# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 37 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ang el a Am es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Nati on wid e Mu tu al Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny; Nati on wid e Adv an ta ge Mo rtg ag e Co m pa ny; Karl a Neel

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Com m is si on ; Am eri can Civ il Lib ert ie s Un io n Fo un da ti on ; Am eri can Civ il Lib ert ie s Un io n o f Io wa

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Am ic i o n B eh al f of App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 13, 2 01 4
Fil ed : J un e 2 6, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.Ang el a Am es ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to 1

N at ion w ide Mut

ua l In sur an ce Co m

pa ny, Nati on wid e Adv an ta ge Mor tga ge Co m

pa ny ,

an d Karl a Neel (co ll ect iv el y , Nati on wid e) on h e r s ex - an d pr eg na nc y -b as ed

em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n cl ai m s br ou gh t un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of

19 64

, as am en de d, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q. , an d th e Io wa Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (ICR A),

Io wa Co de § 2 16 .6. We affir m

.

I.

Am es was hi red as a lo ss -m it ig at io n sp eci al is t at Nati on wid e Mu tu al In su ran ce

in Octo be r 20 08 . Tim el y co m pl et io n of wor k i s ce nt ral to th is po si ti on an d “ a h ig h

pr io rit y ” fo r th e lo ss -m it ig at io n d e p a r tm en t as a who le

. Bri an Bri nk s was Am es ’s

im m ed ia te su pe rv is o r , a n d N e e l was th e he ad of he r de pa rtment, as well as an

as so ci at e v ic e p res id en t.

Am es ga ve bi rth to he r fir st ch il d on May 2, 20 09

, an d to ok ei gh t week s of

m at ern it y le av e fo ll owi ng hi s bi rth

. In Octo be r 20 09

, Am es di sc ov ered th at sh e was

pr eg na nt wit h he r se co nd ch il d. Am es su ffer ed pr eg na nc y co m pl ic at io ns , an d he r
do ct or ord ered he r on be d re st in Apri l 2 01 0.

W he n Am es di sc us se d he r be d re st wit h Nee l, Neel rol le d h er eyes an d s ai d

th at sh e ne ve r ha d to go on be d res t whe n sh e was pr eg na nt an d th at sh e ne ve r ha d

co mp l i c a t i on s wit h he r pr eg na nc ie s. Neel ha d pr ev io us ly ex pr es se d to Am es he r
be li ef th at a wom an sh ou ld no t ha ve a ba by sh owe r whi le sh e is pr eg na nt be cau se th e
ba by co ul d di e in ut ero

. Acco rd in g to Am es , Bri nk s rem ark ed to ot he rs in th e of fic e
ab ou t Am es ’s m at ern it y le av e, st at in g, “ Oh, y eah

, I’m te as in g he r ab ou t on ly ta ki ng

a week ’s wor th of m at ern it y le av e. W e’re to o bu sy fo r he r to ta ke of f th at mu ch

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-w o r k

. ” Nati on wid e tra in ed Ang ie Ebe ns be rg er, who was a te m po rary em

pl oyee at

Nati on wid e Mu tu al Ins ur an ce, t o fi ll Am es ’s po si ti on du rin g h er m at ern it y lea ve

.

Am e s g av e bi rth to he r se co nd ch il d pr em at ur el y on May 18

, 20 10

. Nati on wid e th erea f

t e r in fo rm ed Am es th at he r Fam il y Med ic al Leav e Act (FM LA)

m at ern it y le av e wou ld ex pi re on Aug us t 2, 20 10

. On Ju ne 16

, 20 10

, Neel cal le d

Am es to in fo rm he r th at th ere ha d be en a m is ta ke in cal cu la ti ng he r FMLA m at ern it y

l e a v e a n d th at he r m at ern it y le av e wou ld ex pi re on Ju ly 12

, 20 10

. Neel al so t o l d

Am es th at sh e co ul d t ak e ad di ti on al un pa id lea ve un ti l Au gu st 20 10 , bu t t ha t d oi ng

so wou ld “ cau se [] red fla gs , ” th at sh e “ [d id n’t] wan t th ere to be an y pr ob le m s li ke

th at ,” an d th at sh e “ [d id n’t] wan t th ere to be an y is su es do wn th e ro ad .” Neel t ol d

Am es th at sh e wan te d to fin d a mu t u a l ly ag reea bl e da te of ret ur n an d of fere d to

ex te nd Am es ’s m at ern it y lea ve an ad di ti on al week

.

