FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 19, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 17 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 63 1- CV-5 -IPJ REBECCA B OUTW ELL, anin di vi du al , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, KELLY SERVICES, INC ., co rp or at io ns or s im il ar b us in es s en ti ti es , FEDERAL-MOGUL POW ERTRAIN, INC., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st19 , 20 09 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Reb eccaBo ut well bro ug htcla im s fo r ret al ia to ry di sc ha rg e und er Al ab am a Co de § 1 2- 16 -8 .1 ag ai ns t h er fo rm er em pl oyers, Fe de ral -Mo gu l Po wertrai n, In c. (“ Fed eral -Mo gu l” ) an d Kel ly Servi ces , Inc . (“ Kell y Serv ic es ”), as se rti ng th atsh e was wron gf

ul ly dis ch arg edso le ly becau se sh e se rv edon a jury. The d is tri ctco urt, fin di ng th atBo ut well ha d n otsh own th atFed eral -Mo gu l’s l eg it im at e rea so n fo r th e d is ch arg e –

th atsh e fai le d t o c al l i n t o re po rt h er ab se nc es as r equi red– was pr et ex tu al or t ha t Kel ly Servi ces ha d t erm in at edBo ut well ’s em pl oym en t, g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Fed eral -Mo gu l an d Kel ly Servi ces . Bou twel l ap pe al s. I. FACTS The rel ev an t fa ct s o f th is cas e, ei th er u nd is pu te d o r supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce co ns id eredinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Bo ut well , are as fol lo ws. Bo ut well was e m

pl oyed b y Kell y Serv ic es , a tem

po rary em

pl oym en t ag en cy . Bo ut well acce pt eda te m

po rary pla cem en t thr ou gh Kell y Serv ic es at F ed eral
Mo gu l. Bo ut well work edth e th ird -s hi ft –11 :0 0 p .m . to 7: 00 a.m ., Sun da y ev en in g t hr ou gh Fri da y

m orni ng – u nd er s up erv is orJi m Gran ge . Fed eral -Mo gu l wou ldex cu se it s emplo y ees forjury du ty, bu t h ada m an da to ry cal l-i n p ol ic y whi chrequi redit s emplo y ees to cal l the ir s up erv is or eit he r on hi s ce ll ph on e o r on 2th e Fed eral -Mo gu l m ai n l in e fo r eac h d ay th ey wou ldbe ab se nt . In No ve m be r of 1 20 07 , Bou twel l i nf

orm edGrin ag e th atsh e h adbe ensu m m on edto ap pe ar fo r jury du ty on M on da y , Decem

be r 10 , 20 07 . Grin ag e ex cu se d B ou twel l fo r th e Su nd ay ni gh t s hi ft b efo re the da y of t he su m

m on s, b utin st ru ct edhe r to cal l o n M on da y if sh e was pi ck edto serve an d t o c al l ev ery da y sh e was requi redto serve . On Mo nd ay , Bou twel l was pi ck edfor a jury andwas t ol d t ha t h er s erv ic e wou ldbe requi redforth e en ti re week . Bou twel l ca ll edth e Fed eral -Mo gu l m ai n l in e o n Mo nd ay an d Tu es da y

an d l eftm es sa ge s i nf

orm in g Gri na ge of h er n eedto be ab se ntforth e weekdu e to jury se rv ic e. Grin ag e te st ifi edth athe di d n otrece iv e 2 Bo ut well ’s m es sa ge s an d b el ie ve d t ha t Bo ut well ha d v io la te d the m an da to ry cal l- This is a disputed fac t. Both Grina g e and T roy Butler , a human r esourc es mana g er, 1 testified that employees w ere require d to call-in abse nces by callingthe supervisor’ s cell phone, that employees w ere not supposed to call-in abse nces on themain line, and that Grinag e could not rec eive messa g es left on the ma in line. Howeve r, Donna Townsend, a

personne l administrator for

Fe dera l-Mogul, testified that it was ac cepta ble under Fe dera l-Mogul’s policies for a n employee to c all either the supervisor’ s cell phone or the main line to repor

