

relationship” with, Ms. Silver, rather than an actual sexual relationship. See Aplt. 

Opening Br. at 54 (misstating case law to hold that “the preferential treatment [must] 

actually arise out of a sexual affiliation instead of gender in order for the favoritism 

to be outside of the purview of Title VII.” (emphasis added)). But in fact, other 

motives such as friendship, nepotism, or personal fondness or intimacy, rather than 

an actual sexual relationship, also suffice to remove the case from Title VII’s 

anti-discrimination provisions. See, e.g., Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 

493 F.3d 1160, 1171-72 (10th Cir. 2007) (finding no inference of discrimination 

where supervisor treated male employee with whom he was friends “differently than 

any of his other direct reports, male or female,” including hosting and paying for a 

birthday party for the favored employee); Neal v. Roche, 349 F.3d 1246, 1251 

(10th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases illustrating that such motives as friendship, 

cronyism, or nepotism do not constitute actionable discrimination, “even when they 
- 9 - 

benefit the nonprotected friend or relative at the expense of a more qualified, 

protected person”); Schobert v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 304 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir. 

2002) (“Whether the employer grants employment perks to an employee because she 

is a protégé, an old friend, a close relative or a love interest, that special treatment is 

permissible as long as it is not based on an impermissible classification.”). 

In sum, there is no showing that Mr. Perschon favored Ms. Silver because of 

gender bias. Rather, the allegations supported by the summary judgment evidence 

are that Mr. Perschon favored Ms. Silver because the two of them had (or behaved as 

though they had) some kind of special friendship, affinity, or relationship. This is 

insufficient to establish a case of gender discrimination. The district court therefore 

properly granted summary judgment on this claim. 

RETALIATION CLAIM

 Mr. Clark alleged that because he complained to Cache Valley about 

Mr. Perschon’s favoritism for Ms. Silver, Mr. Perschon retaliated against him. 

Mr. Perschon’s retaliation took the form of trying to get a competitor to hire him 

away, refusing to communicate with Mr. Clark, and distancing himself from 

Mr. Clark. When Mr. Clark complained about Mr. Perschon’s favoritism and 

retaliation, Cache Valley allegedly further retaliated by firing him. 

Mr. Clark’s retaliation claim is evaluated using the McDonnell-Douglas 

approach. The district court ruled against Mr. Clark at the third stage of the 

McDonnell-Douglas analysis, finding he had failed to show that Cache Valley’s 
- 10 - 

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. 

But Cache Valley also argued—and continues to argue—that Mr. Clark’s retaliation 

claim fails at the first (prima facie) stage, because he lacked a reasonable, good faith 

belief that he was opposing conduct that violated Title VII. We affirm the grant of 

summary judgment on the retaliation claim on this alternative basis. 

1. Background

According to Mr. Clark, he did not complain to Cache Valley management 

until April 2010, when Mr. Wickizer asked him how things were going in the 

Teledata Division. Mr. Clark characterizes his response as follows: 

During this meeting, for the first time, I informed [Mr.] Wickizer about 

various issue[s] within the Division, including rumors about an alleged 

affair between Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver that had been circulating 

within the Division and within [Cache Valley’s] industry for some time. 

I told him I was concerned about the alleged affair because of the 

perception of the affair and that it was damaging [Cache Valley’s] 

reputation, and it was difficult for me to continually respond to vendors 

and suppliers who had questions about the purported relationship. 

Aplt. App., Vol. I at A48-49, ¶ 24. 

Mr. Wickizer purportedly responded to these comments by telling Mr. Clark 

that he had discussed these issues with Mr. Perschon and Ms. Silver, that they had 

denied having a sexual or other form of personal relationship, and that Cache Valley 

was not concerned with what, if anything, the two of them did on their own time. 