Pri or to ret ur ni ng to wor k, Am es as ke d a Nati on wid e di sa bi li ty cas e m an ag er
whe re sh e co ul d ex pr es s m il k whe n sh e ret ur ne d to wor k an d was to ld th at sh e co ul d

us e a la ct at io n ro om

. Am es ret ur ne d to wor k on Ju ly 19

, 20 10

, whe n he r so n was two

m on th s ol d an d br eas tfe ed in g ev ery th ree ho ur s. By th e t i me A mes ha d arri ve d at

wor k th at m or ni ng , m or e th an th ree ho ur s ha d pa ss ed si nc e he r so n ha d la st nu rs ed

. Am es as ke d Neel ab ou t us in g a la ct at io n ro om

. Neel rep li ed th at it was no t he r

res po ns ib il it y to pr ov id e Am es wit h a la ct at io n ro om

. Am es th en wen t to th e se cu rit y
de sk to in qu ire ab ou t th e la ct at io n roo m s and was di rect ed to se e Sara Hall be rg , th e

co m pa ny nu rs e.

Hall be rg in fo rm ed Am es o f N at io nwi de ’s la ct at io n po li cy , whi ch al lo wed

em pl oyees to ga in ba dg e acce ss to th e co m pa ny’ s la ct at io n ro om s a f t e r c om pl et in g

cert ai n pa pe rwo rk th at req ui red th ree da y s to be pr oc es se d. The la ct at io n po li cy was

a va il ab le to Nati on wid e’s em pl oyees on th e co m

pa ny’ s in tra ne t, an d Nati on wi d e

pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e po li cy at it s qu art erl y m at ern it y m eet in gs

. Am es ’s co nv ers at io n wit h Hal l b e r g w a s th e fir st ti m e th at Am es ha d he ard of th e

-3

-po li cy

. Hall be rg se nt a co py of th e la ct at io n po li cy to Am es vi a em ai l. Hall be rg al so

req ue st ed th at se cu rit y “ gr an t Ang el a Am es acce ss to th e la ct at io n ro om s as so on as

po ss ib le .” W he n Am es to ld Hall be rg th at sh e ne ed ed to ex pr es s m il k i m m ed ia te ly,

Hall be rg su gg es te d th at Am es us e a well ne ss ro om

. Bec au se th e well ne ss ro om was

oc cu pi ed

, Hall be rg to ld Am es to ret ur n in fif te en or twen ty m in ut es

. Hall be rg warn ed

Am es th at lac ta ti ng in a well ne ss roo m m ig ht ex po se he r br eas t m il k t o g erm s.

W hi le wait in g fo r th e well ne ss ro om , Am es m et wit h Bri nk s t o d i s c u s s th e

st at us of he r wor k. Bri nk s t o l d A mes t ha t no ne of he r wor k ha d be en co m pl et ed

whi le sh e was on m at ern it y le av e, th at sh e ha d two week s to co m pl et e th at wor k, th at

sh e wou ld ha ve to wor k ov ert im e to acco m pl is h th is

, an d th at if sh e fai le d to cat ch up , sh e wou ld be di sc ip li ne d. Afte r t h e mee ti ng wit h Bri nk s, Am es ret ur ne d to Neel ’s

of fic e to se e if Neel co ul d he lp he r fin d a pl ace to la ct at e. Neel ag ai n to ld Am es th at

sh e was un ab le to he lp

. Neel te st ifi ed th at Am es was vi si bl y up se t an d in te ars

. Neel

th en ha nd ed Am es a pi ece of pa pe r an d a pe n an d to ld Am es , “ You kn ow, I th in k it ’s

be st th at y ou go ho m e to be wit h y ou r ba bi es .” Neel di ct at ed to Am es wha t to writ e 2

on th e p ie ce o f pa pe r to effe ct ua te he r res ig na ti on

.