t absenc es. Fur thermore , Boutwe ll testified that the number for the main line was posted on a bulletin board in the employee br eak- room, with an instruction that “[c]all-ins mustcall this number.” B utler, in his deposition, admit ted that this information was posted on the bulletin boar d and that he ha d done nothingto chang e the posting . Acc ording ly , beca use we construe c onflictingevidenc e in the light most favor able to B outwell, we must assume for purposes of this motion that callingthe Fe dera l-Mogul main line was an a ccepted proc edure for sa tisfying the mandatory

call-in policy . This is also a disputed fac t. Boutwe ll testified that she left messag es on this main line 2 from her home phone on Monda

y and fr om her c ell phone on Tue sday . She also produce d her home telephone rec ords which indicate that she made three calls to the main line on Monday . Butler , howeve r, testified that he chec ked the messa g es on the main line a nd rec eived no messag es fr om Boutwe ll that week. This evide nce, vie wed in the light most favorable to Boutwe ll, presents a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to whether Boutwe ll satisfied the mandatory

call-in policy . 3in po li cy . On Thu rs da y , Decem be r 13 , 20 07 , Grin ag e to ldTroy But le r, Fed eral
Mo gu l’s h um anres ou rces m an ag er, tha t Bo ut well ha d n otcal le d i n o r at te nd ed work fo r th ree d ay s. Bu tl er t es ti fie d t ha t h e ch eck edth e m es sa ge s o n t he m ai n l in e an d d idno t h ear am es sa ge fro m Bo ut well . Accor di ng ly, Bu tl er i nf orm edKell y Serv ic es th atFed eral -Mo gu l was term in at in g B ou twel l’s t em po rary em

pl oym en t du e to he r fai lu re t o c om

pl y with t he ir m an da to ry

cal l-i n p ol ic y . Afte r he r as si gn m en t atFed eral -Mo gu l en de d, Bo ut well rem ai ne d o n Kel ly Serv ic es ’s “ av ai labl e” l is t an d c ou ldbe co ns id eredfora ne w ass ig nm en t. Bo ut well to ldKell y

Serv ic es th at , bec au se of h er ch il d c are n eed s, s he wou ld pr efera th ird -s hi ft a ss ig nm en t. Kel ly Servi ces pl acedtem po rary em

pl oyees a t Yut ak a in Marc h o f 20 08 , at Ro ck -Ten n i n J ul y of 2 00 8, an d a t In te rn at io na l Dies el in Ju ne or J ul y

of 2 00 8. In Ju ly of 20 08 , Kell y Serv ic es co nt act edBo ut well reg ard in g apo si ti on , bu t Bo ut well was n otin te res te d b ecau se itwas t oo far awa y an d t he ho ur s wer e n otacce pt ab le . On Aug us t 1 1, 2 00 8, Kel ly Servi ces no ti fie d Bo ut well th ata fi rs t-s hi ft a ss ig nm en t was av ai labl e atInt ern at io na l Di es el . Bo ut well acce pt edth is ass ig nm en t, b utqu iton he r se co ndda y in ord er t o c are f

or he r ch il d wh o h adbe co m e si ck .

4II . STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Th om as v. Co op er Lig ht in g, In c., 50 6 F .3d13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when th e ev id en ce, v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty , pre se nt s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d c om pe ls jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Id . “ The re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factif t he no nm ov in g p arty

fai ls to m ak e a s ho win g s uf fic ie ntto est ab li shth e ex is te nc e o f an el em en t es se nt ia l t o t ha t p arty ’s cas e an d o n wh ic h t he pa rty will be ar the bu rd en of pro of at t ria l.” J on es v. Gerwe ns , 87 4 F .2d15 34 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

“ Genui ne di sp ut es are t ho se in whi ch th e ev id en ce i s s uc h t ha t a r eas on ab le jury co ul d re tu rna ve rd ic t fo r th e n on -m ov an t.” M iz e v . Jef fers on Cit y

Bd . of Edu c., 93 F.3d73 9, 7 42 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). W e can affi rm a gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t o n a ny bas is supp orte d b y th e rec or d. Lu cas v. W.W . Grain ge r, In c., 25 7 F.3 d 1 24 9, 1 25 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . II I. ANALYSI S Und er Al ab am a la w, “ anat- wil l em pl oyee is , with c ert ai n s ta tu to ry 3 ex cep ti on s, . . . subjec t t o d is m is sa l fo r an y reas on or f

orno reas on ” atall . Dy

ke s As a fe dera l court sitting in diversity , we must apply Alabama law to the state- law 3 claims in this case. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S . 64 (1938) ( noting that f eder al cour

ts are constitutionally

obligated to apply

state law to state c laims).