Mr. Clark replied 

that [he] was still concerned about the amount of time [Mr.] Perschon 

was spending with [Ms.] Silver, their behavior together (that they acted 

unprofessionally for a business environment and more like a married 
- 11 - 

couple), that [Mr.] Perschon performed most of [Ms.] Silver’s job 

functions as a Project Manager (e.g., bids, walkthroughs, takeoffs, 

manpower), and that she was being paid more for performing less work 

than the male Project Managers supervised by [Mr.] Perschon, including 

[Mr. Clark], and that she was unfairly getting jobs from [Mr.] Perschon. 

Id. at A49, ¶ 27. 

Mr. Clark next complained in September 2010. After two male project 

managers gave notice they were leaving Cache Valley, Mr. Wickizer conducted a 

series of interviews with the remaining project managers. During his interview with 

Mr. Clark, Mr. Wickizer asked if Mr. Clark thought Ms. Silver was using a prior 

relationship with Mr. Perschon to exact preferential treatment from Mr. Perschon. 

Mr. Clark said he did not know, but he 

also told [Mr.] Wickizer that [he] had no idea what was going on and 

that [he] did not know if [Mr.] Perschon and [Ms.] Silver had, in fact, 

ever had a prior sexual relationship. However, [he] again informed 

[Mr.] Wickizer about the fact that [Mr.] Perschon was 1) providing her 

most, if not all, of the jobs that came into [Cache Valley] via phone, or 

that came to [Mr.] Perschon; 2) allowing her to use free cable on her 

jobs to increase her bonuses; 3) doing her project manager work for her 

on larger projects; [4]) paying higher bonuses to [Ms.] Silver [than 

Mr. Clark] for the work she was performing; [5]) granting her excessive 

amounts of personal leave and not charging it to her [paid time off 

account]; and [6]) spending an inordinate amount of time with 

[Ms.] Silver during working hours. 

Id. at A51-52, ¶ 39. 

 
- 12 - 

 Mr. Clark made another complaint in late September 2010. On that occasion, 

he was told to meet with Mr. Wickizer and Mr. Perschon. During this meeting, 

Mr. Clark expressed to Mr. Perschon 

the frustration that the alleged affair had on [Mr. Clark] and [his] 

co-workers and then proceeded to outline the preferential treatment that 

[he] believed [Mr.] Perschon was providing to [Ms.] Silver (e.g., doing 

her take-offs, job walks, and manpower; giving her the majority of the 

job leads or customers that came into the Teledata Division, providing 

her with access to free cable; and paying her significant bonuses). 

Id. at A52, ¶ 41. 

 Mr. Clark’s penultimate complaint came in the form of a letter he wrote on 

November 10, 2010 to Stacy Atkinson, Cache Valley’s Human Resources 

Representative, and Jim Laub, Cache Valley’s Chief Executive Officer. This letter 

read in pertinent part as follows: 

Unfortunately, during the past 3+ years, I have personally and 

professionally suffered very serious and very real adverse affects [sic] 

to my employment due [to] the relationship between my superior and 

one of my peers. . . . 

Approximately three years ago [Mr. Perschon] engaged in a 

relationship with [Ms.] Silver that progressively became common 

knowledge internally among his subordinates and externally with those 

[with whom] we do business. This went on for several months creating 

a hostile work environment. We have been operating in an 

unproductive work environment while putting the company at risk. . . . 

I reported these concerns initially to Nate [Wickizer] back in April of 

2010. [Mr. Wickizer] didn’t believe it was Cache Valley’s business as 

long as [Mr. Perschon] and [Ms. Silver] kept their alleged affair on their 

own time. Regardless of the depth of the alleged affair outside the 

workplace, the relationship was inappropriate between a supervisor and 

a subordinate in the workplace. The work environment is the 

company’s business and it is the legal responsibility of any employer to 
- 13 - 

ensure the workplace is free of harassment or retaliation. This did not 

happen. In fact, a few weeks ago, I was called to talk with 

[Mr. Perschon] directly to “hash things out” in [Mr. Wickizer’s] office. 