Am es su ed Nati on wid e, al le gi ng se x an d pr e g n a n c y di sc riminat io n. Her

co m pl ai nt as se rte d th at th e un av ai la bi li ty of a la ct at io n ro om , “ he r ur ge nt n e e d t o

ex pr es s m il k,” an d Nati on w ide ’ s “ unr ea lis tic an d unr ea sona ble ex pect at io ns ab ou t he r

wor k pr od uc ti on ” fo rced he r to res ig n fro m he r po si ti on

. Nati on w i d e mo v e d fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th at th ere was no ge nu in e d i s pu te of m at eri al fact th at

Nati on wid e di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t Am es

. Sp eci fic al ly, Nati on wid e arg ue d th at Am es

ha d no t sh own co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e. Am es co un te red th at sh e ha d se t fo rth di rect

an d in di rect ev id en ce of di sc rimina t i o n a n d th at sh e ha d sh own co ns tru ct iv e

At ot he r pl aces in Am es ’s de po si ti on an d in he r br ie f op po si ng Nati on wid e’s 2

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, Am es at tri bu te s to Neel di ffe r e n t v e r s io ns of th is

st at em en t, su ch as “ [m ]ay be y ou sh ou ld jus t st ay ho m e” an d “ [m ]ay be y ou sh ou ld jus t

go ho m e wit h you r ba bi es .”

-4

-di sc ha rg e. Am es di d no t arg ue t h a t Nati on wid e ha d act ua ll y di sc ha rg ed he r. The

di st ric t co ur t g ran te d Nat io nwi de ’s m ot io n, an d t hi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , ap pl y in g

th e sa m e st a n d a r d s as th e di st ric t co ur t an d vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g par ty.” McDo na ld v. Ci ty of Sai nt Pau l, 6 79 F.3d 69 8,

70 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Zik e v. Adv an ce Am

., Cas h Adv an ce Ct rs

. of Mo

., In c.,

64 6 F.3 d 50 4, 50 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). Su m m ary jud gm en t sh al l be gr an te d if “ th ere is

no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is ent it le d to jud gm en t as

a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a).

Tit le VII pr oh ib it s em

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n on th e ba si s of se x. 42 U.S.C.
§ 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1)

. As am en de d by th e Pr eg na nc y Dis cri m in at io n Act of 19 78

, se xba se d di sc riminat io n un de r Tit le VII in cl ud es di sc riminat io n ba se d o n “p r eg na nc y , ch il db irt h, or rel at ed m ed ic al co nd it io ns .” Id . § 20 00 e(k ). Th e I C R A pr ov id es th e

sa m e pr oh ib it io ns

. See Io wa Co de § 21 6.6

. Bec au se Am es pr e s e n t s n o s ep arat e

arg um en ts un de r th e ICRA, we an al y ze he r ICRA cl ai m s to ge th er wit h he r Tit le VII

cl ai m s un de r th e sa m e an al y ti cal fram ewo rk us ed fo r Tit le VII cl ai m s. See Gil be rt

v

. Des Mo in es Area Cm ty. Co ll

., 49 5 F.3 d 90 6, 91 3 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ; s e e a l s o

Fal czynsk i v . Am oc o Oi l Co ., 53 3 N.W.2d 2 26 , 23 0 n .2 (I owa 19 95 ).

An em pl oyee’s Tit le VII cl ai m fo r se x di sc riminat io n can su r v iv e su m m ary jud gm en t in on e of two way s. Fi rs t, th e em pl oyee m ay p r od uc e di rect ev id en ce of

di sc riminat io n— th at is

, “ ev id en ce sh owi ng a s p e ci fic li nk be twee n th e al le ge d

di sc riminat or y an im

us an d th e ch al le ng ed de ci si on , su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng by

a reas on ab le fact fin de r th at an il le gi ti m at e cri te rio n a ct ua ll y m ot iv at ed th e ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n.” Elam v. Reg io ns Fi n. Co rp ., 60 1 F.3 d 87 3, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng McC ul lo ug h v. Uni v. o f A r k. fo r Med

. Sci s., 55 9 F.3 d 85 5, 86 0 (8 th Ci r.

