N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M AR VIN B AGLEY, Jr., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. B EL-AIR E M EC HANIC AL INC ORPOR

ATED, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17386 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01429-SR B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 8, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, NOONAN, a nd B ER ZON, C irc u i t Judge s. This is a n e m ploy m e n t disc rim ination a c t ion. B a gle y a ppe a l s from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to B e l-Aire a s to his c la im of
re ta lia tion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1981. W e now re ve rse , and hold tha t (1) B e l-Aire fa ile d to m e e t its burde n

to proffe r a

le gitim a te non-disc rim inatory re a son for 

# FIL ED
APR 08 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.te rm inating B a gle y , a nd (2) B a gle y

ha s introduc e d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to ra ise a tria b le issue a s to whe the r his te rm ination wa s re ta lia tory
. B a gle y , a n Afric an-Am e ric an m an , be g an working for B e l-Aire on M arc h 14, 2008 a s a

n a ppre ntic e . In April of 2008, B a g le y wa s tra n sfe rre d to the Dia l proje c t a n d wa s a ssigne d to pipe fitting work. On M ay 19, 2008, B a gle y ’ s supe rvisor a

t the Dia l proje c t, Ve rnon M c B ride , a pproa c h e d B a gle y

while he wa s working, put a

noose in B a gle y ’ s fa c e an d told him , am ong othe r things: this is “ a ha ngm an’ s noose ; this is wha t the y use d to ha

ng pe ople with in the

olde n da y s.” On M ay 28, 2008, B a gle y re porte d the inc i de nt to W ill Guy , the supe rinte nde nt of the D ia l proje c t a

nd M c B ride ’ s dire c t supe rvisor. Guy te rm i na t e d M c B ride shortly the re a fte r. In June of 2008, B a gle y wa s tra nsfe rre d from

the Dia l proje c t to the B anne r Proje c t ove r his obje c tions. Guy e xpla ine d tha

t m any of M c B ride ’ s frie nds a

nd fa m ily m e m be rs we re working on the Dia l proje c t a

nd we re upse t

with B a gle y

for
re giste ring the c om

pla int tha t re sulte d in M c B ride be ing la id off, a nd tha t he ha d to be tra nsfe rre d for his own phy sic a l sa fe ty . About a m onth la te r, on July

3, 2008, B a gle y wa s inform e d tha

t he wa s be ing la id off e ffe c tive im m e d iate ly
. Our c ourt re vie ws a

distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e n t de nov o . Sc hnidrig v . C

olumbia Mac hine

, Inc

. , 80 F.3d 1406, 1408 (9th C ir. 1996). Vie wing
2the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , our c ourt m

ust de te rm i ne whe t

h e r the re are any

ge nuine issue s of m a te ria l fa c t whic h would pre c lude sum

m ary judgm e nt, a

nd whe the r the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly a pplie d the substa ntive la w. Unite d State

s v . C ity of Tac oma , 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th C ir. 2003). I. T im e line ss R e ta lia tion c la i m s unde r § 1981 a re subje c t to a

four-y e ar stat

ute of lim ita tions. Se e J

ohnson v . Luc e nt Te c hs. Inc

. , 653 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th C ir. 2011); J one s v . R.R. Donne l le

y & Sons C

o. , 541 U.S. 369, 383 (2004); 28 U.S.C
. § 1658. The sta

tute of lim ita

tions be gins to run “

whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s
re a s on to know of the

injury whic h is the ba sis of the a c tion.” Luk ov s k y v . C ity & C ty . of S.F. , 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Olse n v . Idaho State Bd. of Me d. , 363 F.3d 916, 926 (9th C ir. 2004)). B e c a use B a gle y file d this a c tion thre e y e ars, e le ve n m onths, a

nd 29 da y s a fte r be ing inform e d of his te rm i na tion, his
c a use of a c tion for re ta lia

tion ba se d on his te rm ination is time l y . De l . State C oll v

. Ric k s , 449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980). Howe v e r, B a gle y ’ s involunta ry tran sfe r oc c urre d outsidethe four-y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions a nd the re fore c annot se rve a s a pre dic a te le ga l injury

