## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 3104 M ICHAEL E. D AUGHERTY, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. W AB AS H C ENTE R, I NC ., AN D J EFFRE Y D ARLI NG, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 4:0 6-CV-00 12 8-AS-PRC

—Allen Sha rp , Ju dge .
A RG UE D J UL Y 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 14, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . M ichae l D au gh e r t y s ue d W aba sh Ce nt er, I nc . , a nd i ts pr es i den t, J effr eyDa r l i ng, c l ai m ing th athe w as fi re d i n vi ol ati on o fthe Fam i l y a nd M ed i calLeave A ct, 29 U
. S. C. §§ 2601

- 2654
. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted th e d efen dan ts ’ mot i o n fo r s um m ar y j udg m en t, a nd Daughertyappeal s. Because Daugherty did not show that th er e was a g enui ne i ss ue o fmateria lf ac t co nc erni ng Wab a s h ’ s r e a s o n f o r fi r i n gh i m, w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 08
- 3104 B a c kg r o und B ecau se th is i s an ap p eal from the gran t of su m m ary j u d gm en t, w e c on st ru e a ll fac ts an d d ra w all rea so n ab le i nfer en ce s fr o m the r ec o r d i n f av o r of Daughe r ty, the n on m ov in g p ar ty . SeeCracco v. Vitran Exp
. , Inc. , 55 9 F.3d 625 , 633 (7th C ir. 2009). D au gh er ty be ga n w o rk in g for W ab as h, a n ot -for -p ro fit a g e nc y s e r v i ng a du l t s a nd c hi l dr e n wi th devel o pm entaldi sabi l i ti es, i n M ay 1999
. Between 1999 and 20 06, Daughertyco m pil ed an i m press i ve em plo ym ent r ecord

— he was pr o m o te d fr o m a mai nt en an ce a ss i st an t to di r ec to r a nd the n v i ce - pr es i den t o fi nf o rm at i o n t ec hnol ogy . H e a l w ays r ecei ved “very good” o r “excel l ent” p er for m ance r evi ew s, and he was gi ven a bo nus f or hi s l eader shi p i n a partic u larproj ect. Daugherty was al so vi ce- presi dent and chi ef in f or m ati on o ffi cero fRest A ssu r ed, LLC, a j o i ntv en tu r e be twe enW ab as h a nd ResCa r e , I nc . , tha t c a pi t a l i z e d o n Da ughe r t y ’ s i de a to mo n i t o r p a t i e n t s v i a w e b c a m. Daughe r ty ’ s wor k