-5

-20 09 )). Alt ern at iv el y , th e em pl oyee m ay crea te an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n un de r

th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk of McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Green

, 41 1 U.S. 79 2
( 1 9 7 3 )

, by sh owi ng th at : (1 ) sh e is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) s h e w a s

qu al ifi ed fo r he r po si ti on ; (3 ) sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n; an d (4 ) th e
ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n oc cu rred un de r ci rcu m st an ces gi vi ng ris e to an in fere nc e

of di sc riminat io n. Ela m , 60 1 F .3d at 87 8- 79

. Am es pu rp or ts to ha ve de m on st rat ed

bo th di rect ev id en ce of se x di sc riminat io n an d an in fere nc e of u n l a w f ul

di sc riminat io n ba se d on he r pr eg na nc y un de r McDo nn el l Dou gl as

. Bec au se in ei th er

cas e Am es m

us t de m on st rat e th at sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl o ym e n t act io n, we

fo cu s o n t ha t q ue st io n i n re so lv in g t hi s ap pe al

.

Am es co nt en ds th at sh e ha s pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de m on st rat e th at

Nati on wid e co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed he r or , in th e al te rn at iv e, act ua ll y di sc ha rg ed

he r. W e d is cu ss each th eo ry of d is ch arg e in tu rn

.

A.

“ To pr ov e a co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e, an em pl oyee m us t sh ow th at th e em

pl oyer
de li be rat el y crea te d in to le rab le wor ki ng co nd it io ns wit h th e in te nt io n of fo rci ng he r

to qu it .” Alv arez v. Des Mo in es Bo lt Su pp ly, In c., 62 6 F.3 d 41 0, 41 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

“ In ad di ti on , an em

pl oyee m us t gi ve he r em

pl oyer a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to res ol ve

a pr ob le m be fo re qu it ti ng .” San de rs v. Lee Cn ty. Sch

. Dis t. No. 1, 66 9 F.3 d 88 8, 89 3
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ Evi de nc e of th e em pl oyer’s in te nt can be pr ov en ‘th r ou gh di rect

ev id en ce or th ro ug h ev id en ce th at th e em pl oyer co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly fo res een th at

th e em pl oyee wou ld qu it as a res ul t of it s act io ns .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ferc el lo v. Co un ty

of Ram se y , 61 2 F .3d 10 69 , 10 83 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

Am es arg ue s th at Nati on wid e tre at ed he r in a m an ne r th at wou ld ha ve cau se d

an y reas on ab le pe rs on to res ig n

. R a t h e r th an pr es en ti ng on e ev en t as th e de fin in g

m om en t, Am es po in ts to a nu m be r of in ci de nt s an d ci rcu m st an ces th at sh e cl ai m s

-6

-co ll ect iv el y co ns ti tu te co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e. Fi rs t, Neel an d Bri nk s m ad e ne ga ti ve

st at em en ts reg ard in g Am es ’s pr eg na nc ie s. Seco nd

, Nati on wid e m is cal cu la te d th e
le ng th of Am es ’s m at ern it y le av e, an d Neel in si st ed th at sh e ret ur n t o wo rk earl y or

r i s k r a is in g red fla gs

. Thi rd , Na ti on wid e tra in ed Ang ie Ebe ns be rg er to fil l Am e s ’s

po si ti on du rin g Am es ’s m at ern it y le av e. Fo ur th

, Am es was no t gi ve n i mm ed ia te

acce ss to a la ct at io n ro om an d was to ld th at sh e ha d to wai t t h r e e d a y s fo r ba dg e

acce ss

. Fi fth

, Bri nk s to ld Am es th at no ne of he r wor k ha d be en co m pl et ed whi le sh e

was on m at ern it y le av e, th at sh e ha d to wor k ov ert im e to ge t cau gh t up , an d th at if sh e
di d no t cat ch up , sh e wou ld be di sc ip li ne d. Si xt h, Neel di d no th in g to as si st Am es in

fin di ng a pl ace to la ct at e an d in st ead to ld Am es , “ I th in k i t’s b es t t ha t you g o h om e

to be wit h you r ba bi es .” And sev en th , at t he ti m e Am es res ig ne d, it ha d be en m or e

th an fiv e ho ur s si nc e sh e ha d la st ex pr es se d m il k an d sh e was in co ns id erab le ph y si cal

pa in

.