5v. Lan e Tru ck in g, In c., 65 2 S o. 2 d 2 48 , 25 0 (Al a. 19 94 ). One s uc h s ta tu to ry

ex cep ti on pro vi de s t ha t “ [n ]o em pl oyer inth is st at e m ay

di sc ha rg e an y

em pl oyee orsubjec t an y

em pl oyee to anadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on so le ly becau se he or s he se rv es on an y

jury em pa ne ll edun de r an y

st at e o r fed eral st atut e.” Ala . Cod e § 1 2- 16 -8 .1(a ). “ Any em pl oyee who is so di sc ha rg edor s ub jecte d t o a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on sh al l h av e a caus e o f act io n a ga in stth e em pl oyer forth e di sc ha rg e o r adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on in an y

co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on in th is st at e . . . .” Ala. Co de . § 1 2- 16 -8 .1(b ). W it h t he pa ss ag e o f Ala . Cod e § 12 -1 6- 8.1 , th e Alaba m a “ [l]eg is la tu re in te nd edto pro hi bi t an em pl oyer fro m

di sc harg in g a n e m

pl oyee so le ly becau se th e em pl oyee was abs en t fr om

workbe cau se he or s he was c al le d fo r jury dut y .” Nor fo lkS. Ry . Co. v . Jo hn so n, 7 40 So . 2d39 2, 3 96 (Ala . 19 99 ) (em ph as is in or ig in al ). In e va lu at in g c la im s u nd er Al a. Co de § 1 2- 16 -8 .1, Al ab am a co urts em pl oy a bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk . Id. at39 8. “ An em pl oyee m ay

est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia to ry di sc ha rg e . . . by

pre se nt in g s ub st an ti al ev id en ce su gg es ti ng th athe was d is ch arg ed‘ so le ly’ be cau se he ‘ se rv ed ’ ona jury.” Id. Alab am a co urts , in te rp ret in g a n a na lo go us st at e st atut e p ro hi bi ti ng th e d is ch arg e

6of

anem pl oyee “ so le ly” for fi li ng a worke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n c la im , ha ve 4 reco gn iz edth at“ [b ]ecaus e d ire ctev id en ce d em on strat in g t ha t an em pl oyer ha s di sc ha rg edanem

pl oyee so le ly becau se th e em pl oyee ha s fi le d awork ers ’ co m pe ns at io n c la im

is no t o fte n e as il y

ob ta in ed , an e m

pl oyee [] m ay

est ab li sh by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce tha t the actua l re as on forth e d is ch arg e was th e em pl oyee’s fil in g o f a wo rk ers ’ co m pe ns at io n c la im .” Hatc h v . NTW Inc ., – So . 3d–, 2 00 9 WL 17 16 96 7 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. J un e 1 9, 2 00 9) . App lying th is pri nc ip le to th e cas e atha nd , we con cl ud e th atanem pl oyee m ay

als o u se cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th atth e actua l re as on forth e d is ch arg e was th e em pl oyee’s se rv in g o n ajury. In Al ab am a Po wer Co m pa ny v. Aldrid ge , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt i de nt ifi edsi x fa ct or s wh ic h aco urt m ay co ns id er as cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce of a cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he em pl oyee’s pro te ct edact iv it y an d t ha t em pl oyee’s di sc ha rg e: (1 ) kn owl ed ge of t he [pr ot ect edact iv it y ] by tho se m ak in g t he de ci si on on term in at io n, (2 ) ex pr es si on of ane ga ti ve att itud e to ward th e em pl oyee’s [pr ot ect edact iv it y ], (3) fai lu re t o a dh ere t o es tabl is he d c om

pany po li cy , (4) di sc riminat ory tre at m en t i n co m pa ris on to si m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees, (5 ) su dd ench an ge s i n a n
The Ala bama Supre me Court, noting that Ala bama’ s Workers’ Compensation Ac t, Ala. 4 Code § 25-5-11.1, a