to

3support a

n inde pe nde n t c la im

of re ta lia tion. 1 None t

he le s s, while a

tim e -barre d
c la im ha s no “pre se nt le ga l c onse que nc e [] , . . . [i] t m ay still c onstitute

re l e va nt ba c kground e vide n c e in a proc e e ding in whic h the sta tus of a c urre nt pra c tic e is a

t issue .” Unite d Air Line

s, Inc . v . Ev ans , 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977); se e also N at’l R.R. Passe nge r C

orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). Evide nc e of tim e ba rre d a c ts m ay

be “ offe re d for its proba

tive va lue in a sse ssing whe the r the
e m ploy e r’ s justific a tions for its pre se nt c onduc t la c k c re dibility ” and m ay

a lso
se rve “ a s indire c t proof of the e m ploy e r’ s inte nt to disc rim inat e .” Ly ons v . England , 307 F.3d 1092, 1112 (9th C ir. 2002). Unde r B a gle y ’ s the ory of the c a se , he wa s tra

nsfe rre d to a

de a d-e nd proje c t in re ta lia tion for re giste ring a

c o m pla int only a fe w da y s e arlie r. Inde e d, Dre w Sc hrode r, B e l-Aire ’ s ope ra tions m ana ge r,
a dm itte d tha t he kne w tha

t the B anne r proje c t wa s e sse n tia lly finishe d at the tim e he tra nsfe rre d B a gle y . The re fore , e vide nc e surrounding B a gle y ’ s involunta ry transfe r re m a ins re le va

nt to show tha

t B e l-Aire a c te d

with a disc rim inatory

m otive whe n it te rm i na te d him

only a m onth a fte r tra

nsfe rring him
.

1 For the first tim e a t

ora l a rgum e nt, B a g le y

a dva nc e d the argum e nt tha

t his involunta ry tra nsfe r c la im

is tim e ly unde r the “ c ontinuing viola tion” the ory . Ora l Argum e n t at 14:00-15:09, http://www.c a 9 .usc ourts.gov/m e dia /vie w_vide o.php? pk_vid= 0000008851. Howe ve r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s re je c t e d this pre c ise argum e nt. N at’l R.R. Passe n ge r C

orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). 4II. Re taliation

“ To pre va i l on a

c la im of re ta lia tion, a pla intiff m

ust show (1) involve

m e nt in prote c te d a c tivity

opposing a

n unla wful e m ploy m e nt pra c tic e , (2) an a dve rse
e m ploy m e nt a c tion, a

nd (3) a c a usa l link be twe e n

the prote c te d a c tivity

and the
a dve rse a c t ion.” Fre i tag v . Ay e rs , 468 F.3d 528, 541 (9th C ir. 2006); se e also Manatt v . Bank

of Am., N

.A. , 339 F.3d 792, 800-01 (9th C ir. 2003). “ [R ] e ta lia tion
c la im s m ust be prove d a c c ording to tra ditiona l princ iple s of but-for c a usation.” Univ . of Te

x as Sw . Me d. C

tr. v
. N assar , 133 S. C t. 2517, 2533 (2013). A. Pr i m a Fac i e Case The burde n of e sta

b lishing a prim a

fa c ie c a se is “ not one rous” ; the pla intiff
m ust only introduc e e vide n c e tha

t “ give [s] rise to a

n infe re nc e of unla

w ful disc rim ination.” Te

x as De p’t of C mty . Affairs v . Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); se e also Villiarimo v . Aloha Island Air, Inc

. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th C ir. 2002). The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t B a gle y ’ s c om

pla int to Guy

c onstitute s a

“ prote c te d
a c tivity
. ” As to the se c ond e le m e nt, te rm ination— e ve n whe n a n e m ploy e e ha s the opportunity

to be re hire d within da

y s through his union—

c onstitute s a

n a dve rse
e m ploy m e nt a c tion. Se e Vasque

z v . C ty . of L.A. , 349 F.3d 634, 646 (9th C ir. 2003); Ray v . He nde rson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1241-43 (9th C ir. 2000). As to the third e le m e nt, B a gle y ha s shown a