Nati on wid e’s se ve ral at te m pt s to acco m

m od at e Am es sh ow it s in te nt to

m ai nt ai n an em

pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p wit h Am es , no t fo rce he r to qu it

. See Ferc el lo

, 61 2 F.3 d at 10 83 ( h o l d i n g th at th e em pl oyer’s wil li ng ne ss to acco m m od at e th e

em pl oyee un de rcu t th e em

pl oyee’s cl ai m o f c on st ru ct iv e di sc ha rg e). Alt ho ug h

Nati on wid e in co rrec tl y cal cu la te d Am es ’s FMLA le av e, it m ad e effo rts to am el io rat e

th e im pa ct of it s m is ta ke

. Neel di d no t di sc ou rag e Am es fro m ta ki ng th e FMLA le av e

to whi ch Am es was en ti tl ed

. Fu rth erm or e, ev en th ou gh Neel di sc ou rag ed Am es fro m

ta ki ng un pa id le av e up to Aug us t, Neel ga ve Am es an ex tra week of m at ern it y le av e,
whi ch ga ve Am es m or e th an th irt y da y s to pr ep are fo r he r ret ur n to wor k. Rat he r th an

in te nt io na ll y ren de rin g Am es ’s wor k co nd it io ns in to le rab le

, t he reco rd sh ows th at

Nati on wid e so ug ht to acco m m od at e Am es ’s nee ds

.

Mo reo ve r, Am es was de ni ed im m ed ia te acce ss to a la ct at ion ro om onl y be ca us e
sh e h ad no t co m

pl et ed th e pa pe rwo rk to ga in ba dg e acce ss

. Eve ry nu rs in g m ot he r

was req ui red to co m

pl et e th e sa m e p ap erwo rk an d was su bjec te d t o t he same thr eeda y wait in g pe rio d. Fu rth er, Hall be rg tri ed to acco m m od at e Am es by al lo win g he r

-7

-to us e a well ne ss ro om as so on as it was av ai la bl e an d by req u es ti ng th at Am es

rece iv e ex pe di te d acce ss to th e la ct at io n ro om s. Dur in g Am es ’s m eet in g wit h Bri nk s,

Bri nk s rel ay ed hi s ex pe ct at io ns of he r in th e up co m in g week s an d th e co ns eq ue nc es

of fai li ng to m eet th os e ex pe c t a t i o n s

. Bri nk s’s ex pe ct at io ns of Am es were no t

un reas on ab le

, fo r he ex pe ct ed al l of hi s em pl oyees to ke ep th ei r wor k cu rren t, gi ve n

th e hi gh pr io rit y th at ti m el y wor k- co m pl et io n is acco rd ed wit hi n th e lo ss -m it ig at io n
de pa rtment. Tha t Nati on wi d e ’s p o li ci es tre at ed al l nu rs in g m ot he rs an d lo ss

mi t i g at io n sp eci al is ts al ik e de m on st rat es th at Nati on wid e di d no t in te nd to f o r c e

Am es to res ig n whe n it so ug ht to en fo rce it s po li ci es

. See All en v.

Bri dg e st on e/ Fi res to ne , In c., 81 F.3 d 79 3, 79 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ W he re, as he re,

em pl oyees are tre at ed al ik e, ‘no pa rti cu la r em pl oyee can cl ai m th at di ffi cu lt wor ki ng

co nd it io ns si gn ify th e em pl oyer’s in te nt to fo rce th at in di vi du al to res ig n.’” (q uo ti ng

Bri st ow v . Dail y

Pres s, In c., 77 0 F .2d 12 51 , 12 55 (4t h C ir. 1 98 5) )).

Ass um in g fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s, h owe ve r, th at Neel ’s c om m en t th at it was
be st th at Am es go ho m e wit h he r ba bi es co ul d su pp or t a fin di ng of in t e n t to fo rce

Am es to res ig n, Am es ’s c on st ru ct iv e di sc ha rg e cl ai m st il l fai l s b e c a us e sh e di d no t gi ve Nati on wid e a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty t o ad dr es s an d am el io rat e th e co nd it io ns

th at sh e cl ai m s con st it ut ed a co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e. See, e.g., San de rs , 66 9 F.3d at

89 3; Alv arez , 62 6 F.3 d at 41 8; Co ffm an v. Track er Mar in e, L.P., 14 1 F.3 d 12 41

, 12 47 -4 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). The on ly way in whi ch Am es at te m pt ed to al ert Nati on wid e

to t h e pr ob le m was by as ki ng Neel twi ce ab ou t ob ta in in g a la ct at io n ro om an d by

ap pr oa ch in g Hall be rg ab ou t th e sa m e pr ob le m , al l on th e m or ni ng th at Am es

res ig ne d. Mo reo ve r, whe n Am es ap pr oa ch ed Hall be rg ab ou t th e pr ob le m , Hall be rg

su gg es te d to Am es a te m

po rary so lu ti on

. Alt ho ug h th is so lu ti on m ay no t ha ve be en

im m ed ia te ly av ai la bl e or id eal

, Am es ha d an ob li ga ti on no t to jum p to th e co nc lu si on

th at th e at te m

pt wou ld no t wo rk an d t ha t h er o nl y reas on ab le op ti on was to res ig n.

