T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 2, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DA RRELL R. HA RE,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1270 v. D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado DEN VER M ERCH AN DI SE M AR T, I N C. , D EN V ER M ER CH A N D I SE M A R T E M PL O Y E R S, I N C . , and A M ER I CA N RE A LTY I N V ESTO RS,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 0 2 4 1 6 - P S F - M E H)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , BROR BY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antD arr el l H ar e w as empl oy ed as t he gene r al m anage rof t he D enverM er chandi s e M art , I nc. ( “the M art ”) fornear l yt hi r tyy ear s . B egi nni ng i n 2001, hi s r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi gherm anage m entbegan t o br eak dow n. H e w as t erm i nat ed fr om hi s pos i t i on as gener al m anage ron D ece m ber29, 2003, att he age of 64. H e br oughtt hi s s ui tundert he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct-2-

(“ A D E A ” ) a n d C o lo ra d o c o m m o n law , alle g in g th a t h is te rm in a tio n w a s th e re su lt o f ill e g a l ag e d isc rim in a tio n a n d th a t h e w a s d isc h a rg e d in v io latio n o f p u b lic pol i cy . A l t hough t he defendant s pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatM r . H ar e w as legiti m atelyterm inated fo r bu sine ss rea so n s, that is no t th e q u esti o n fo r th is C o u rt on s um m aryj udgm ent . E m pl oy i ng t he ana l yt i cal s tructur e of McD onnel lD ougl as v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802 ( 1973) , as w e must , w e conc l ude thatM r . H ar e has p o in ted to su fficie n t in c o n sis ten c ies in th e e m p lo y e r’s e x p lan a tio n fo r h is t erm i nat i on, t hatt he ca s e mustgo t o a j ur y . W e ther efor e r ever s e the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s gra n t of

su m m aryjud g m en t on the A D E A claim , w h il e a ffirm ing su m m ary j u d g me n to f

t h e wr o n g f

u l d i s c h a r g e c l a i m.

I . Backg r ound T he D enverM er chandi s e M ar ti s a tr ade s how venue thatpr ovi des t empora r ys pace forevent s as w el l as perm anents how r oom s fort he di s pl ayof w h o lesale m erc h an d ise. Itis a su b sidiaryo f A m erican R ea ltyInv esto rs (“A R I”), h ea d q u artered in D all as, T ex as. M r. H are w as th e g en era l m an ag er o f th e M art u n ti l his t erm ination o n D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 . A s g en era l m an ag er, M r. H are o v e rs a w d a ily o p e ra tio n s a t th e M a rt a n d p a id e m p lo y e e w a g e s a n d b o n u s e s . I n 2001, A R I ’ s A s s etM anage r , J ohn C ook, i nves t i gat ed the exe cut i ve bonus pl an i n pl ace att he M artand conc l uded thati tpr oduced e xces s i ve compensa t i on fors om e companyoffi ci al s , i ncl udi ng M r . H ar e. M r . C ook found t hatal t hough M r . H ar e’ s bas e s al aryr anged be tw een $155, 000 t o $210, 000 per-3-

y e a r, M r. H a re ’s to tal a n n u a l co m p e n sa tio n in c lu d in g b o n u se s a n d o th e r p a ym e n ts w a s w e ll o v e r $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 . H e re p o rte d th e se fin d in g s to G e n e P h ill ip s, a d v iso r to th e tru st th a t is th e c o n tro lli n g sh a re h o ld e r o f A R I. A R I d e c id e d to im p lem e n t a r evi s ed bonus pl an for2002. I n D ece m ber2001, M r . C ook i nform ed R ogerK l ei n, t he M ar t ’ s C ont r ol l er , of the cha nge and t ol d hi m thatbonus paym ent s s houl d not b e re lease d w ith o u t pri o r au tho ri za ti o n . In sp it e o f th is directi v e, M r. H are i s s ued, t hough he di d notr el eas e, bonus chec ks i n A pr i l 2002 foramount s that w o u ld h av e b ee n d u e u n d er the p ri o r plan . M r. H are info rm ed M r. C o o k b ylet ter, w i t h a l egal m emora ndum att ache d t o s uppor thi s pos i t i on, thathe bel i eved the bonus paym ent s w er e ea r ned and ve s t ed and ther efor e r equi r ed t o be pai d under C olor ado l aw . A ft er consi deri ng the legal m em orandu m , M r. C oo k d i rect ed fir st q u arter bo n u ses to b e p aid to all em p loy ee s ex ce p t M r. H are an d M r. K lei n . M r. H are n o n ethe less release d b o n u s ch ec k s to h im self a n d M r. K lei n co n tr aryto M r. C ook’ s di r ect i ve. M r . C ook di d noti m m edi at el yr es pond, butr atherm ade c l ear i n a l et t erdat ed D ece m ber2, 2002 thatexec ut i ve bonus es w oul d be el i m i nat ed as o f J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 a n d a n e w b o n u s p ro g ra m p u t in p la c e . O n D ece m ber3, 2003, M r . H ar e and M r . K l ei n att ended a m eet i ng i n D al l as w i t h M r . Phi l l i ps , M r . C ook, and K ar l B l aha t o di s cus s the M ar t ’ s oper at i ons , t he budget , and the new bonus pr ogr am for 2003. A tthe meet i ng, M r . Phi l l i ps i nform ed M r . H ar e thatt her e w oul d be cha nges t o the managementagr eement betw een A R I and the M art , and M r . C ook pr es ent ed the pr opos ed bonus pl an for-4-