36-da y ga p be twe e n the prote c te d a c t ivity an d the a d

ve rse 5e m

ploy m e nt a c tion, s e e Yartzoff v . Thomas , 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th C ir. 1987); Mille r v . Fairc hild Indus., Inc

. , 885 F.2d 498, 505 (9th C ir. 1989), Guy ’ s hostility to B a gle y ’ s c o m

pla i nt, se e Porte r v . C

al. De p’t of C o rr. , 419 F.3d 885, 894-95 (9th C ir. 2005), a

n d the c ontinue d ava ila

bility of pipe fitting work for a

ppre ntic e s for a s long a s five m onths a fte r he wa s te rm inate d. This e v ide nc e , ta ke n toge the r,
e sta blishe s a prim a fa c ie showing of but-for c a usation. B . Non-Disc r im inator y Re ason B e c a use B a gle y ha s e sta

blishe d the e xiste nc e of a prim a fa c ie c a se , the burde n of produc tion shifts to B e l-Aire whic h “ m ust pre se nt e vide nc e suffic ie nt to pe rm it the fa c tfinde r to c onc lude tha t [it] ha d a le gitim ate , nondisc rim i na tory
re a s on for the a dve rse e m ploy m e nt a c t ion.” C

oghlan v . Am. Se afoods C o. LLC , 413 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th C ir. 2005). B e l-Aire c onte nds tha t it la id off 300 pe ople (ne a rly a third of its workforc e ) be twe e n the m onths of M ay and July of 2008, a

nd that B a gle y wa s se le c te d to be la id off “ ba se d on his skill le ve l a nd a va i la ble work.” M e re ly

e num e ra t ing the se two fa c tors (“ s kill le ve l” and “ a va i la ble work” )
re le va nt to thela

y off de c ision without a

n y e xpla na tion a bout how the y re late to B a gle y ’ s pa

rtic ula r c a se fa ils to m e e t the de fe n d ant’ s burde n of produc tion. Se e Dav is v . Te am Ele c . C

o. , 520 F.3d 1080, 1094 (9th C ir. 2008). Ac c ordingly , sum m ary judgm e nt wa s not wa

rra nte d. 6C. Pr e te xt

Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso ina

ppropria te be c a use B a gle y

introduc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to c re ate a tria ble issue of fa c t a s to pre te xt. First, B a gle y

ha s de m onstra

te d a c l ose “ te m

pora l proxim ity ” be twe e n his
c om pla i nt a nd his te rm ination. B e ll v . C lac k amas C ty
. , 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th C ir. 2003). Se c o nd, he introduc e d e vide nc e tha t his supe rvisor, Guy , wa s unsy m pa the tic to his c om

p l a int. Guy

te stifie d tha

t he ha d doubts a

bout B a gle y ’ s sinc e rity , be lie ve d tha

t he m ight ha

ve be e n “ putting on a

show,” and thought tha

t B a gle y should ha

v e ta ke n m a tte rs into his own ha nds ra the r tha n c om p la ining
a bout it; se e Ste

gall v . C itade l Broad. C

o. , 350 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th C ir. 2003). Third, Sc hrode r a dm itte d

tha t the re c ontinue d to be work at the Dia l proje c t for
a ppre n tic e s a

nd pipe fitte rs until De c e m b e r of 2008— five m onths a fte r B a g le y ’ s disc ha rge and six m onths a fte r his involunta ry transfe r, an d Guy

sta te d tha t B e lAire wa s “ way

be hind” a t the Dia l proje c t at the tim e B a g le y wa s tra nsfe rre d , pa rtic u la rly in the are a

whe re B a gle y

wa s working. This inform a tion c a sts doubt upon B e l-Aire ’ s proffe re d e xpla na tion for B a gle y ’ s te rm ination. Mc Gine st v . GTE Se rv . C orp. , 360 F.3d 1103, 1123 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Re e v e s v . Sande r