- r el at ed tr o ub les b eg ani n the s pr i ng of2 0 0 6
. He h a d g o t t e n i nv o l v e d in “ e mai lwa r s ” wi th seve ral W aba sh em p loyees , a n d the R est A ssu red staff com pla i ned about hi s m anage m ent approach. On June 1 9, Dar l i nga nd S te ve M cAni nc h, W ab as h’ s Vi ce - Pr es i den t of Fi nance ( and Daugher ty’ s dir ect supervi sor ) , gave Daughertya w ri tte n re pri m and fo r sendi ng ab usi ve em ails an d for h is m an ag em en t s ty le. D au gh er ty ac kn ow led ged hi s pr o fes si o na ls ho r tc o m i ng s, a nd, a l th o ug h h e th o ug htthe wri tt enr epr i m an d was unwa r r an te d, he agr eed with the subst ance o fthe com pla i nts a nd ev enN o. 08
- 3104 3 drafted hi s o w n cor re ctiv e a cti on pl an. Darl i ng al so tol d D au gh erty that he was re vok i ng per m i ssi on f or Daugherty ’ s pl an n ed m onth- l ong vacat i on, sche du l ed to begin that m onth, bec ause ofpre ssing co m pany busi ness. Be f o r e the c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n pl a n w as di s c us s e d, D au gh erty l e ft th e Jun e 19 m eeting to visit his doct or. H e return ed to W ab as h t o r eque stl ea ve unde r the FM L A , h a v in g a note from his doc tor stating: “offw ork 2 weeks du e t o m edi cali l l ness. ” Daugher ty’ s a pp l i catio n f o r F M LA l eave do es no t m en ti o n a he al thc o ndi ti o n, buti ns te ad d esc r ibe s per so nne lc o nfl i ct s wi th i n the com pany, co ncl ud i ng: “Ihave bee n pla ced und era tr em endous am ount of str ess with [ Rest A ssur ed] & [ W abas h C en ter]
. Ihave r equeste d fr om J eff[ Darl i ng] & S tev e [M c A n in c h ] reo rg an iza tio n th at w ou ld allev iat e t h is str ess . I t was decl i ned. M y m uch n eeded vaca ti on has been cancel l ed by J eff Darl i ng on 6- 16- 06. ” The afternoo n of Jun e 19 he requ ested and received tw o w eeks off. Dur i nghi s ab se nc e, W ab as h un co ve r ed tr o ubl i ng i nfo r mat i o n ab o utDa ughe r t y ’ s wo r kp e r f o r man c e . On Jun e 18, D au gh erty ha d used W aba sh ’s c r ed it card w i thout author i zati on t o or der a ge nera torthatwas del i ver ed to hi s ho m e. A fteri nvest i gat i ng, W abas h d isco ve r ed atl ea st fi ve una utho r i ze d pur ch as es , i nc l udi ng one othe r that w as shi pp ed t o “Daugherty’ s Com pu ter s” atD a u g h e rt y’s h om e a d d re ss . M c A n in c h h ad p re vio us l y war ne d Da ug he r tytha t he w as re qui r ed t o s ee ka uthor i zati on be f or e m aking purchase s. Daugherty l ate r ac k no wl edg ed hi s vi o l ati o ns o fc o m pan y pur ch as i ng p rotocol, butins i sts th at th ese p urc ha ses w ere above -board4 N o. 08
- 3104 because he ne verke pt the i tem s forhi m sel f, and had th em ship p ed to his hom e only beca us e W aba sh c ou ldn ’t eas i l y a ccom m odate som e s hi pm ents. T h en on Ju n e 3 0, M c A n i n c h d isc ov er ed th at h is co m put erwas mis singe m ai l s that he ha d s en t to a nd re cei ved fro m Daugherty. T h at sam e day, two W abas h servers cra sh ed
. Ou tsid e exp erts brou gh t in to restore the s er ver s (because of D augher ty’ s absence ) o bser ved th atDa ug herty h ad f ai l ed to r o ut i ne l y b ac kup th e servers

— one of his ke y r esponsibi l i ti es. S uspecti ng tha t D au gh er ty w as rem ot ely ac c es sin g (a n d p ot en tia lly sabo tag in g) W abas h’s network, the com pany ask ed these o ut si de co ns ul ta nt s to a na l y ze W ab as h’ s I T s ec ur i tya nd pract i ces. The co nsul tants ’ r epor t in m i d-J ulypoi nted o u t d e fi c i e n c i e s i n Wab a s h ’ s I T i n fr a s t r u c t u r e , r e c o mm ending num er ous c hanges. Bec au se o fthe p urc ha singi r r egul ar i ti es , W ab as h manage m ent pr ese nted a ne w co rr ecti ve acti on pl an to D au gher ty on J uly3, the day he w as expected bac k a t w or k. A t the end ofthe m eet i n g, Daughertyr efused to sign t h e p lan: he prote sted that signing w ou ld q ua li fy as “ wor k ” an d he was n ot su ppo se d t o wor kdur i ng m edi call eave . Instea d he pres ented a new o rderfr om hi s doct orf orco nti nu ed m edi call eave , wh i ch W abas h gr anted. M c A ni nch ask ed that Daughertyr efra i n fro m acces si ng W abas h’s networkw h ile he was on l eave , an d a sk ed D au gh er tyt o tur n o ve r hi s k ey s an d a ny p as sw or d s. D au gh er ty res p on d ed : “I’d rat h e r n ot .” W ab as h req u es t e d th e p as sw or d s a n d ke ys ag ain

— st ill u n su c c es sfu lly

— on J uly19 and A ugust 3
.N o. 08
- 3104 5 O n July 31, a forensic exp ert a na lyzed Da ug he rty’s com pu terand dis cove re d that m or e than 5, 000 fil es had been del ete d on J une 19