nd Ala. Code § 12-16- 8.1 are reta liatory -discharg e statutes with similar statutory languag e, re fer s to case la w interpre ting these statutes intercha ng eably . See e.g ., Norfolk, 740 So. 2d at 396 (c iting ca se law inter preting§ 25-5-11.1 to interpr et § 12-16-8.1) and Aldridg e, 854 So. 2d at 566-67 (c iting ca se law inter preting§ 12-16-8.1 to interpr et § 25-5-11.1) . 7em

pl oyee’s workpe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s fo ll owi ng [th e p ro te ct ed act iv it y ], an d (6 ) ev id en ce tha t the st at edreas on forth e d is ch arg e was fal se . 85 4 S o. 2 d 5 54 , 56 4- 65 (Ala . 20 02 ). In a dd it io n, t he Aldrid ge co urt n ot edth at

“pr ox im it y

in ti m e b etweenth e [p ro te ct edact iv it y ] an d d is ch arg e” i s a p ers ua si ve fact or in est ab li sh in g acau sa l co nn ect io n. Id . at 5 65 . Onc e th e em

pl oyee es tabl is he s a p rima facie cas e, “ th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to co m e fo rwardwith e vi de nc e sh owi ng th atth e em pl oyee was te rm in at edfora le gi ti m at e rea so n.” Norfo lk , 74 0 S o. 2 d a t 3 96 . “ If the em pl oyer sa ti sf ie s t hi s b ur de n, the n t he bu rd ensh ift s b ackto th e em pl oyee to sh ow t ha t the pr of fere d re as on is a pr et ex t.” Id . Pret ex t m ay be sh own by pres en ti ng ev id en ce in di cat in g “ (a) t ha t the st at edba si s h as be enap pl ie d i n adi sc riminat ory m an ne r to em pl oyees wh o h av e fi le d wo rk ers ’ co m pe ns at io n c la im s, (b ) th atth e st at edba si s co nf li ct s wi th ex pr es s co m

pa ny po li cy

on gro un ds fordi sc ha rg e, or (c) tha t the em pl oyer ha s d is av owe d t he st at edreas onor h as ot he rwis e ackno wled ge d i ts pr et ex tu al st atus .” Aldrid ge , 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 5 68 . A. Feder al -Mo gu l Afte r a fu ll rev ie w of t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t o n B ou twel l’s cl ai m un de r Ala . Cod e § 12 -1 6- 8.1 ag ai ns t Fe de ral -Mo gu l. As a n i ni ti al m at te r, Bo utwell est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie 8cas e b y

pre se nt in g e vi de nc e th atsh e was em pl oyed b y Fed eral -Mo gu l an d t ha t 5 sh e was term in at edwhi le ab se nton jury du ty. See No rfo lk , 74 0 S o. 2 d a t 3 98 6 (h ol di ng th atem

pl oyee es tabl is he d h is pri m a fac ie cas e b y sh owi ng th at“ he was rem ov edjus t d ay s af

te r” h e se rv edon th e jury). Feder al -Mo gu l co un te rs , as i t al way s h as , th atitleg it im at el y di sc ha rg edBo ut well forfai li ng to co m pl y with i ts m an da to ry

cal l-i n p ol ic y . Spe ci fic al ly, Fed eral -Mo gu l as se rts th atth e und is pu te d ev id en ce s ho ws tha t “ Bo ut well fai le d t o c al l h er s up erv is or ’s cel l p ho ne to no ti fy hi m th atsh e wou ldbe ab se nt , andth atFed eral -Mo gu l h adno kn owl ed ge th at Bo ut well ha d b een sel ect edfora jury andth eref or e wou ldbe ab se nt .” The bu rd en , th en , sh ift s b ackto Bo utwell to de m on st rat e th atth is st at edreas on forth e di sc ha rg e is a pr et ex t fo r ret al ia ti on . On appe al, Fe dera l-Mogul argues that B outwell can not e stablish a prima fa cie c ase 5 beca use Ke lly Service s, not Fede ral-Mogul, was B outwell’s employer. This a rgument has no merit. Under

Alabama law, “a temporar y service s employee is the e mploy ee of both his or her g ener al employer ( i.e., the employ ment ag ency