son Plumbing Produc t

s, Inc

. , 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000)). Fourth, B a g le y a lso introduc e d e vide nc e tha

t he re c e ive d e xc e lle nt e va luations from his supe rvisors a

nd
7ha d be e n told he ha d a future with the c om

pa ny , e vide nc e whic h furthe r supports his the ory tha t he wa s single d out for disfa vore d tre a tm e nt be c a

use of his
c om pla i nt. Se e Boe ing C

o. , 577 F.3d a

t 1051. Fina lly , Guy ’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t B a gle y ’ s tra

n sfe r wa s m otiva

te d by a de sire to prote c t him

from his c o -worke rs c ould be inte rpre te d a s dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim inatory

inte nt. Boe ing C

o. , 577 F.3d a

t 1050. De fe nda

nt’ s sugge s tion tha

t the v ie ws of line -le ve l e m ploy e e s should not be a ttribute d to the c orporation is
una va iling in light of the

fa c t tha t a supe rv isor

e xplic itly re lie d upon the anim

us of B a gle y ’ s c o-worke rs a s the prim ary re a son justifying his tra

n sfe r to a le ss de sira

ble job site
. C f. Lam v . Univ . of Haw

. , 40 F.3d 1551, 1560 n.13 (9th C ir. 1994).

CO NCL USIO N W hile B a g le y

ha s introduc e d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to survive sum m ary judgm e nt, we pa

use to note tha

t this is not a

one -side d c a se , a

nd we the re fore
e xpre s s no vie w a s to the m e rits of B a gle y ’ s c la i m . A jury m ay ve ry we l l c re dit
e vide nc e introduc e d by

B e l-Aire an d find in its fa vor. Howe ve r, c a se s in this
c irc uit e m pha siz ing the low-ba

r a n e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination pla intiff m ust m e e t to a v oid sum m ary judgm e n t a

re le g ion. Se e e .g. C

huang v . Univ . of C

a lifornia Dav is, Bd. of Truste e

s , 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th C ir. 2000). Ac c ordingly , we
re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r. 8RE V E RSE D.

9Bagle

y v . Be l-Aire

Me c hanic al, Inc ., No. 13-17386 W ALLAC E , Se nior C i rc uit Judge , disse nting in pa rt a nd c onc urring in pa

rt: The m a jority is c orre c t in a ll of its holdings e xc e pt its c onc lusion tha

t the re is a ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r B e l-Aire pre se n te d suffic ie nt
e vide nc e of a

le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a s on for tra

nsfe rring a

n d ultim a te ly la y ing off B a gle y . I the re fore disse nt from that portion of the opinion, but c onc ur in the re s t. I a lso write se pa ra te ly to highlight the

wa y s in whic h B a gle y ’ s c ounse l ha s distorte d the re c ord in his e ffort to e sta b lish a ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t
a s to pre te xt. I. The m a jority c onte nds tha

t B e l-Aire ’ s re a s ons for tra nsfe rring a

nd la y ing off B a gle y are insuffic ie nt in light of our c o urt’ s opinion in D av is v . Te am Ele c tric C o. , 520 F.3d 1080 (9th C ir. 2008). In D av is , a fe m a le e l e c tric ia n file d a se xdisc rim ination c om

p l a int a ga i nst he r e m

ploy e r, Te a m

Ele c tric
. Id . a t 1087. Approxim a te ly

two m onths la

te r, Te a m Ele c tric la id off a

portion of its
e le c tric i ans, inc luding Da v is. Id . a t 1087-88. Te a m Ele c tric e xpla ine d tha

t “ Davis
wa s la i d off, with sixte e n

othe r e m ploy e e s, for e c o nom ic re a sons.” Id . a t 1094. Te a m Ele c t ric , howe v e r, pre se n te d no e vide nc e a s to why Dav is in pa rtic ula r wa s
se le c te d for la

y off. Id . Our c o urt he ld tha t Te a m Ele c tric , ha

ving only c ite d ge ne ra lly to “ e c onom ic ” re a sons for the la y off, did not m e e t its burde n of 