2003. M r . H ar e w as vi s i bl yups etbythe di s cus s i on. M r . Phi l l i ps , hi m s el f 69 y ear s ol d, t hen as ked M r . H ar e, “H ow ol d ar e y ou[?] 65, 66 y ear s ol d[?] ” A pp. 163. M r . H ar e r epl i ed, “N o. ” Id . M r. P h ill ip s a sk e d , “W e ll, h o w o ld a re y o u ? ” to w hi ch M r . H ar e r es ponded thathe w as 63, and M r . Phi l l i ps as ked “H ow l ong do y ou expec tt o cont i nue t o w or k?” Id . M r . H ar e r epl i ed thathe di dn’ tknow , and t hathe hadn’ tt houghtaboutr et i r i ng beca us e hi s daught erw as i n col l ege a nd he e njo y e d w o rk in g . M r. P h ill ip s th e n c o m m e n ted th a t h e w o u ld lik e M r. H a re to as s i s ti n fi ndi ng a s ucce s s ort o fi l l hi s pos i t i on as gener al m anage r , “s om eone y oungert o t eac h. ” Id. S h o rtlyth e re a f ter M r. H a re a n d M r. K lein a b ru p tly w al ked outon t he meet i ng. A few day s l at erO s carC as hw el l , a t op- l evel l i ai s on t o M r . Phi l l i ps , cal l ed M r. H are an d ex p resse d h is co n ce rn th at M r. H are h ad left th e D ec em b er 3 m e e tin g a n g rily . M r. H a re ’s n o tes o f th e p h o n e c a ll rec o rd th a t M r. C a sh w e ll s t ar t ed the conve r s at i on bynot i ng, “[y ] ou ar e s t ar t i ng t o getol d l i ke I am, ” and su g g ested that M r. H are en ter a co n su lt ing ag ree m en t w ith the M art w h il e M r. H a re p ic k e d a re p la c e m e n t a n d tr a in e d h im . Id . T hes e comm ent s byM r . Phi l l i ps and the fol l ow - up phone ca l l byM r . C as hw el l w er e the onl yage- r el at ed r emar ks m a d e b yA R I’ s m a n a g e m e n t to M r. H a re . I n J anuary2003, M r . K l ei n r es i gned fr om hi s pos i t i on as C ontr ol l erof the M ar tand M r . H ar e r es i gned hi s corpor at e pos i t i ons as Pr es i dent , O ffi cerand D i rect or of D env er M erchand i se M art , Inc. , D env er M erchand i se M artE m ploy ers ,D enverM er chandi s e M artE m pl oy er s , I nc. i s a s epar at e ent i tyt hat 1 m anage s t he M art ’ s payr ol l . T he V al l eyC orpor at i on hol ds t he M ar t ’ s l i quor lic e n s e . -5- I nc. , and V al l ey C orpor at i on. M r . C ook and M r . Phi l l i ps t es t i fi ed thatt hey 1 b e lie v e d th a t M r. H a re w o u ld s o o n a ls o re s ig n h is p o s itio n a s g e n e ra l m a n a g e r. A pp. 267, 324. A s a r es ul t , M r . Phi l l i ps di r ect ed the hea d of A R I ’ s hum an r es our ces depart m entt o s ear ch fora r epl ace m ent . B el i evi ng thatt he M ar tm i ght so o n b e lef

t w ith o u t a g e n e ra l m a n a g e r, M r. C o o k b e g a n to tak e a m o re a c tiv e ro le in m a n a g e m e n t o f

th e M a rt . In Ju ly2 0 0 3 , L isa F o g g joine d the M art’s m an ag em en t t ea m to rep lace M r. K lei n . A s the M art’s ne w C o n tr o ll er, M s. F o g g inv esti g ated the M art’s acc ount i ng and r eport ed t o M r . C ook thatM r . H ar e had t aken pa yr ol l advanc es and made vaca t i on pay out s t o hi m s el f thatm ayhave vi ol at ed the M ar t ’ s empl oy ee pol i ci es . She al s o r epor t ed thatm anyof the M ar t ’ s empl oy ees w er e i nt i m i dat ed b y M r . H a r e a n d t h a tM r . H a r e a rr i v e d fo rw o r k l a t e a n d l e f te a r l y. M r . C ook test ifi ed that alth o u g h h e h ad u n ti l m id-2 0 0 3 co n side red M r. H are to b e a v ery good m anage r , he l earned fr om M s . Fogg and hi s ow n i nves t i gat i on thati n fac t M r . H ar e “di d notexhi bi tpos i t i ve managements ki l l s , and he di d nott ake a n act i ve r ol e i n m anagi ng t he M art. . . t he ac tual m anage rof the M ar toper at i on for y e a rs h a d b e e n R o g e r K le in . . . .” A p p . 1 5 9 . D u rin g th e fa ll o f