See Trie rwei le r v. W el ls Farg o Ban k, 63 9 F.3 d 45 6, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ Part of an

em pl oyee’s ob li ga ti on to be reas on ab le is an ob li ga ti on no t to as su m e th e wor st

, an d

no t to jum p to co nc lu si on s to o fas t.” (q uo ti ng Sm it h v. Goo dyear Tire & Ru bb er Co

.,

-8

-89 5 F.2 d 46 7, 47 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ))). Am es al so fai le d to av ai l he rs el f of th e ch an ne ls

of co m m un ic at io n pr ov id ed by Nati on wid e to de al wit h he r pr ob le m

. See Co ffm an , 14 1 F.3 d at 12 47 -4 8 (rev ers in g a co ns tru ct iv e-d is ch arg e jud gm en t in pa rt be cau se th e

e mp l o ye e ha d an av en ue of red res s wit hi n th e co m pa ny an d fai le d to us e it ).

Nati on wid e’s Co m

pl ia nc e St at em en t, of w hi ch Am es was a ware, p ro vi de s: “ If y ou

ha ve reas on to be li ev e th at Nati on wid e is no t in co m pl ia nc e w i t h th e la w, co nt act

y ou r lo cal HR pr of

es si on al

, th e Offi ce of Eth ic s, or th e Offi ce of Ass oc ia te Rel at io ns

to rep or t th e ci rcu m st an ces im m ed ia te ly.” By no t at te m pt in g to ret ur n to Hall be rg ’s

of fic e to de te rm in e th e av ai la bi li ty of a well ne ss ro om or to co nt act hu m an res ou rces , A mes a c t ed un reas on ab ly an d fai le d to pr ov id e Nati on wid e wit h th e ne ces sa r y

op po rtu ni ty to rem ed y th e pr ob le m sh e was ex pe rie nc in g. We t h u s co nc lu de th at

Am es ha s n ot m et he r bu rd en of d em on st rat in g c on st ru ct iv e d is ch arg e.

Am es arg ue s th at we sh ou ld ap pl y th e al te rn at iv e co ns t r u c t i v e di sc ha rg e

an al y si s em

pl oyed by th e S e v e n t h Ci rcu it in no n- ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t cas es

. See EEOC v. Uni v. of Ch i. Hos ps ., 27 6 F.3 d 32 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ). In Uni ve rs it y of

Ch ic ag o Hos pi ta ls

, th e Sev en th Ci rcu it sa id th at th ere are two way s fo r an em pl oyee

to pr ov e co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e. One is pr oo f of un be arab le wor ki ng co nd it io ns

. The

ot he r is th at “ [w]hen an em pl oyer act s in a m an ne r so as to ha ve co m m un ic at ed to a

reas on ab le em

pl oyee th at sh e wil l be te rm in at ed

, an d th e pl ai nt iff em pl oyee res ig ns , th e em pl oyer’s con du ct m ay

am ou nt to co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e.” Id . at 3 32

.

Thi s co ur t ha s no t reco gn iz ed th e se co nd fo rm of co ns tru ct iv e di sc ha rg e in ou r

no n- ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t c a s es , se e, e.g ., Trie rwei le r, 63 9 F.3 d at 45 9- 61 ;
Tid well v. Meyer’ s Bak eri es , I nc ., 93 F.3 d 49 0, 49 4- 97 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ); Jo hn so n v.