# FIL ED
APR 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1artic ulating a le gitim a te , nondisc rim inatory re a son be c a

use “ [t] o m e e t its burde n, the e m ploy e r m ust e xpla in why

it se le c te d the pla intiff in pa rtic u la r for the la

y off.” Id
. Unlike the e m

ploy e r in Dav is , B e l -Aire not only pointe d to a

n e c o n om ic downturn for why

it la id off B a gle y , but it a lso e xpla ine d why B a g le y spe c ific a lly
wa s te rm i na te d. Dre w Sc hrode r, the Ope ra tions M ana ge r a nd the individua l in
c ha rge of sta ffing, e xpla ine d tha t the Dia l proje c t

ha d be gun to wind down in M ay , and the pipe fitte rs in B a gle y ’ s c re w ha d c om ple te d the ir portion of the

proje c t. ER II 212; 39: 16-19; ER

II 214; 46:10-25; 47:1-25; 48; 1-25; 49:1-2. B a gle y , a long with the re st of his c re w of pipe fitte rs, we re working on the HVAC c ooling sy ste m , a disc re te are a

of the Dia l proje c t tha

t ha d its own unique

se t of blue prints. ER

II 214; 47: 13-25, 48:1-11. That a re a wa s finishe d in M ay . ER II 214; 46:10-11. Although a

sm a l l num

be r of pipe fitte rs we re e m ploy e d a fte r M ay , Sc hrode r c ould not sim ply re pla c e a

pipe fitte r in a

diffe re nt a

re a of the Dia l proje c t with B a gle y . ER II 214; 46: 12-25, 47:1-11. The othe r proje c t a

re a s we re sta ffe d with the ir own
c re w s, a n d e a c h a re a , like the HVAC are a , ha d its own unique se t of blue prints. Id
. It the re fore would ha

ve be e n im

pra c tic a l for Sc hrode r to re m o ve a pipe fitte r who
wa s a lre a dy

working in one

are a of the Dia l proje c t a

nd re pla c e tha

t pipe fitte r with B a gle y , who would ha

ve be e n unfam ilia

r with tha t a re a ’ s blue prints. Id
.

2M ore ove r, while the e vide nc e of B e l-Aire ’ s ge ne ra l de c line in work is not,

sta nding a lone , suffic ie nt unde r Dav i s to e sta blish a nondisc rim inat ory

re a son for B a gle y ’ s tra

nsfe r a nd la y off, it ne ve rthe le ss supports B e l-Aire ’ s c onte ntion tha t it ha d a ne e d to la

y off B a gle y

due to a la c k of a va ila ble jobs. Ja

m e s Dina n, the Pre side nt, C hie f Exe c utive Offic e r, and owne r of B e l-Aire M e c ha nic a l, ER II 199- 200, te stifie d tha

t by “ e arly M ay

2008, the Dia l proje c t

ha d be gun to wind down,
re sulting in substa

ntia l ly dim i nishe d sta ffing re q

u ire m e nts.” Id . Throughout M ay , B e l-Aire la id off 18 worke rs from the Dia l proje c t, 6 of whom we re a ppre ntic e s like B a gle y . ER II 200. In fa c t, from M a y to July , B e l-Aire re duc e d its e ntire sta ff by 1/3, tota ling a lm ost 300 pe ople
. Id
. The tim e line of e ve n t s a lso supports B e l -Aire ’ s c onte ntion tha t B a gle y ha d be e n sla te d for la y off e ve n be fore B a gle y

c o m pla ine d. The inc ide n t with thenoose
oc c urre d on M ay 5 , 2008 a nd B a gle y did not c om

pla in until thre e we e ks la

te r, on M ay 28, 2008. ER

II 317. The te stim ony

from Dina n a nd Sc hrode r de m onstra

te s that la rge num be rs of e m

ploy e e s we re la id off from the Dia l proje c t in M a

y , and by the e nd of M ay

the work in B a gle y ’ s a

re a of the Dia l proje c t wa s c om ple te and
e ve ry one in his c re w wa s e ithe r la id off or tra n s fe rre d. ER