This again, is not an appropriate action relative to reports I made about 

[Mr. Perschon]. Cache Valley did not conduct an objective, 

non-bias[ed] investigation. I was not given the opportunity to speak to 

an unbiased party and to my knowledge nor was anyone else. I was not 

protected by the company – I was humiliated by the company and now I 

still report to the same superior who retaliated against me. 

Id. at A86-87 (emphasis added). 

Finally, during the interview he obtained with human resources in response to 

this complaint letter, Mr. Clark again 

complained about the same things [he] had raised previously to 

[Mr.] Wickizer. Specifically, the disparity in pay, bonuses provided to 

[Ms.] Silver, [Mr.] Perschon performing the majority of [Ms.] Silver’s 

project manager duties, granting excessive time off to [Ms.] Silver, 

spending an inordinate amount of time with [Ms.] Silver during working 

hours, and [Mr.] Perschon’s retaliation against [Mr. Clark] following 

[his] meeting with him and [Mr.] Wickizer. 

Id. at A54, ¶ 55. 

Mr. Clark asserts that after this meeting, he met with human resources and 

Cache Valley’s legal counsel, and was terminated. He says he was fired because he 

had submitted the letter of November 10. Cache Valley claims he became 

insubordinate by insisting that Mr. Perschon be either fired or demoted. 

At his deposition, Mr. Clark was asked about his feelings about working for 

Mr. Perschon. He stated: 

 I didn’t have a problem with working with [Mr. Perschon]. I’ve 

told you he’s a smart guy and he can do a lot. I just think that he got off 

track with his affair with [Ms. Silver] and the way he was treating all 
- 14 - 

the other [project managers]. That’s the whole – that’s what is comes 

down to. 

Aplt. App., Vol. I at A320 (emphasis added). 

2. Analysis

In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Mr. Clark had to show 

“(1) that he engaged in protected opposition to discrimination, (2) that a reasonable 

employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, and (3) that a 

causal connection existed between the protected activity and the materially adverse 

action.” Argo, 452 F.3d at 1202 (footnote omitted). Even if no actionable 

discrimination took place—and Mr. Clark failed to show that any did—he could still 

meet the first element of his prima facie case by showing that he had a reasonable 

good-faith belief, when he complained to Cache Valley, that he was engaging in 

protected opposition to discrimination. Crumpacker v. State of Kan., Dep’t of Human 

Res., 338 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 2003) (permitting plaintiff to maintain 

retaliation claim “based on a reasonable good-faith belief that the underlying conduct 

violated Title VII.”). 

This “reasonable good-faith belief” test has both subjective and objective 

components. “A plaintiff must not only show that he subjectively (that is, in good 

faith) believed that his employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices, but 

also that his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record 

presented.” Little v. United Tech., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 

(11th Cir. 1997). To determine whether it was objectively reasonable for a person in 
- 15 - 

Mr. Clark’s position to have believed that he was opposing prohibited conduct, we 

look to the underlying substantive law. See, e.g., Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 

532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001) (per curiam) (considering the elements of a sexual 

harassment claim in determining whether a plaintiff had a reasonable belief that she 

had been sexually harassed when she complained to her employer). 

We find the Second Circuit’s opinion in Kelly v. Shapiro & Associates, 

716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam), persuasive here. In that case, a female 

employee alleged retaliatory treatment resulting from complaints about a “hostile 

work environment” that was “permeated by sexual favoritism” created by her 

brother’s relationship with a female subordinate. Id. at 12. The brother had allegedly 

reduced the plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities, and removed her leadership 

duties, in favor of his paramour. When she complained, both of her brothers 

allegedly retaliated against her. The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s 

dismissal of her retaliation claim, holding that she did not have a reasonable, 

good-faith belief that she had complained about conduct that violated Title VII. 