— the day Daughertywas fi rs t di s c i pl i ne d a nd the da y h e i nv oke d F M LA l e a v e . On Augus t 9, c i tingDa ug he r ty ’ s au th o r i ta r i anmana g ement sty le , po o r I T pr ac ti ce s, f ai l ur e to tur n o ve r k ey s, mis sing fi l es, and vi ol ati on s ofthe pu rchas i ng pro toc ol s, W abas h ter m i nated Daugherty’ s e m plo ym ent. Daugherty fi l ed sui t i n Se ptem ber 2006 , cl ai m in g t hat Wab a s h a n d D a r l i n g fi r e d h i m i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e F MLA. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the defenda n ts ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent, and Daugherty a pp eal s.
A n alysis Da ug h e r t y c h a l l e n g e s th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent o n two gr ounds: the defen d ants vi ol ate d the Act by f ai l i ng to r ei nstat e hi m and re tal i ate d against hi m f ori nvoking hi s F M LA r i ghts.
A . Failure to R ein state Da ughe r t y fi r s ta r g ue s tha tWab a s h v i o l a ted the F M LA byf ai l i ngt o r eins ta te h im to h i s f o r m erpo si ti o n a t th e end ofhi s m edi call eave . H e con tend s that W abas h w as ab so l ut ely pr o hibi te d fr o m ter m i na tinghi m whi l e he wa s o n l e a v e . A c c o r d i n gt o D a u g h e r t y, e v e n i fa n e mpl o y erdi sc o ve r s a r ea so n t o fi r e ane m pl o y ee dur i ng that em plo yee ’ s FM LA l eave , the em plo yerm ust r ei nstat e th e e mp l o y e e b e f o r e th e n fi r i n gh i m.6 N o. 08
- 3104 To sho w a vi ol ati on o fFM LA ri ghts, pl ai nti ff s m ust s how that they ar e e l i gibl e f or FM LA pro tect i on, thei r em plo yer i s co ver ed by t h e A ct, theyar e e nti tl ed to l eave , they provid ed the appropri ate not i ce, and thei r em plo yer d en ied th em be n efit s t o w h ich th ey w er e e n tit led
. Sm ith v . Ho p eS c h. , 56 0 F
. 3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. An em plo yee w ho tak es l eave und er the FM LA i s entitled to b e res tor ed to hi s for m erposi ti on, with e quiva l ent pay and benefi ts. 29 U
. S. C. §§ 2614, 26 15( a) ; Vailv. Rayb e s t os P rod s. C o ., 53 3 F .3d 90 4, 90 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), c e r t . d enied , 1 2 9 S
. C t . 1 3 6 1 ( 2 0 0 9 )
. T h i s r i g h ti s n o tu n l i mi t e d , h o weve r: a n e m p l oye e i s no t e nti tl ed to “a ny r i ght, bene fi t, o r posi ti on o fem plo ym ent otherthan any r i ght, bene fi t, o r posi ti on t o w hi ch the em plo yee would have been enti tl ed ha d the e mpl o y e e n o tt a k e n the l eave . ” 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 61 4(a )(3) (B ); 29 C .F.R . § 82 5.2 16 ; Har r e ll v. U
. S. Pos t al Se r v. , 44 5 F
. 3d 913, 91 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06). T h e d efendants conte st onl y Daugher ty’ s r i ght t o re i nstat em ent. Daughertycon te nd s that, al though the FM LA does not m ake em plo yee s o n m edi call eave fi re - proo f, W abas h w as req u ire d to rein st at e h im an d th en fire h im if it was di spl ea se d wi thhi s per f o r m an ce . But b ec au se the FM LA o nl y en tit l es em plo yee s t o the s am e pos i ti on they w oul d h a v e o the r wi s e b e e n e nt i t l e d t o , 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 614( a) ( 3) ( B), an e m plo yerm ay ter m inate em plo yees