2 0 0 3 , M r. C o o k , M r. B lah a , an d M r. P h ill ip s d e c id e d to t erm i nat e M r . H ar e, and on D ece m ber28, 2003, M r . B l aha a nd A R I ’ s head of-6-

h u ma n r e s o u r c e s t r a v e l e d t o De n v e rt o i n fo r m Mr . Ha r e o f h i s t e r mi n a t i o n . No o n e d ire c tlyre p lac e d M r. H a re , an d th e p o sitio n o f g e n e ra l m a n a g e r w a s fo rm a lly el i m i nat ed. M r . C ook as s um ed the r es pons i bi l i t i es of gene r al m anage rof the M art, w h ich h e p erfo rm ed d u ri n g tw o d ay s ea ch w ee k in D en v er. T he r eas ons fort he dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e M r . H ar e ar e di s put ed, as i s the d eg ree o f in v o lvem en t byM r. P h il li p s in the term ination d ec isi o n . M r. H are c laim s th a t h e w a s te rm in a ted b e c a u se o f h is a g e a n d in re talia tio n fo r h is d e c isio n to m a k e b o n u s p a ym e n ts to h im se lf a n d th e M a rt’s e m p lo y e e s in A p ril 2002. M r . H ar e al s o cl ai m s t hatM r . Phi l l i ps w as the de fact o fi nal deci s i on m akeratA R I and w as an ac t i ve part i ci panti n the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e hi m . T he D efe ndant s r es pond t hatM r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on w as bas ed on hi s poor p erfo rm an ce as g en era l m an ag er o f th e M art an d (or p o ssiblyo r) be ca u se M r. C oo k d et erm i ned t hat the p osi t i on cou l d b e el i m i nated. T he D efen dan t s al so c laim th a t M r. P h ill ip s h e ld m e re lya n a d v iso ryro le in th e d e c isio n to ter m in a te M r. H a re . M r . H ar e fi l ed s ui ti n t he D i s tr i ctC our tof C ol or ado underthe A D E A , 29 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 , ets eq . , and forvi ol at i on of C ol or ado comm on l aw pr ohi bi t i ng an empl oy erfr om di s char gi ng an empl oy ee i n vi ol at i on of publ i c pol i cy . T he d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e D e fe n d a n ts o n b o th c la im s . Har e v. D enve rMer chandis e Mar t, Inc. , N o. 04 - c v- 02 41 6- PSF- D ES, 2006 W L 1517730, at*13 ( D . C ol o. M ay31, 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcour tfound that-7-

M r . H ar e had fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e underthe A D E A and thateven if h e h a d sa tisfied th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g a p rim a fa c ie c a se , h e fa iled to pr ovi de evi dence t hatt he defendant s ’ r eas ons forfi r i ng hi m w er e pr et extual . T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton M r . H ar e’ s comm on l aw w r ongful di s char ge cl ai m beca us e he fai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence of a c aus al connec t i on b e tw e e n h is re f

u s a l to w ith h o ld b o n u s e s a n d h is te rm in a tio n tw e n ty m o n th s la te r. W e r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n to n M r . Har e ’ s AD EA c l a i m, a n d a ffi r m s u mma r yj u d g me n to n h i s wr o n g f u l d i s c h a r g e c l a i m. II . A D E A C la im U n d e r t h e A D E A , a n e m p lo y e r c a n n o t “ d is c h a rg e a n yin d iv id u a l . . . beca us e of s uch i ndi vi dual ' s age. ” 29 U . S. C . § 623( a) ( 1) . T hus , a pl ai nt i ff s ui ng undert he A D E A m us tpr ove thatt he cha l l enged e m pl oym entact i on w as m ot i vat ed, atl eas ti n par t , byhi s age. R e e v e s v . Sa n d e rs o n P lu m b in gP r o ds ., In c ., 530 U . S. 133, 141 ( 2000) . T he pl ai nt i ff maycarryt hi s bur den ei therby pr es ent i ng di r ectevi dence of the empl oy er ' s di s cr i m i nat or yi nt entorby p rese n ti n g circu m stan ti al ev iden ce cre ati n g an infere n ce o f a d iscri m inato ry m ot i ve us i ng t he tr i par t i t e McD on nellD ou glas b u rd e n -s h if tin g a n a lysis . McD onnel lD ouglas v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 (1 9 7 3 ); s ee Munozv. St . MaryC or w i n Hos

p. , 221 F. 3d 1160, 1165 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( appl y i ng the McD o n n e ll D ou glas fr amew or k t o an A D E A cl ai m ) . M r . H ar e pr ovi des onl yci r cumst ant i al e v id e n c e o f