) and his or he r spec ial employer ( i.e., the employer to whic h the employ ment ag ency

assigned the e mploy ee to wor k).” Ma rlow v. Mid S. Tool Co.,Inc., 535 So. 2d 120, 123 (Ala. 1988) . Fe dera l-Mogul also argues on appe al that B outwell does not establish a prima f acie case 6 beca use she pr esents no evide nce that Grinag e or B utler re ceive d Boutwe ll’s messag es or otherwise ha d actua l knowledg e that she w as ser ving on a jury . We disag ree . First, the f act that Fe dera l-Mogul discharg ed B outwell while she wa s on jury duty is sufficient cir cumstantial evidenc e to establish a prima fac ie ca se of r etaliation. Norf olk, 740 So. 2d at 398. Moreover , assuming e vidence of the e mploy er’ s knowledg e is requir ed at the prima fac ie stag e, B outwell prese nted evidenc e showingthat she followed a proce dure a

uthorized by

Fe dera l-Mogul to notify her supe rvisor of he r jury service . This evidence is sufficient to ra ise the infer ence that Fe dera lMogul had the re quisite knowledg e. 9As d is cu ss edab ov e, th ere i s ev id en ce i n t he reco rdfro m whi cha reas on ab le factfin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atFed eral -Mo gu l’s em pl oyees wer e al lo wedto cal l ei th er the m ai n l in e o r th e supe rv is or ’s cel l p ho ne to rep ort ab se nc es an d t ha t Bo ut well cal le d t he m ai n l in e an d l eftvo ic e m es sa ge s o n M on da y an d Tu es da y

to rep ort tha t s he wou ldbe ab se ntall week . Accor di ng ly, al th ou gh Bo ut well adm it te dl y

di d n otcal l h er s up erv is or ’s cel l p ho ne , th ere i s a g enui ne is su e o f fac t as to whet he r sh e actua ll y sat is fie d F ed eral -Mo gu l’s m an da to ry cal l-i n p ol ic y . Acco rd in gl y , Bou twel l h as pre se nt edev id en ce i nd ic at in g tha t the st at edreas on for he r di sc ha rg e is fal se . Fed eral -Mo gu l as se rts , ho wev er, tha t p ret ex t ca n n otbe sh own “ m erel y

by argu in g t ha t Fe de ral -Mo gu l co ul d (o r ev ensh ou ld ) ha ve kn own th atBo ut well ha d b een sel ect edfora jury or th atFed eral -Mo gu l was wron g i n be li ev in g t ha t s he ha d fa il edto cal l i n.” Rathe r, Fed eral -Mo gu l ar gu es th at Bo ut well ’s cla im

fai ls as am at te r of

law b ecau se sh e h as no di rectev id en ce pr ov in g t ha t ei th er Gri na ge or B ut le r actua ll y he ardhe r vo ic e m es sa ge s o n t he m ai n l in e o r ot he rwis e h adactua l kno wled ge th atsh e sa ti sf ie d t he m an da to ry

cal lin po li cy . W e d is ag ree. Fi rs t, o ne st ru gg le s t o t hi nkof wh atev id en ce Bo ut well co ul d p ro du ce t o p ro ve th atGrin ag e an d/ orBu tl er h eardhe r m es sa ge s. Bu tl er te st ifi edth atFed eral -Mo gu l h adno syste m forsav in g o r do cu m en ti ng th e m es sa ge s l efton th e m ai n l in e an d t ha t “ th e o nl y ev id en ce [o ne ] wou ldbe ab le to 10ob ta in ab ou t ca ll s m ad e to [th e m ai n l in e] woul d b e” h is tes ti m on y . Seco nd ,

be cau se Bo ut well pre se nt edev id en ce s ho win g t ha t s he fol lo weda pr oc edur e au th or iz edby Feder al -Mo gu l t o n ot ify her s up erv is orof h er n eedto be ab se nt be cau se of jury

servi ce, a re as on ab le factfin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atFed eral
Mo gu l h adactua l kno wled ge th atsh e was servi ng on a jury, ev enin th e fac e o f co nt rary evi de nc e. See Gu lf S ta te s St eel , Inc . v. Whis en an t, 7 03 So . 2d89 9, 9 07 (Ala . 19 97 ) (“ [K]nowl ed ge ne edno t b e sh own by dire ctpro of . It m ay be m ad e to ap pe ar, l ik e an y