— eve n w hen on l ea ve

— ifthe em p loyer discovers m i sco nd uct that would j usti fy t er m in at i on had l eave not b e e n t a k e n . “ T h e f a c tth a tth e l e a v e p e r mi t t e d th e e mplo yerto di sco verthe proble m s can not l ogi cal l y b e a b a r t o th e e mp l o y e r ’ s ab i l i t y t o fi r e th e d e fi c i e n te mplo yee . ” Kohls v. Beverly E nte rs . Wis
. , Inc. , 2 59 F
. 3d 799, 806 (7th Cir. 2001).N o. 08
- 3104 7 W abas h prese nted u nd i sputed evi dence thatDaugherty h a d u n p r o fe s s i o n a l e ma i le x c h a n g e s w i th o th e r e mp loy ee s, w as ab u siv e t o h is s ta ff, pu rc h as ed ite m s in vi o l at i o n o fc o m pan y po l i cy, r efuse d t o r etur n k ey s an d d i s c los e p as sw or d s, an d d ele te d co m p an y files from h is w or kst ati on. A t v ar i ou s p oints Daugherty a dm i tte d each of th es e vio lat ion s of c om p an y p olic y, ev en p ro p os in g h is own co rr ecti ve ac tio n pla n. A nd Daugherty m ake s n o at t e mptt o r e fu t e th e c o n c l u s i o n s o fth e o u t s i d e c o mp u t e r c o n s u l t a n t s w h o r e po r t e d t o Wab a s h n u mer ous s er i ous defi ci enci es i n Daugherty ’ s per f or m ance. I nstea d, Daughertyi nsi sts thatbeing as ked to tur n ove r key s a nd passwords was “work ,” an d he coul d not be fi r ed f o r r efus i ngt o work whi l e o n medi ca ll ea ve . But W abas h ask ed f orke ys and pas sw ords so the age ncy coul d opera te withoutDaugherty. M or eov er, thes e m odest re quests

— fi r s tma de o n the da y Wab a s h ha d ex p ecte d D au gh erty to retu rn to w ork

— are no m ore i n tr u sive than the r equi re m ent t o kee p the e m plo yer i nfo rm ed abo ut the sta tus o fm edi call eav e, see 29 C. F
. R. § 8 2 5
. 3 1 1 ( a ) , o r o th e r wi s e c o mp l y w i th c u s t o ma r y e mp loyer rules regard ing notice, 29 C .F .R
. § 825.303(c); Lewis v. H olsum of For t Wayne, Inc. , 27 8 F
. 3d 706, 71 0 ( 7th Cir. 2 002 )
. The r e i s no g enui ne di spu te c o nc erni ng Daugh er ty ’ s en ti tl ementt o r eins ta te m en t: e ve n i fhe had nevert ak en l eave , he woul d not be enti tl ed to ke ep hi s j ob.
B. Reta l i at i on Daugherty conte nd s, i n the al ternati ve, that W ab ash re ta liat ed ag ain st h im by firin g h i m f o r e x er c isin g h is8 N o. 08
- 3104 rig h ts . Se eKauf

f m an v. Fe d. Expre s s Corp. , 426 F. 3d 880, 88 4- 8 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n gb e t we e n th e t wo theo ri es ofr eco ver y)
. A s with other em plo ym ent di scr i m i na ti o n s ta tu te s, a c l ai m f o r r et al i at i o n un derthe F M LA c a n pr o c e e d thr o ugh the di r e c to r i nd i r e c tme tho ds of p ro of. B u ie v . Q uad/Graph ics, Inc. , 36 6 F
. 3d 496, 50 3 ( 7th C i r. 20 04)
. On app ealDaugherty a rgues o nl y that he ma de h i s c a s e u nd e r the di r e c tme tho d. Underthe di r ec t m etho d ofpro vingre ta l i at i o n, a pl ainti ffm ust pre sent evidence ofa sta tutor i l y pr ote cted a c t i v i t y, a ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e a c t i o n t a k e n b y th e e mp loy er , an d a c au sa l co n n ec tio n be tw ee n th e t w o. C a skey v. Colgat e - Palm ol i veCo. , 535 F.3d 585 , 593 (7th C ir. ), cert. denied , 1 2 9 S. C t. 73 8 (2 00 8). W ab as h co n te st s o n ly causat i on. “A plain ti ffcan preva i lunder the di re ct m etho d by s how i ng an adm i ssi on o f d i scr i m i nati on o r by ‘ const ructing a convi nci ng m osa i c o fci rcum sta nti al e v i d e n c e th a ta l l o ws a j u r y t o i n fe r i n t e n t i o n a ld i s c r i mi nati on bythe deci si onm ake r. ’ ” Ridi ngs v. Ri ve rs i de M ed. C tr. , 53 7 F
. 3d 755, 771 (7th Cir
. 20 08) ( quoti ng Phel an v. C ookCo unty, 463 F.3d 773 , 779 (7th C ir. 2006)). A s a nal yze d above , W abas h pres ented un d isputed evi dence thati t fi red D augher ty f orm i sco nd uct. Daugherty ’ s p rin ci pal ar gum ent a pp ear s t o be that, alt h ou gh h e re p ea te d ly v i o l a te d co m p an y p olic y, h is m i sco nd uct does notj ustify W abas h’s deci si on t o ter m i nate hi s e m plo ym ent. H e s ugges ts thathi s desi gnati on a s a “ keyem plo yee , ” see 29 C.F
. R. § 825. 217, was ev id en c e o f W ab as h ’s d isc rim in at or y a n im u s. B u t w h ile ane m pl o y erne ed no t r eins ta te a k eye m pl o y ee , 2 9 C. F
. R.N o. 08
- 3104 9 § 8 25. 216, Daugherty doe s n ot conte st the desi gnati on nor exp lai n how it affected W aba sh ’s d ecision t o fire h im . M or eo ve r, W ab as h n ev er p u rp or te d to rely on h is sta tus a s a ke y e m plo yee to deny r ei nstat em ent. Daugherty further ar gues that the t i m i ng o fhi s t er m i nati on