a lle g e d a g e d is c ri m in a tio n .-8-

U ndert he McD on nellD ou glas bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k, the pl ai nt i ff m us tfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e bys how i ng t hat( 1) he bel onged t o a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) he w as qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on; ( 3) he w as di s char ged; and (4 ) t h e p o s itio n w a s n o t e lim in a te d a f te r h is d is c h a rg e . Kendr i ck v . P ens ke Trans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1229 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . I f the pl ai nt i ff c annot s how t hathi s pos i t i on w as notel i m i nat ed, the pl ai nt i ff maypr ovi de other evi dence t hatt he t erm i nat i on occurr ed underci r cumst ance s thatgi ve r i s e t o an in fe re n c e o f

u n la w f u l d is c ri m in a tio n . P lo tke v . Wh ite , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 1 0 0 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . I n t hi s C i r cui t“the fourth el ementof a p rim a fa c ie c a se is a flex ib le one thatcan be s at i s fi ed di ffe r ent l yi n vary i ng s cena r i os . ” Id . a t 1 1 0 0 . I f the pl ai nt i ff s ucce s s ful l ym akes a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng, the empl oy er m us tar t i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym ent a c tio n . Id . a t 1 0 9 9 . T h e b u rd e n th e n sh if ts b a c k to th e e m p lo y e e to d e m o n stra te th a t th e p ro ffe re d re a s o n s a re p re te x tu a l. Id . T o su rviv e su m m aryjud g m en t, M r. H ar e nee d onl ys how t hatt her e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherhe has s at i s fi ed ea ch el ementof the McD on nellD ou glas f ra m e w o rk . 1. P ri m a Facie C ase T he defendant s do notdi s put e thatM r . H ar e has s at i s fi ed the fi r s tthr ee el ement s of the pr i m a fa ci e t es t , butcont end thatM r . H ar e’ s pos i t i on w as e lim in a ted b yh is d isc h a rg e a n d th e re fo re th a t M r. H a re fa ils to sa tisf yth e fo u rth e l e me n t . M r . Ha r e c l a i ms t h a th i s p o s i t i o n wa s n o te l i mi n a t e d , a n d ma k e s two-9-

in d e p e n d e n t ar g u m e n ts in su p p o rt. F irst, h e a lleg e s th a t h e w a s e ss e n tially r epl ace d byM r . C ook. H ow ever , ther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d s how i ng that M r . C ook gave up hi s form erdut i es t o t ake ove rM r . H ar e’ s pos i t i on as gener al m anage r . Second, M r . H ar e cl ai m s thatal though the t i t l e of ge ner al m anage rw as el i m i nat ed, t he dut i es of the gene r al m anage rw er e s i m pl yr eas s i gned t o ot her empl oy ees . T hi s ar gum entfai l s as a l egal m at t er . T o r eas s i gn the r es pons i bi l i t i es o f a p o s itio n to a n u m b e r o f o th e r i n d iv id u a ls is to e lim in a te th e p o s itio n . Fur rv. Seagat e Tech. , Inc. , 82 F. 3d 980, 988 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( “[T] he t es tforpos i t i on el i m i nat i on i s notw hethert he r es pons i bi l i t i es w er e s t i l l per form ed, butr ather w h e th e r t h e re s p o n s ib iliti e s s till c o n s titu te d a s in g le , d is tin c t p o s itio n .” ). T her efor e M r . H ar e does notpr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue o f m a te ri a l fa c t a s to w h e th e r h is p o s itio n w a s e lim in a te d a f te r h is d is c h a rg e . M r . H ar e ca n s t i l l s at i s fyt he fourth el ementof the pr i m a fa ci e t es tand s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enti f he c an demonstr at e thathi s t erm i nat i on occurr ed “underci r cumst ance s w hi ch gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. ” P l otke , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e p lain tiff is r equi r ed, how ever , t o pr offe revi dence thathi s di s char ge di d notr es ul tfr om the m os tcomm on l egi t i m at e r eas ons thatan empl oy erm i ghtt erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee, in c lu d in g e lim in a tio n o f h is p o s itio n . P ens ke , 220 F. 3d at1226–27. W e have found thata pl ai nt i ff mayes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e eve n though hi s pos i t i on wa s e l i mi n a t e d wh e n t h e r e i s a g e n e r a l r e d u c t i o n i n fo r c e a n d th e p l a i n t i ff s h o ws-10-

th a t h e w a s tr e a te d le s s fa v o ra b ly th a n s im ila rl ys itu a te d e m p lo y e e s , Ingels v. Thi okolC or