ot he r fac t, b y

sh owi ng cir cu m st an ces fro m whi ch th e fac t o r actua l kno wled ge is a le gi ti m at e in fere nc e.”); Prem do r Co rp . v. J on es , 88 0 S o. 2 d 11 48 , 11 49 -5 5 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. 2 00 3) (no ti ng th atwher e em pl oyer’s po li cy

st at es th atanem

pl oyee m us t co nt acthi s s up erv is or up on su st ai ni ng a job -rel at edin jury, ev id en ce tha t em

pl oyee or al ly tol d s up erv is oris su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh em pl oyer’s actua l kno wled ge of the in jury); se e al so Bred a v . W ol f Cam era & Vid eo , 22 2 F.3 d 8 86 , 88 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (fi nd in g tha t an em pl oyer is de em edto have actua l no ti ce o f th e se xu al ha ras sm en t wh ere “ anem pl oyer ha s a p ol ic y

forrep orti ng ha ras sm en t tha t i s cl ear a ndpubl is he d t o i ts em pl oyees, an d a n e m

pl oyee fo ll ows th atpo li cy ”). Giv enBo ut well ’s tes ti m on y th atsh e le ft m es sa ge s o n t he m ai n l in e an d B ut le r’s te st im on y

th atth ere wer e n o m es sa ge s fr om Bo ut well on th e m ai n li ne , a reas on ab le factfin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atBu tl er i s cr ed ib le an d tha t 11Fed eral -Mo gu l t erm in at edBo ut well ’s em pl oym en t b ecau se sh e fai le d t o c al l i n a s requi red . Howev er, a re as on ab le factfin de r co ul d a ls o c on cl ud e th atBo ut well is cred ib le , th atBu tl er d idrece iv e Bo ut well ’s vo ic e m es sa ge s al ert in g F ed eral
Mo gu l tha t s he was o n ju ry du ty, an d t ha t h e ch os e to di sc ha rg e h er s ol el y be cau se sh e se rv edon a jury. Becaus e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts as t o wh ethe r Fed eral -Mo gu l’s s ta te d re as on fordi sc ha rg in g B ou twel l i s a p ret ex t, s umm ary jud gm en t i s n otap pr op ria te on th is cla im . Accor di ng ly, we rem an d t hi s cl ai m to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . B. Kel ly Serv ic es The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t i t was un di sp ut edth atBo ut well rem ai ne d o n Kell y Serv ic es ’ “ av ai labl e li st ” b utth atKell y Serv ic es “ha d n o o th er p os it io ns to fil l fr om th e ti m e th e p la in ti ff was term in at edby Feder al -Mo gu l u nt il Ju ne or J ul y of th e fo ll owi ng y ear.” Acco rd in gl y , bec au se Kell y Serv ic es di d o fferBo ut well a po si ti onin Ju ly of 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Bo ut well ha d n otpre se nt ed ev id en ce tha t Kel ly Servi ces ha d d is ch arg edBo ut well , as re qu ire d fo r es tabl is hi ng a p rima facie cas e u nd er Al a. Co de § 1 2- 16 -8 .1. Onap pe al , Bou twel l ar gu es th at th e st atut e p ro te ct s h er fro m an y “ adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ,” no t ju stdi sc ha rg e, an d t ha t s he di d p res en t ev id en ce i nd ic at in g t ha t Kel ly Servi ces ha d p os it io ns to fil l dur in g t he rel ev an t t im e. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e p oi nt s t o t he de po si ti on tes ti m on y 12of

Lee San dl in of Ke ll y

Serv ic es , who tes ti fie d tha t Kel ly Servi ces ha d p la cedfir st an d s eco ndsh ifttem

po rary em

pl oyees a t Yu takaas e arl y as M arch of 2 00 8. Sh e as se rts , th eref

or e, th ata ge nu in e is su e o f fac t ex is ts as t o wh ethe r Kel ly Servi ces ha d a ss ig nm en ts av ai labl e wit hi n t he si x m on th s af te r he r di sc harg e fro m