The Second Circuit noted that “[a] plaintiff’s belief . . . is not reasonable 

simply because he or she complains of something that appears to be discrimination in 

some form.” Id. at 15. Noting that “nothing in our Title VII jurisprudence requires a 

plaintiff to append to each allegation of harassment that conclusory declaration ‘and 

this was done because of my sex,’” id. (internal quotation marks and brackets 

omitted), the court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to 
- 16 - 

allege facts from which she could have developed a reasonable, good-faith belief that 

her employer had violated Title VII: 

Although [the plaintiff] alleges that she repeatedly used the words 

“discrimination” and “harassment” when complaining to her employers, 

her argument that the widespread sexual favoritism constituted gender 

discrimination because it resulted in an atmosphere demeaning to 

women is entirely unsupported by the allegations in her complaint. . . . 

 [T]here is no indication either that [the plaintiff] herself 

possessed a good-faith belief that she was complaining of conduct 

prohibited by Title VII or that her employers could have understood her 

complaints in this way. 

Id. at 15-16 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). 

 The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that “as a non-lawyer, she 

should not be required to understand the ‘paramour preference’ or other intricacies of 

our Title VII jurisprudence.” Id. It noted that “mere subjective good faith is 

insufficient; the belief must be reasonable and characterized by objective good faith.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The plaintiff had “failed to 

allege facts demonstrating that even a legally unsophisticated employee would have a 

good faith, reasonable belief that the Defendants’ preferential treatment of [the 

female subordinate] constituted discrimination [against plaintiff] based on gender.” 

Id. at 17 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). 

 For reasons similar to those in Kelly, Mr. Clark’s retaliation claim must fail. 

Although he included conclusory statements about “discrimination” or a “hostile 

work environment” in his complaints to his supervisors and human resources, and 

occasionally opined that Mr. Perschon favored Ms. Silver over “male” employees, 
- 17 - 

nothing in those complaints illustrated a reasonable, good faith belief that Cache 

Valley was engaged in gender discrimination. Rather, Mr. Clark complained about 

Mr. Perschon’s inappropriate conduct with Ms. Silver, and the resulting favoritism 

shown to her. 

 Mr. Clark also argues, briefly, that he has “direct evidence” of retaliation that 

removes this case entirely from the McDonnell-Douglas paradigm. Aplt. Opening 

Br. at 45. Specifically, he claims (1) that Cache Valley’s counsel told him at the time 

he was fired that it was because he sent the November 10, 2010, complaint letter, 

see Aplt. App., Vol. I at A329-30, and (2) that Mr. Wickizer testified that part of the 

reason Mr. Clark was terminated was because he sent the letter, see id. Vol. II 

at A498. 

Although this may be direct evidence that Cache Valley fired Mr. Clark 

because he complained, this by itself is insufficient to survive summary judgment on 

the retaliation claim. Mr. Clark must still show that he complained because he 

reasonably believed that Cache Valley’s conduct violated Title VII. After all, an 

employer could admit having fired an employee for complaining about most 

anything—from the size of his office to the food in the company cafeteria—but this 

would not be direct evidence of retaliation under Title VII, unless the employee’s 

complaint concerned discrimination, or the employee at least reasonably in good faith 

believed that it did. Such a reasonable, good-faith belief is missing from this case. 
- 18 - 

 Finally, Mr. Clark attempts to remove his allegations of retaliation one step 

from the “paramour exception.” He argues that after he complained about 

Mr. Perschon’s favoritism toward Ms. Silver, Mr. Perschon retaliated against him. 

He then endured further retaliation for complaining to Cache Valley about 

Mr. Perschon’s retaliation. He contends that his retaliation complaints involved 

protected conduct. In other words, he claims that he was retaliated against for 

complaining about retaliation. 

This claim fares no better than his other allegations of retaliation. Title VII 

prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “because he has opposed 

any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e-3(a) (emphasis added). Mr. Clark fails to show that it is an “unlawful 

employment practice” to retaliate against an employee who complains about 

favoritism shown to a supervisor’s paramour or special friend, or that an employee 

could have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it is. Thus, though he complained 

about retaliation, he did not complain about retaliation that constituted an “unlawful 

employment practice,” and was not retaliated against for making such a complaint. 

CONCLUSION

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Mary Beck Briscoe 

 Chief Judge