p. , 42 F. 3d 616, 621 ( 10th C i r . 1994) , ori f the defendantdoes not c la im th a t th e p la in tiff ’s te rm in a tio n w a s b a s e d o n e lim in a tio n o f h is p o s itio n . P l otke , 40 5 F . 3d at11 00 . A plai nti ff can al so show ci rcum st ances w hich gi ve ri se t o an i nfer ence of unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on bypr offe r i ng act i ons orr em arks m ade by de cis i onm akers thatcould be vi ew ed as r ef l ect i ng a dis cr i m i nat or y ani m us , p re fe re n tial tre a tm e n t g iv e n to empl oy ees out s i de the pr ot ect ed cl as s , i n a corpor at e dow ns i zi ng, the s y s t emat i c tr ans ferof a di s char ged empl oy ee' s dut i es t o ot her empl oy ees , ora patt ern of r ecomm endi ng t he pl ai nt i ff forpos i t i ons fo r w h ich sh e is n o t q u a lifie d [ o r o v e r-q u a lifie d ] a n d fa ilu re to s ur fac e pl ai nt i ff' s name forpos i t i ons forw hi ch s he i s w el l - qual i fi ed. A pl ai nt i ff mi ghtal s o r el yupon the fa ctthatthe defendant , fol l ow i ng pl ai nt i ff' s t erm i nat i on, cont i nued t o s eek appl i cant s t o fi l l the p o sitio n , o r, m o re g e n e ra lly , u p o n th e tim in g o r se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts l eadi ng t o pl ai nt i ff' s t erm i nat i on. Id . (em p h asis ad d ed )(i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d alt era ti o n s o m itted) M r. H are p o ints t o the a g e-related rem ark s m ad e b yM r. P h il li p s an d M r. C a s h w e ll to s h o w c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t g iv e ri s e to a n in fe re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . Foract i ons orr emar ks t o s uppor ts uch an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat or yi nt ent , the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e a ne xus betw een the ac t i ons orr emar ks and the d e c is io n to te rm in a te . Id . T o s how a nexus , the r emar ks m us tbe made by s om eone i nvol ved i n t he dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e the pl ai nt i ff. M r . C ook t es t i fi ed t hatM r . Phi l l i ps ul t i m at el ym ade the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e M r . H ar e, s how i ng a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct as to w h ethe r M r. P h il li p s w as a p ri m ary deci s i onm akeri n M r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on.T he D efe ndant s ci t e ca s es i n thei rbr i ef thataddr es s t he t empora l 2 pr oxi m i t ynece s s aryt o s uppor tt he ca us at i on pr ong of a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e on a m oti on t o d i sm i ss w hen bri ng i ng a ret al i at i on cl ai m . A l tho ug h inform at i ve, t ho se cas es ar e notent i r el yper s uas i ve her e bec aus e M r . H ar e nee d nots how caus at i on t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e undert he A D E A . M r . H ar e nee d onl ys how t hat t he ci r cumst ance s of hi s t erm i nat i on gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. -11- A not herel ementnece s s aryt o es t abl i s h a nexus i s t empora l connec t i on betw een the r emar ks and the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d not fin d M r. P h il li p s’ st atem en ts atthe D ec em b er 2 0 0 2 m ee ti n g an d M r. C ash w ell ’s foll ow up ph on e cal l t o b e suffici ent evi den ce of dis cri m i natoryi ntentbecau se t heyw er e made m or e than a y earpr i ort o M r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on. W e agr ee that beca us e of the t empora l di s t ance , w i thoutm or e, the r emar ks w oul d notbe s uffi ci ent t o s uppor t an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. H ow ever , A R I began 2 s ear chi ng fora r epl ace m entforM r . H ar e i n J anuary2003, l es s t han a mont h aft er t he comm ent s w er e made. A pp. 310. A R I had al s o s us pended the bonus pr ogr am t hatm ade up mor e than hal f of M r . H ar e’ s y ear l ycompensa t i on pr i ort o the m eet i ng, and di d notes t abl i s h a new bonus pl an for2003. T he t empora l nexus b e tw e e n th e a g e -re late d re m a rk s a n d th e se m o re im m e d iate a c tio n s b yA R I is r el at i vel ycl os e and s uffi ci entt o s uppor tan i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat or ym ot i ve th a t s a tis fie s th e b u rd e n o f d e s c ri b in g a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e . See But l erv. C i t y of Pr a i r i e Vi l l . , KA , 1 7 2 F .3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (fin d in g th a t a d e c lin e in w or k eval uat i ons l eadi ng up t o di s char ge maycontr i but e t o an i nfer ence of d isc rim in a to ryin ten t); Marx v. SchnuckMkts . , Inc. , 7 6 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (10 th C ir .-12-