Bu nn y Brea d Co

., 64 6 F.2 d 12 50

, 12 5 6

- 5 7 ( 8 t h C ir. 19 81 ), bu t Am es co ul d no t

pr ev ai l un de r th e al te rn at iv e th eo ry in an y ev en t. The se co nd th eo ry st il l req ui res th e

emp l o yee to de m on st rat e th at wor ki ng co nd it io ns ha d be co m e in to le rab le

. Ch ap in

v. Fo rt- Ro hr Mo t o r s, In c., 62 1 F.3 d 67 3, 67 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In ad di ti on , th e

em pl oyee m us t sh ow th at if sh e ha d no t res ig ne d, th en sh e wou ld h a v e be en

-9

-im m ed ia te ly fir ed

. Id

. at 68 0. Ass um in g th at Neel ’s st at em en t to Am es ev in ced a

de si re by Neel to en co ur ag e res ig na ti on , it do es no t s up po rt a reas on ab le be li ef tha t

Am es wou ld ha ve be en fir ed im m ed ia te ly if s he op te d to co nt in ue he r em pl oym en t.

B.

O n ap pe al

, Am es arg ue s th at a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ex is ts as to

whe th er sh e was act ua ll y di sc ha rg ed

. Nati on wid e arg ue s th at Am es ha s waiv ed th is

arg um en t b ecau se sh e d id no t ra is e it in th e d is tri ct co ur t. We agre e.

“ As a ge ne ral ru le

, w e do no t co ns id er arg um en ts or th eo rie s on ap pe al th at

were n ot ad va nc ed in th e p ro ceed in gs be lo w.” W rig ht v. Newm an , 73 5 F .2d 10 73

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ); se e al so Si ng le to n v. W ul ff, 42 8 U.S. 10 6, 12 0 (1 97 6) (“ It is th e

ge ne ral ru l e , o f co ur se , t ha t a fed eral ap pe ll at e co ur t do es no t co ns id er an is su e no t

p a s s ed up on be lo w.”); Sen io rit y Res earc h Grp

. v. Ch ry sl er Mo to r Co rp ., 97 6 F

. 2 d

11 85

, 11 87 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ Nor m al ly, a pa rty m ay no t rai se an is su e fo r th e fir st

ti m e on ap pe al as a ba si s fo r rev ers al .”). The ge ne ral ru le ag ai ns t co ns id erat io n of an
is su e no t pa ss ed up on be lo w, ho wev er, is no t ab so lu te

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

st at ed :

The m at te r of wha t qu es ti on s m ay be t a k e n u p an d res ol ve d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al is on e le ft pr im ari ly to th e di sc r e t i o n of th e

co ur ts of ap pe al s, to be ex erci se d on th e fact s of in di vi d u a l c a s e s

. . . . Cert ai nl y th ere are ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch a fed e r a l a p p e ll at e co ur t is jus ti fie d in res ol vi ng an is su e no t pa ss ed on be lo w, as whe re th e pr op er

res ol ut io n is be y on d an y doub t or whe re in jus ti ce m ig ht ot he rwis e res ul t.

Si ng le to n, 42 8 U.S. at 12 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; se e al so

Sen io rit y Res earc h Grp

., 97 6 F.2 d at 11 87 (“ The r e a r e e xc ep ti on s, as whe re th e
ob vi ou s res ul t of fo ll owi ng th e ru le wou ld be a pl ai n m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce or wou ld

be in co ns is te nt wit h su bs ta nt ia l ju s t i c e

. ” )

. A m es do es no t arg ue th at th is is a cas e

-1 0-whe re ei th er “ th e pr op er res ol ut io n is be y on d an y do ub t” or “ whe re i nju st ic e m ig ht

ot he rwis e res ul t.” Sin gl et on , 42 8 U.S. at 12 1. We th us de cl in e to co ns id er Am es ’s

arg um en t t ha t s he was a ct ua ll y di sc ha rg ed

.

Am es rel ie s on ou r de ci si on in Sch ne id er v. Ja x Sh ack

, In c., 79 4 F.2 d 38 3 (8 th

Ci r. 19 86 ), to arg ue th at sh e di d no t waiv e he r act ua l di sc ha rg e arg um en t. Sh e

co nt en ds th at

, un de r Sch ne id er, “ th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve fo cu s e d fir st on th e

an te ced en t qu es ti on of whe th er th ere ha d be en an act ua l di sc ha rg e[,]” id

. at 38 4,

be fo re it de ci de d whe th er sh e was co ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed

, be cau se he r co m pl ai nt

an d b r i e f i n o pp os it io n to Nati on wid e’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n se t fo rth fact s

su gg es ti ng th at an act ua l d i s c ha rg e ha d oc cu rred

. Sch ne id er, ho wev er, is

pr oc ed ur al ly di st in gu is ha bl e. In Sch n e i de r, th e pa rti es di d no t su bm it br ie fin g in

su pp or t of th ei r r es pe ct iv e po si ti on s to th e di st ric t co ur t. Id .; se e al so Sch ne id er v.