Fed eral
Mo gu l an d wh ethe r th e fai lu re t o o fferon e o f th es e p os it io ns to he r co ns ti tu te d a n adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Alab am a co urts ha ve no t d efi ne d t he term “ adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ” in th e co nt ex t o f Ala . Cod e § 12 -1 6- 8.1 . Howev er, as su m in g t ha t Kel ly Servi ces ’s fai lu re t o o fferav ai labl e p os it io ns to Bo ut well canbe co ns id eredanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on , we con cl ud e th atBo ut well ha s n otpre se nt edev id en ce upo n whi cha reas on ab le factfin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atKell y Serv ic es subjec te d Bo ut well to th is adve rs e act io n “ so le ly” becaus e sh e se rv edona jury. Co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Bo ut well , aft er Dece m be r 13 , 20 07 , Kell y Serv ic es di d n othave av ai labl e p os it io ns in whi ch to pl ace i ts tem po rary em pl oyees u nt il Marc h o f 20 08 . Bou twel l p res en ts no ev id en ce i nd ic at in g s he was qu al ifi edforth e p os it io ns whi chbe cam e av ai labl e inMarc h a ndno cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce i nd ic at in g t ha t Kel ly Servi ces ’s fai lu re t o o fferth es e p os it io ns to he r was rel at edto he r jury serv ic e. Becaus e th ree m on th s p as se d b etweenBo ut well ’s jury se rv ic e in Decem

be r an d the all eg edfai lu re t o o fferhe r anav ai labl e p os it io n i n

13Mar ch , th e two ev en ts are n ot“pr ox im at e” an d t he re i s, the refo re, n o i nf eren ce th atth e two ev en ts are co nn ect ed . See Hat ch , – So . 3dat – , 20 09 W L 17 16 96 7 a t *5 . Furt he rm or e, al th ou gh th e ev id en ce i nd ic at es th atKell y Serv ic es was a ware o f Bo ut well ’s servi ce o n ajury, th is ev id en ce al on e is no t s uf fic ie ntto de m on st rat e th athe r se rv ic e was th e so le m ot iv at in g fa ct or in th e d eci si on to no t o fferon e o f th e Yut ak a p os it io ns to he r. Id. at*6 (ho ld in g t ha t the factth atem pl oyer ha d kn owl ed ge of t he em

pl oyee’s pro te ct edact iv it y was n otsu ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti onwher e th e ti m in g o f th e d is ch arg e was no t p ro xi m at e to th e p ro te ct edact iv ity ). Evi de nc e in di cat in g t ha t thr ee m on th s af te r Bo ut well se rv edon a jury, Kell y

Serv ic es di d n otoff

er h er a p os it io n wh ic h s he m ay or m ay no t h av e b eenqu al ifi edto fil l i s i ns uf fic ie ntto sat is fy

Bo ut well ’s in it ia l b ur de n o f pr es en ti ng “ subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t [s ]he was [su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ] ‘sol el y ’ be cau se [s]he ‘ se rv ed ’ on a jury.” N or fo lk , 74 0 S o. 2dat 3 96 . Accor di ng ly, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Kel ly Servi ces is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t i n i ts fav orbe cau se Bo ut well ha s n otsat is fie d h er in it ia l b ur de n o f pr es en ti ng a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on . 7

Boutwe ll also asserts that bec ause the position Kelly Service s offe red in August 2008 7 was a first-shift position, rather tha n a third-shift which she pref err ed, it was a

n “unvitation” to work. This alleg edly

adver se ac tion was eve n more re mote in time to Boutwell’s jury service than was the failure to place he r in the position available in Mar ch. Ac cording ly , for the r easons stated above , we c onclude that this argument is insufficient to support a prima f acie case . 14IV. CONCLUSI ON

Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Fed eral -Mo gu l b ecau se a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts as t o wh ethe r Fed eral -Mo gu l’s s ta te d re as on forth e d is ch arg e – th atBo ut well di d n otsat is fy Fed eral -Mo gu l’s m an da to ry cal l-i n p ol ic y

– was a pr et ex t. We als o c on cl ud e th at th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Kell y Serv ic es be cau se Bo ut well di d n otpre se ntev id en ce es tabl is hi ng a pr im a fac ie cas e u nd er Ala. Co de § 1 2- 16 -8 .1. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e an d re m an d i n p artan d a ffi rm in pa rt. VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

15