1996) ( “[A ] pat t ern of r et al i at or yconduct[that ] begi ns s oon aft erthe fi l i ng of the F L S A c o m p lain t an d o n lyc u lm in a tes late r in a c tu a l d isc h a rg e ” is s u fficie n t to su p p o rt a n in fe re n c e o f re talia to rym o tiv e ); O strow skiv. A t lan t i c Mut. Ins. C os. , 968 F. 2d 171 ( 7t h C i r . 1992) ( s t at i ng t hatal l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat orys t at ement s m ay b e su ffici en t t o p rese n t a prim a fac ie ca se u n d er McD onnel lD ouglas ). T he bur den on M r . H ar e t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e underthe McD onnel lD ouglas f ra m e w o rk is n o t o n e ro u s , P l otke , 405 F. 3d at1099, and the “nonmovanti s onl yr equi r ed t o br i ng for th evi dence t endi ngt o es t abl i s h ors how t he mat er i al fac tati s s ue. ” R iggs v. A i r Tran Ai r w ays , Inc. , 497 F. 3d 1108, 1116 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e a ck n o w ledg e tha t a reaso n ab le j u ryco u ld interp ret M r. Phi l l i ps ’ r et i r ementques t i ons as a mat t erof s ucce s s i on pl anni ng r atherthan a reflecti o n o f a g e-related an im u s, as th e d istri ct co u rtd id, bu t on su m m ary j udgm ental l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s m us tbe dr aw n i n favorof the partyoppos i ng t he mot i on. T he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s “one of pr oduct i on, notper s uas i on and i nvol ves no cr edi bi l i tyas s es s m ent . ” P l otke , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 1 . W hat everm aybe the mostper s uas i ve i nt erpr et at i on, M r . Phi l l i ps ’ age- r el at ed s t at ement s ar e evi dence t hathe, as the de fact o head of the A R I m anage m ent chai n of comm and, w as i nt er es t ed i n r epl aci ng M r . H ar e w i th a y oungerempl oy ee and M r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on w as m ot i vat ed atl eas ti n par tbyage.-13- 2. P r et ext In re sp o n se to M r. H a re ’s p rim a fa c ie c a se , the d e fe n d a n ts s u c c e ss f u lly ar t i cul at e a nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on forM r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on. I n fac t , the t es t i m onyof M r . Phi l l i ps , M r . C ook, M r . B l aha, and M i chae l L ane pr ovi des n u m ero u s leg it im ate rea so n s w h yM r. H are w as term inated , inclu d ing that: M r. H ar e’ s r es pons i bi l i t i es coul d be managed fr om D al l as atl ow ercos t , he di d not m axi m i ze the M art ’ s earni ng pot ent i al , he kepts hor tw or ki ng hour s and w as not act i vel yi nvol ved i n day - t o- dayoper at i ons atthe M ar t , he di s pl ay ed an i ns ubor di nat e att i tude t ow ar ds A R I ’ s D al l as m anage m ent , and he e m pl oy ed an i nt i m i dat i ng and i neffect i ve managements ty l e. B eca us e the defendant s have sati sfied their bu rde n u n d er McD onnel lD ouglas , M r. H are “c an av o id su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n lyif

h e is a b le to sh o w th a t a g e n u in e d isp u te o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ists as t o w hethert he defendant ’ s art i cul at ed r eas on[s ] [ar e] pr et extual . ” Mu n o z v . S t. Mar y- C or w i n Hos

p. , 221 F. 3d 1160, 1165 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot es o m itte d ). “P ret ext can be sho w n b ysuch w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons fori t s act i on thata r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d r at i onal l yfi nd t hem unw or t hyof cr edenc e . . . . ” Har dy v. S. F. P hos phat es Ltd. C o. , 185 F. 3d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 8 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tes an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). T h e inq u iry goes t o t he s ubj ect i ve bel i ef of t hos e maki ng the t erm i nat i on deci s i on; “[t ] he-14-

r el evanti nqui r yi s notw hethert he empl oy er ' s pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e w i s e, fai ror c o rre c t, bu t w h e th e r it h o n e stlyb e liev e d th o se re a so n s a n d a c ted in g o o d fa ith upon t hos e bel i efs . ” R i vera v. C i t y an d C ou nty of

D enver, 365 F. 3d 912, 924–25 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d alt era ti o n o m itted). M r . H ar e s ucce s s ful l ys how s pr et extbypoi nt i ng t o an appa r ent c o n tr a d ic tio n in th e te s tim o n yo f th o s e in v o lv e d in th e d e c is io n to te rm in a te h im . T h e fo llo w in g is a n e x c e rp t f ro m M r. B lah a ’s d e p o sitio n re g a rd in g h is under s t andi ng as t o w hyM r . H ar e w as t erm i nat ed: Q : W hyw as [M r . H ar e] t erm i nat ed? A : B eca us e w e dec i ded t o el i m i nat e the pos i t i on, thatthe pos i t i on w as notnece s s ary , t hatw e coul d run the pr opertyoutof–outof D al l as. Q : T hatdeci s i on w as n’ tbas ed on the fa ctthatM r . H ar e w as in c o m p e ten t o r a n yth in g , w a s it? A : N o. Q : H a d n o th in g to d o w ith M r. H a re ’s p e rfo rm a n c e a t all, d id it?

. . . A : N o. A pp. 277. Y etM r . Phi l l i ps s t at es di r ect l yi n hi s t es t i m onythatM r . H ar e w as term inated b ec au se o f h is pe rfo rm an ce . M r. C o o k stat es in h is de p o sit ion that M r. H a re w a s te rm in a ted b e c a u se “ [ h ]e w a sn ’t d o in g a n yth in g . H e w a s c o m p lete ly noneffect i ve i n hi s pos i t i on . . . he w as notpart i ci pat i ng i n the pr oces s of m anagi ng r evenue t o a hi gherachi evementorm anagi ng expens es t o a l ow er l evel . ” A pp. 271. M r . L ane s t at es that“he w as goi ng t o be t erm i nat ed bec aus e he w asn ’tw o rkin g . ” A p p . 3 0 7 . N o n e o f th ese stat em en ts can b e sq u are d w ith M r.-15-