II 200, 214; 48: 15-17. Thus, by the tim e B a gle y

c om p la ine d, the la

y offs a t the Dia l proje c t ha d a lre a dy
c om m e n c e d in full forc e . B y

tra nsfe rring B a gle y

to the B anne r proje c t, B e l-Aire

3wa s a

ble to e xte nd B a gle y ’ s e m ploy m e nt, e ve n though the

B anne r proje c t

wa s finishe d shortly

a fte r B a g le y ’ s tra

nsfe r. ER II 212, 304. In sum , Dav is doe s not, a s the m a jority c onte nds, forc e this c ourt to
c onc lude tha

t B e l-Aire fa ile d to pre se nt “ e vide nc e suffic ie n t to pe rm it the fa c t finde r to c onc lude t

ha t it ha d a

le gitim a te , nondisc rim inatory re a son for the
a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion.” C

oghlan v . Am. Se afoods C o. LLC , 413 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th C ir. 2005). B e l -Aire e xpla ine d spe c i fic a lly how its la c k of a

va ila ble work, c ouple d with B a gle y ’ s skill a nd the c om

ple tion of his a ssigne d a

re a on the Dia l proje c t, re sulte d

in B a gle y

be ing tra nsfe rre d a nd ultim a te l y la i d off. II. Wh i le I disa gre e with t

he m a jority that B e l-Aire did not p rovide a le g itim ate , nondisc rim inatory r eas o n f or the ultim a te la

y off, I a gre e that B a gle y i ntroduc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to c re a te a tria ble issue o f fa c t a s to pre te xt. I w rite s e pa ra te ly , howe v e r, to highlight the m an ne r in whic h pla intiff’ s c ounse l ina ppropria te ly

— a n d
m isle a dingly

— twiste d portions of the

re c ord out of c onte xt. B a gle y a t t em

p t s t o e sta

blish pre te x t by p re se nting e v ide nc e that the Dia l proje c t wa s fa r from co m p l et e. B a gle y sta

t e s that “ W ill Guy a dm itte d that B e l-Aire
wa s ‘ way be hind’ a t the Dia l proje c t, and th er e w a s p le nty of m ore work t o be done
a t the Dia l proje c t in e arly June of 2008...
. ” A c lose r look at this a l le ge d a dm ission sho w s t ha t B a gle y twiste d Guy ’ s sta te m e nt o ut of c onte x t. In the p ortion of the 4te stim ony B a gle y c ite s, Guy i s disc ussing the re a sons he fire d Ve rnon M c B ride ,

the individua l re s ponsible for m a king the ha ngm an’ s noose . E R I I 1 5 6-57. The de position te stim ony

is a s follows: Q . L e t m e ask y ou this: N o w , did y ou ask V e r non M c B r ide , he y , V e r non why did y ou tie this hangm an’s noose ? W hat’s up w ith that? B a sic sim ple que stion, w hy did y ou do it? Did y ou ask

him w hy he did it? A. No. Q . W hy ? A. B e c a use I k ne w it wa s wa sn’ t going to ge t – he p roba bly wa sn’ t going to te l l m e the truth. Nobody wa s going to te ll m e the truth. W ha t I h a d to find out is we re the y m a king knots on the job? W a s rope be ing tie d? W a s the re a ha ngm an’ s noose i nvolve d and t ha t wa s e nough for m e . Q . Now , sir , as a pipe fitte r , do y ou s om e tim e s m ake knots to he lp y o u do y o ur w o r k ? A. Ye s . Q . Now , now as for e m a n, ar e n’t y o u sup p o s e d to te ac h appr e ntic e s how to do the ir job? Isn’t that par t of the job? A
. T he re ’ s sc hool. W e have c la sse s . The re ’ s a knot-ty ing c la s s. W e re the y sc re wing o f

f ? Y e s. Should the y have be e n on the j ob m a king knots? No. Q . I he ar y ou. A. Up the re in the are a the y we re working in, the y w er e w ay be hind.