— that i s, w hi l e he w as on le ave

— su gg es ts th at h is m edi call eave , nothi s a dm i tte d profession al f ai l i ngs, wa s th e de fe n d a n t s ’ t r u e mo t i v a t i o n f o r fi r i n gh i m. U nd erso m e ci rcum sta nces, an e m plo yee ’s ter m i nati on w hile on l eave can create an i nferen ce of discrim inatory m ot ive
. Si m ps on v. O

f f i ceof Chi e f Judg eo f C ir cu i tCour tof Wil l County, 5 59 F.3d 706, 71 3 (7th C ir. 2009). B ut this cou rt has hel d repea tedl y that t em pora lpro xi m i ty al one i s no t suffi ci ent t o w i thsta nd sum m ar y j ud gm ent. See, e.g., Andonis s am y v . He wle t t

- Packar d Co. , 54 7 F
. 3d 841, 85 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); Tom a n o vich v. City of Indianapo li s , 45 7 F
. 3d 656, 66 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); W yningerv . N ew VentureGear, Inc. , 36 1 F. 3d 965, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. A nd , w hi l e Daugher ty r el i es o n W aba sh’ s pr o m i se t o us e pr o g r es si ve di sc i pl i ne w hen i t i ni ti al l y add re sse d hi s m anage m en t p robl em s, he poi nts t o no co m pany pol i cy orpast pract i ce v i ol ate d b y W ab as h w h en it fi re d h im aft er d isc ov er i n g a d d iti onalev i dence ofhi s s ub-parper f or m ance a nd pote nti al s ab ot ag e. C

f. Rud in v. Lincol n Land C m ty. Co ll
. , 4 2 0 F. 3d 712, 7 23 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( hol ding that abandonm ent o f h irin g p olic ies su p p or te d infe re n c e o f d isc rim in at ion in T itle V II c as e); H u

ff v . UA R C O , Inc. , 12 2 F
. 3d 374, 38 2 ( 7th C ir
. 1997) (holding th at failure to f oll ow com p an y l ayoff p oli cy su p p orts inferenc e of d iscrim ination). W e do not “tel lem plo yer s ho w to di sci pline em plo yee s; ra th er , [w e] en su re t h at t h e p ro c es s is n otd isc rim in at or y.”10 N o. 08
- 3104 Kohls , 25 9 F
. 3d at 805. H ere, Daugherty a dm i ts that “D ar lin g a n d W ab as h C en te r ar e e ar n es t in t h eir apprai sal s that they fire d Daugherty forper f or m ance r ea so ns . The y r ea l l y, r ea l l y mean it.” Ofc o ur se , i fthe defe n dants “r eal l y m ean” that they fi re d him f orworkre l ate d rea sons, then Daugherty ’ s t er m i nati on was not re ta liat or y. See Cu lver v. Gor m an & Co. , 41 6 F
. 3d 540, 54 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “A n em plo yer ’ s e xplanati on ca n be ‘foo lish or tr ivia l or ev en ba se l e s s ’ s o lon g a s it‘h on es tly bel i eve d’ the pro ffer ed re aso ns f orthe ad ver se em plo ym en t actio n. ” ( ci tat i ons om i tte d))
. There i s no di spute con cern ing W aba sh ’s m otive, an d there fo re sum m ary j ud gm ent was appro pri ate . Conclusi on Because Daugher ty has no t s how n a g enui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act concerni ng defendants’ m oti vati on f or fi ring hi m , we A FFIRM .

8- 14- 09