B lah a ’s te stim o n yth a t M r. H a re w a s n o t term in a ted fo r a n yre a so n re latin g to h is perform ance. A reas on able j urycou l d co nclude t hat the incon si st encyi n these s ta te m e n ts a re e v id e n c e th a t a ll o f th e re a s o n s p ro ffe re d a re m e re ly p re te x tu a l. T o be s ur e, i ndi vi dual par t i ci pant s i n a col l ect i ve t erm i nat i on deci s i on m i ghtw el l pr ovi de a va r i etyof r eas ons forthe t erm i nat i on of an e m pl oy ee. T he m er e var i etyi n t he r eas ons w oul d notal one underm i ne thei rcr edi bi l i ty . E ach i ndi vi dual m aycons i dera di ffe r entr eas on t o be the es s ent i al fac t ori n a dec i s i on to te rm in a te . E . g. , Villia r im o v . A lo h a Is la n dA ir, In c ., 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 3 (9 th C i r . 2002) ( uphol di ng gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o empl oy erw hen empl oy ee w a s fire d fo r tw o d iffe re n t, bu t co n sis ten t, rea so n s); Jo h n s o n v . No r ds tr o m , In c ., 2 6 0 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 3

– 3 4 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( fi n d i n g n o p r e t e x tw h e n th e e m p l o ye r 's re a so n s fo r te rm in a tio n w e re n e ith e r in c o n sis ten t n o r c o n flictin g ); Ni dds v. Sc h in d le rE le v a to rC o r p ., 113 F. 3d 912, 918 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng that d iffe ren t j u sti fica ti o n s fo r an ad v erse ac ti o n are n o t sufficien t t o d efea t sum m ary j udgm entw hen thos e r eas ons ar e “noti ncompat i bl e”) . H ow ever , the r eas ons sta ted b yth e A R I m a n a g e m e n t tea m w e re n o t o n lyd iffe re n t b u t m u tu a lly i ncons i s t ent . U ndert he McD onnel lD ouglas f ra m e w o rk , co n tra d ictio n s o f th is s o rt a re s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h p re te x t fo r p u rp o s e o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. R a n d le v. C i t y of Au rora , 69 F. 3d 441, 452 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( s t at i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff n ee d n o t pro v ide d ir ec t evid en ce o f d iscri m inato rym o ti v e to s u rviv e su m m ary ju d g m e n t) .-16-

Fur t herm or e, t he di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l yr equi r ed M r . H ar e t o pr ovi de not o n lyev iden ce that the d efen d an ts’ p roffe red rea so n s fo r disch arg ing M r. H are w er e pr et extual , butaddi t i onal evi dence t o s how thatage di s cr i m i nat i on w as the r eal r eas on, ci t i ng MacD on ald v. E . W yo. MentalHealth C tr. , 941 F. 2d 1115, 1122 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( “W hi l e the M acD onal ds m ayhave c r eat ed a ge nui ne i s s ue as t o w hethert he pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e the r eal r eas ons forthei rdi s char ge, they h a v e o ffe re d n o c re d ib le e v id e n c e th a t th e re a l r e a s o n w a s a g e d is c ri m in a tio n .” ). Hare , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 5 1 7 7 3 0 , a t * 1 3 . Ma cD o n a ldi s no l ongergood l aw . T he hol di ng w as i m pl i ci t l yover tur ned bythi s C our ti n R a n d le , 69 F. 3d 441, w hi ch s t at ed thatdi s cr i m i nat or yani m us m aybe i nferr ed fr om the s i m pl e s how i ng of pr et ext . T he rul e w as confi r m ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r oducts , Inc. , 530 U . S. 133, 147–49 ( 2000) . T he curr ents t andar d for a n a g e -d isc rim in a tio n c laim to su rv iv e su m m a ryju d g m e n t d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily r equi r e a pl ai nt i ff t o pr ovi de anyevi dence thatthe r eal r eas on forhi s t erm i nat i on w as age- r el at ed. T he C our tnot ed i n R eeves th a t th e sh o w in g o f a p rim a fa c ie cas e, “combi ned w i t h s uffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd thatthe empl oy er ’ s as s er t ed justi fica ti o n is false . . . w il l [n o t] alw ays b e a d eq u ate” to av o id su m m ary ju d g m e n t. Id . at148. Y et , t he exc ept i ons des cr i bed i n R eev es i m pos e a he avy evi dent i arybur den on empl oy er s i n s how i ng an al t ernat i ve s our ce forthe d is c re p a n c ie s in th e irre a s o n s . Id.-17-