Ja x Sh ack

, In c., No. CV8 4- L-30 3, 19 85 W L 57 06 18

, at *1 (D. Neb

. May 10

, 19 85 ).

The di st ric t co ur t was as ke d to ren de r a de ci si on on th e m eri ts wit ho ut tri al ba se d on

st ip ul at ed ev id en ce. Sch ne id er, 19 85 W L 57 06 18

, at *1

. On ap pe al

, we he ld th at th e
di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ad dr es se d whe th er th ere ha d be en act ua l di sc ha rg e be cau se

it s fin di ng s of fact su gg es te d th at an act ua l di sc ha rg e ha d oc cu rred

. Sch ne id er, 794

F.2 d a t 3 84

.

A m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t pr es en ts di ffer en t op po rtu ni ti es an d im po se s
di ffer en t res po ns ib il it ie s on th e pa rti es

. See Ro dg ers v. Ci ty of Des Mo in es , 43 5 F.3 d

90 4, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W it ho ut so m e gu id an ce, we wil l n o t m in e a su m m ary ju dg m en t reco rd se arch in g fo r nu gg et s of fact ua l di sp ut es to gi ld a p a r t y’s

arg um en ts .”); se e a l so Sat ch er v. Uni v. of Ark

. at Pi ne Bl uf f Bd

. of Trs., 55 8 F.3 d

7 3 1

, 73 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at th e “ fai lu re to op po se a ba si s fo r su mm a r y jud gm en t co ns ti tu te s waiv er of th at arg um en t” on ap pe al ). Thu s, un li ke th e pl ai nt iff

in Sch ne id er, who di d no t su bm it br ie fin g in su pp or t of he r arg um en ts

, Am es ha d th e

op po rtu ni ty to op po se Nati on wid e’s m ot io n and was res po ns ib le fo r pr es en ti ng an y

arg um en t th at m ig ht ha ve pr ecl ud ed su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Nati on wid e. See

-1 1-Sat ch er, 55 8 F.3 d at 73 5 (“ It was [ t h e pl ai nt iff ’s] res po ns ib il it y to sh ow th at th ere

were ge nu in e is su e s o f mat eri al fact in th e reco rd th at pr ecl ud ed th e su m m ary jud gm en t App el le es so ug ht be lo w.”); se e al so Gren ie r v. Cy an am id Pl as ti cs , In c., 70

F.3 d 66 7, 67 8 (1 st Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ If a pa rty fai ls to as se rt a le ga l reas on why su m m ary jud gm en t sh ou ld no t b e g ran te d, th at gr ou nd is waiv ed an d can no t be con si de red or

rai se d on ap pe al .” (q uo ti ng Vau g h n e r v. Pu li to

, 80 4 F.2 d 87 3, 87 7 n.2 (5 th Ci r.

19 86 ))); Lib erl es v. Co un ty of Co ok

, 70 9 F

. 2 d 1 12 2, 11 26 (7 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (“ It is a
well -s et tl ed ru le th at a pa rty op po si ng a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n m us t in fo rm th e

tri al jud ge of th e reas on s, le ga l or f a c t u al

, why su m

m ary jud gm en t sh ou ld no t be

en te red

. If it do es no t do so , an d lo se s th e m ot io n, it can no t rai se su ch reas on s on

ap pe al .”); F r an k C. Bai le y Ent ers ., In c. v. Carg il l, In c., 58 2 F.2 d 33 3, 33 4 (5 th Ci r.

19 78 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ [A]n ap pe ll at e co ur t, in revi ewin g a su m m ary jud gm en t ord er,

can on ly co ns id er th os e m at te rs pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t.”)

. Bec au se Am es

fai le d to pr es en t he r act ua l di sc ha rg e arg um en t t o t he di st ric t co ur t in op po si ti on to

Nati o n w i d e’s su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, we co nc lu de th at sh e ha s waiv ed th at

arg um en t o n a pp eal

.

III.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-