5I

d
. Pla c ing the “ way be h ind” la ngua ge ba c k into c onte xt, it is c le ar t ha t Guy
wa s sim ply disc u s sing why he wa s upse t with M c B ride ’ s horse pla y and that M c B ride an d othe rs who we re en g ag ed i n that horse pla y ha d ple nty of a c tua l work to do. ER II 156-157, 239. That is a f ar c ry from B a gle y ’ s sta te m e nt that Guy te stifie d that the e ntire D ia l proje c t wa s be hind and t ha t t he re wa s ple nty of work le ft to do in June

2008. N ext, to stre ngthe n his pre te xt argum e n t, B a gle y s tate s that e ve n th o u g h h e
wa s transfe rre d, o t

he r a ppre ntic e s c o ntinue d to work a t the Dia l p r o j ect through Nove m be r or De c e m

be r 2008. B a gle y sta

te s: “ In f

a c t, B e l-Aire Ope ra tions M an a g e r D r ew Sc hrode r te stifie d that a ppre ntic e s c ontinue d to work for B e l-Aire
a t the Dia l proje c t u n ti l N ove m be r or De c e m

be r of 2 0 08.” B a gle y ’ s sta te m e nt le a ds
our c ourt to be lie ve that Sc hrode r sta te d that othe r a

ppre ntic e s, inc luding pipe fitte rs, re t a ine d the ir positions at the Dia l proje c t through Nove m be r a n d De c e m b e r e v e n though B a gle y did not. Sc hrode r ne ve r m a de s uch a sta te m e nt. Rat he r, Sc hrode r te s tifie d that only two p roje c t supe rinte nde nts, W ill Guy a nd Pa u l De la ware , worke d through that tim e pe riod. ER II 2 1 3 ; 4 2 : 17-24. Furthe rm ore , in
re sponse to c ounse l’ s que s tion, “ How m any plum b e rs did y ou h av e w or ki ng in the fa ll of 2008 at the Dia l job? And I’ ll te l l yo u b y f all, I m e an Se p t e m

be r, Oc tobe r
an d No v em

be r? ” , Sc hrode r answe re d, “ W e we re proba b ly down t o m a

y be five .” ER I I 213; 44: 11-15. Aga in, Sc hrode r did not sta te that the re we re a

ppre ntic e s 6who c ontinue d t o w ork on the Dia l proje c t through Nove m be r o r De c e m

be r 2008, le t a l one pipe fitte rs like B a gle y . As a re vie w of Sc hrode r’ s te s ti m ony d e m onstra te s, B a g l e y took unsupporte d le a ps in c ha

ra c t e riz ing Sc h rode r’ s t es t im o ny in an e ffort to bolste r his pre te xt
argum e nt. Ultim a te ly , de spite c ounse l’ s m isc ha ra c te riz a t ion of the te stim ony , I be lie ve the following fa c t s c re a te a ge nuine d is p u te of m a te ria l fa c t a s to pre te xt: (1) the te m

pora l proxim ity be twee n B a gle y ’ s c om pla int and his te rm ination; (2) W ill Guy ’ s , one o f B e l-Aire ’ s proje c t supe rinte nde nts, te stim ony that B a gle y should have take n m atte rs into his own ha nds a nd m ay have be e n c om

pla ining j ust

“ to p ut o n a show,” E R II 154; and (3) B a gle y ’ s te stim on y t h at Gu y told him he
wa s be i ng transfe rre d for his p hy s i cal sa fe ty a s a re sult of t he c om pla i nt, ER II 100. III. B e c a use B e l-Aire p re se n te d evide nc e a s to why it sla te d B a gle y spe c ific a lly for l ay off, I disse nt from that portion of the m e m orandum disposition that h o lds othe rwise , a

n d c onc ur in the re m a inde r.

7