Fori ns t ance , an empl oy erw oul d be ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw i f the r ecor d c o n c lu siv e ly rev ea led s o m e o ther, nondi s cr i m i nat or yr eas on forthe empl oy er ’ s deci s i on, ori f the pl ai nt i ff c r eat ed onl ya w eak i s s ue of factas t o w hetherthe em ploy er’ s r eason w as untrue an d ther e w as abundantand uncontr over t ed i ndepende ntevi dence thatno di s cr i m i nat i on had occurr ed. Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ). B eca us e the D efe ndant s ar e unabl e t o pr ovi de “a bundant an d u n co n tr o v erted ” e v iden ce that n o d iscri m ination o cc u rred , M r. H are ’s sh o w ing o f in co n sist en cies in th e D efen d an t’ s rea so n s fo r disch arg ing h im are s u ffic ie n t to s a tis f

yh is b u rd e n o f

p ro d u c tio n a n d s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I I I . W rongful D i s charge M r . H ar e al s o cl ai m s t hathe w as w r ongful l ydi s char ged i n vi ol at i on of p u b lic p o licyu n d e r C o lo ra d o c o m m o n law . H e a rg u e s th a t A R I’s d e c isio n n o t to perm i thi m t o payoutbonus es undert he ol d pl an t o hi m s el f and M r . K l ei n w as so m e h o w ill e g a l an d th e re fo re th a t itv io late d C o lo ra d o p u b lic p o licyto fire h im fo r refu sing to ca rryito u t. T o su rviv e su m m aryjud g m en t on this clai m , M r. H ar e musts how t hat( 1) hi s empl oy erdi r ect ed hi m t o per form an i l l egal actas p a rt o f h is w o rk re late d d u ties ; (2 ) th e a c t d ire c ted b yh is e m p lo y e r w o u ld v io late a s peci fi c s t atut e r el at i ng t o publ i c hea l th, s afe tyorw el far e; ( 3) he w as t erm i nat ed as a r es ul tof r efus i ng t o per form t he ac tdi r ect ed; and ( 4) hi s empl oy er w a s a w a re o r re a so n a b lysh o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re th a t M r. H a re ’s r e f u sa l to compl yw i t h t he di r ect i ve w as bas ed on hi s r eas onabl e bel i ef thatt he ac tw as ill e g a l, co n tra ryto c lea rlye x p re ss e d sta tu to ryp o licyre latin g to M r. H a re ’s d u ty-18-

a s a c itiz e n , o r v io la tiv e o f M r. H a re ’s le g a l r ig h t o r p ri v ile g e a s a w o rk e r. R oe v. C heyen ne Mt . C on

f . R esport , 124 F. 3d 1221, 1235 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( ci t i ng Ma rtin Mar i et ta C or

p. v. Lore nz , 8 2 3 P .2 d 1 0 0 , 1 0 9 (C o lo . 1 9 9 2 )) . W e a re sk e p tica l th a t M r. H a re h a s e sta b lish e d a n yo f th e e lem e n ts n e c e s s a ry to d e s c ri b e a w ro n g f u l d is c h a rg e c la im u n d e r C o lo ra d o c o m m o n la w . B eca us e fa i l ur e t o s how a genui ne di s put e of mat er i al fac tas t o one of the el ement s i s fat al t o M r . H ar e’ s cl ai m , w e s hal l focus onl yon the i s s ue of c a u s a tio n . A s the d istri ct co u rth eld, a rea so n ab le j u ryco u ld n o t fi n d o n this reco rd t hatt her e w as a ca us al connec t i on betw een M r . H ar e’ s r efus al t o fol l ow m anage m ent ’ s di r ect i ve nott o paybonus es and hi s t erm i nat i on t w entym onths l at er . T he t empora l di s t ance betw een the tw o event s , w i thoutm or e, cannot s u p p o rt a n in fe re n c e o f c a u s a tio n . See Mi l l erv. A ut o. C l ub of N. M. , Inc. , 420 F. 3d 1098, 1121 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng a s i x m onth w i ndow betw een pr ot ect ed a c tiv itya n d a d v e rse a c tio n in su fficie n t to sa tisf yc a u sa l co n n e c tio n ); C onnorv. SchnuckMkts , Inc. , 1 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 9 0 , 1 3 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (fin d in g fo u r m o n th t i m e l ag betw een pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand t erm i nat i on i ns uffi ci entbyi t s el f t o j us t i fy an i nfer ence of ca us at i on) . A l t hough M r . H ar e cl ai m s thatdocument at i on of the b o n u s d ispu te w as re v iew ed at th e ti m e o f h is t erm ination , n o thing in the rec o rd su p p o rts s u c h a c o n c lu sio n . T h e h e a d o f A R I’s h u m a n re so u rc e s, M r. L a n e , o n ly t es t i fi es t hatdocument at i on of the di s put e betw een M r . H ar e and M r . C ook-19-

reg ard ing b o n u ses w as c o p ied to h im as th e h ea d o f h u m an reso u rce s. M r. Phi l l i ps m ent i ons M r . H ar e’ s “i ns ubor di nat e att i tude” a s one of the r eas ons for M r . H ar e’ s t erm i nat i on, butt her e i s no evi dence t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on t hat M r. P h illip s w a s s p e c ific a lly re fe rr in g to th e b o n u s e s in c id e n t. A p p . 3 1 8 . T her efor e w e affi r m t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entforthe defendant s bythe d is tr ic t c o u rt . I V . W e A F F I R M t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton the w r ongful di s char ge c la im , REVERSE t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton the A D E A cl ai m , and RE M AND fo r f

u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge