## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2117 W I L L I A M S HAFFER, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A MERI CAN M EDICAL A S S OC I A T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CV 01656

—A my J . St . E ve, Judg e.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 30, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 18, 2011

B efore K ANN E , W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . The A m er i can M edi calA sso ci ati on w as not i m m une to the dow nturn in th e e conom y. B u d ge t c u ts m a n d at ed th at so m e e m p loy ee s los e t h eir j obs, i nc lud ing at least o n e in th e d ep artm en t w he re W i l l i am S hafferworke d. For tunatel y for him , o r so i t se emed, hi s su per vi sor w as l ea ni ngt o war d l et ting anothe r perso n go . B ut so on a fterS hafferr equeste d l eave i n l i ght o fupcom i ng sur ger y, thatchange d. H is2 N o. 10

- 2117

s u p e r v i s o r d e c i d e d th a t S ha f f e r w o u l d n o w b e th e e mpl o y e e l e tg o i n the de pa r t men t, a nd S ha ffe r co nten ds that deci si on was pro m pted b y h is r equest f orl eave an d was the r efo r e im pr o perunde r the F ami l y a nd M edi calLeave A ct. The A M A m ai n ta in s that the l eave requ est h ad no t h in g t o do w ith its dec isi on, and a j ury m i ght wel l ag re e. But w e a gr ee w ith S h afferthata re asonab l e j ury coul d al so fi nd i n his favor, and w e r eve rs e th e g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n ta g a i n s th i m.

I . B AC KGR OUND A t t h is stag e in the proce edi ngs, we re count the nar ra ti ve that f ol l ows i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o Shaffer since he was no t th e par tywho move d f o r s um m ary j ud gm ent. The A M A fir st hi re d Shafferin 199 9. H e r esi gned a yea r l ate r, but the A M A r eh i re d him i n 200 4 as a co ntra ct e m plo yee , an d M ich aelLynch hi re d him as a full

- ti m e e m plo yee in 2005. By 20 08, S hafferhad beco m e AM A ’ s Di re cto r ofLeaders hi p Com m unica ti ons. H i s dut i es i n tha t r o l e i nclud ed wri tings pee ch es a nd edi tor i al s, superv i sing a staffo fthr ee speech wri ter s, and si gni ng o ffo n fi nal speec hes. I n Aug us t 20 08 the e co no m i c do wntur n b eg ant o c o ncre tely a ffect the AM A

. The o rg ani zati on a ske d al l i ts departm ents to re du ce the ir 200 9 budget s byatl eas t 3 % bel ow the pre vi ous y ear ’ s budget s. A t fi rs t, Lynch re du ced h is b ud getby el i m i nati ng an annual confer ence. T h e n e x t m o n th, i n r e s p o n s e t o d i r e c t i o n f r o m th e A MA board , M arietta Pa rent i, A M A ’s C hief M arketing O fficer,N o. 10

- 2117 3 dir ecte d dep ar tm ent he ad s to consi der a l l o pti ons to furtherr educe budgets, incl ud i ng the el i m i nati on o f posi ti ons. Par entiand Lynch ul ti m ate l y deci ded they ne ed ed to dow ns ize by at l east on e p ositi on in L yn ch ’s departm ent. On O cto ber28 , 20 08, Par entie m ail ed Lynch to askf or h is re c om m en d at ion reg ar d in g t h e e lim in at ion of a p os itio n . L yn c h res p on d ed th at aft er n oo n, beg in n in g h is em ail b y s t a t i n g , “ I kn ow you w an t c los u re on th is i ssue tom or ro w . . . . ” I t was al re ady Lynch’s pl an t o e l i min a t e th e p o s i t i o n o fP e t e r F r i e d ma n, th e C o mm u n ica tio n s C am p a ign M an ag er , bec au se h is re sp on sibi l i ti es h ad change d drasti cal l y a nd the A M A had sto pp ed w or k o n one ofhi s co re cam p aigns, and Lynch ha d pr ev i o us l y t o l d Pa r en titha t he ha d pl an ne d t o c ut F r i ed m an’ s po si ti o n. Pa r en ti ’ s Oct o be r 2 8 r eque sts o ug ht Lynch’s re com m endati on about w hetherto term inate Sh affe r a s w ell, an d L yn c h w ro te in h is e m ail th at h e d id not thi nkc ut tinga ddi ti o na lpo si ti o ns b ey o nd F r i edman’ s was i n the AM A’s b es t i nt er es t an d de ta i l ed why h e th ou gh t d ow n siz in g t h e d ep ar tm en t e ve n m or e w ou ld be a bad i dea. T h e AM A he l d i t s I n t e r i m Me e t i n gi n e a r l y N o v e mbero f20 08. On Thu rs d ay , Novem ber20 , 20 08, S haffer noti fi ed Lynch that he would be havi ng knee r ep lacem ent s urge ryo n J anuary12 , 20 09, thathe woul d be ta k i ngf o urt o s i x wee k s o f lea ve a s a r es ul t, a nd tha t he w as set ti ng up a cl ai m f orsho rt
- ter m disa b ilitybene fi ts. The Tha nk sg i vingho l i day fel l th e f o l l o wi ng wee k

. On the Sunday ev eni ng o fthe hol i day weekend, N ov em ber30 ,4 N o. 10

- 2117 Lyn chs en t Pa r en tia l ong em ai l

. He e xpl aine d tha t he w as now o fthe m in d t hat the A M A sho uld e l i m i nate Shaffer ’ s pos i ti on a nd r eta i n Fr i edm an. Lynch al so w ro te, “T he team i s already prep aring for B il l’ s short -term le av e i n J an ua r y, s o hi s depa r tu r e sh o ul d no t ha ve a ny im m ed iat e n eg at ive im p ac t.” H e a lso ga ve P ar e n ti h is “[a ]p olo gie s fo r th is 1 1t h h ou r c h an ge of h ea rt .” Lynch and A M A H um an Reso urces Representat i ve H ar veyDanie l s no ti fi ed Shaffer on Thursday, Decem ber4, 2008 thatthe A M A was l ett i ng hi m go . S haffer ’ s l astday on the A M A payr ol l was J anuary4, 20 09. On F e b r ua r y 2 , 2 0 0 9 , a ft e r r e c e i v i nga l e t t e r fro m c ou n se l rep re se n tin g Sh affe r , A M A ’s in -h ou se co u n se l, M ich ae l K at su ya m a, m et w ith D an iels an d info rm ed h im o fpo ss ibl e liti g at i o n. On F eb r ua r y 3 , Da ni el s ty ped up hand w ri tten note s he had take n conce rni ng ea rl i erdi sc u ss ion s w ith L yn c h ab ou t e lim in at in g Sh affe r’s p os iti on. Danie l s date d the typed note s N ov em b er 25 , 20 08 an d s h r e d d e d h i s o r i g i n a l n o t e s . T h e ty p e d d o c u me nt sta tes thatthe posi ti on was elim inated be cause Lynch cou ld acc om m od ate h a v in g the sp eech w riti ng staff re portdi re ctl y t o hi m , a l aye r ofm anage m ent woul d be el i m i na te d, a nd the r e ha d b ee n de cr ea se d de m an d on the speech wri ti ng st aff

. L yn c h ’ s ca l endar di d not r efl ect a m ee ting wi th Dani el s f o r N o ve m be r 25 , th o ug h, and Lync h t e s t i fi e d in hi s de po s i t i o n tha th e r e c a l l e d tha t he was sti l l ponderi ng wh i ch position to el i m i nate ov er T h an ks g i v i n g w ee ke n d an d h ad n otm ad e a d ec isi on a s o fN ove m ber25
. A lso d u rin g t h e firs t fe w d ay s o f Fe b ru ar y, D an iels to ld Lyn c h t o p r e p a r e a me mo r a n d u m f o r L y n c h ’ s u p c o mi ngN o. 10

- 2117 5

m eet i ng with i n-ho u se c ounselKatsuyam a a nd to d escribe i n i t hi s r at i o na l e f o r s el ec tingS ha ffera s th e e mpl o y e e t o l e tg o . Ly nc h t y pe d the me mor a nd um on Febr uary3 or4, 20 09, but he d at ed i t Novem ber21 , 20 08 an d a ddr es se d i t to D an iel s. Ly nc h g av e th e m emor an du m to Katsuyam a when they m et. Shaf f erfi l e d s ui ti n fe de r a l c o ur t, a nd the di s t r i ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm en t in th e A M A ’s f avor. I n M ay 2009 , bec ause ofthe eco nom i c envi ro nm ent, th e A M A en d ed its em p loy m en t o fa p p ro x im at ely 10 0 addi ti o na l e m pl o y ee s, i nc l udi ngF r i edman.

II. A N A L Y S IS Sha ffer ap p eals th e d istri ct court’s gran t of s u m m ary j ud gm ent a gai nst hi m o n hi s cl ai m thathi s t er m i nati on v i o l a t e d the F a mi l y a nd Med i c a l Le a v e Ac t
. T he F M LA guar antee s e m plo yee s t w el ve w or kweeks ofl ea ve f or serious h ealth con d iti ons , i nc lu d ing the knee surgery Shafferhad

. See 2 9 U. S

. C. § 2 6 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 )

. T he F M LA f o rb i d s a n e mp l o y e r fr o m in t e r fe r i n gw i th a n e mpl o y ee ’ s r i g h tt o t a k e l e a v e a n d r e t u r n t o h i s j o b a nd a l s o fr o m r e t a l i a t i n gag a i n s ta n e mp l o y e e w h o c l a i ms benefi ts und erthe sta tute. 29 U

. S. C. § 2 615. W e r evi ew the di stric t court ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of th e A M A de n o vo , v i ewi nga l l f ac ts a nd dr awi ng al l r eas onabl e infe re nces i n the l i ght m ostf av or abl e t o Sh affe r, th e no n m ov i n g p ar ty
. Se eGoe l ze rv. Sh e b oygan C nty ., Wis. , 604 F.3d 987, 992 (7th C ir. 2010).6 N o. 10

- 2117 A . W ai ver I t i s no t s urpri si ng tha t o ne o fthe pie ces ofev i dence on w h ich Sh affe r re l i es is L yn c h ’s N ov em b er 30 em ail no ti fy i ngPa r en titha t he ha d de ci ded S ha fferwas the empl o y ee t o b e l etg o . The AM A, ho wev er, mai nt ains thatwe c a nn o tc o ns i de r thi s e mai l

. I n s up po r t, i tp o i nts us t o the di str i ctc o ur t’ s st at ementtha t i t was no t co nside rin g any facts that w ere not con tained i n th e pa rti es’ Rule 56

. 1 s tat em ents. T hat i s ce rt ai nl y withi n a di str ict co u rt ’s p re ro ga tiv e t o d o. Se eC i ch on v. E xe l on Gen e r atio n C o ., L.L .C ., 401 F. 3d 803, 809 ( 7th Cir

. 2005 ) ( “Local Rule 56. 1 r e q ui r e s speci f i ca l l y that a l i ti gant see ki ng to oppose a m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent fi l e a r esponse that conta i ns a separ ate ‘ sta tem ent .
. . o fany add i ti onal facts th at req uire the de nial ofsum m ary j ud gm en t.’ ”); M et r o L i f eIns . Co. v. Johns on , 29 7 F

. 3d 55 8, 56 2 ( 7th Cir. 2002 ) ( “[ W ] e h av e e m phasi zed the i m port ance o fl oca l r ul e s a nd h a v e c o ns i s t e nt l y a nd repe a t e dl y u ph e l d a dist ri c t court ’ s di scr eti on t o re quir e s tr i ct c om pli ance w i th i ts l oca l rul es gov er ni ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent. ”) ( quo ta ti o n o m i tt ed ). Buttha t g en er als ta te m en t bythe dist ri ct c ourt i n no w ay supp or ts the A M A ’ s ar gum ent that w e ca nnot co nsi der the N ove m ber30 em ai l i n thi s ca se. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n ma k e s c l e a r th a tth e N o v e mbe r 3 0 e ma i l wa s n o t s o me th i n g i t h a d r e fu s e d to c o nsid er . In fac t, it sp en t an en tir e fiv e-s en te n c e p ar ag ra p h in the “ Rel evantFa cts” se cti on o fi ts opi ni on deta i l i ng tha t v e r y e ma i l

. T h e p a r a g r a p h b e g i n s b y s t a t i n g, “ O n N o v e mbe r 30 , 20 08 , the day befo r e Pa r en ti ’ s de adl i ne f o r making a fi nal deci si on, L yn ch se nt an em ai l to Par entithatde-N o. 10

- 2117 7
t a i l e d h i s ‘ 1 1 th h o u r c h a n g e o fh e a r t ’ th a t‘ p e r h a p s we shoul d el i m i nate Bil l Shaffer ’ s pos i ti on a nd ke ep Pete ’ s f or no w . . . . ”, a nd i t th ens pel l ed o utmuch o fthe res t ofthe em ail. A nd a l tho ugh the AM A a r g ue s tha t S ha ffe r f a i l ed to i ncl ud e the em ai l i n hi s Rul e 56 .1 sta tem ent, S haffer disc ussed the em ai l i n paragra p h 12 o fhi s S tat em ent o f A dd i ti onalFa cts and al so st ate d i n that parag ra ph that a tr ue and accur ate co py ofthe em ai l w as atta ched as A pp endix 6 , wh ich i t was. S hafferal so speci fi cal l y di scus se d th e emai l o n pag es 4 an d 5 o f hi s M em ora ndum in Op p ositi on t o the A m erican M ed ical A ssociation’s M oti on f orS um m ar y J ud gm ent, and poi nted to t h e key pas sa g e he r el i ed o n, s tating , “ The e m ai l i nc l ude d the j usti fi cati on that ‘ The tea m i s a l re ady pre pari ng f or B il l’ s short -term l eave i n Jan ua ry, so his dep artu re sh ou ld n oth av e a n y im m ed iat e n eg at ive im p a c t.’ ” S ha fferfur th era r g ue d on pag e 10 o fhi s M emor an dum that the e m ai l di d not m enti on the ex p lanati on a sse rt ed by the AM A as the re aso n f orthe te rm inati on deci si on d uring l iti gation, nam ely that L y n ch cou ld easily absorb Shaffer ’ s re sponsibi l i ti es. Shaffer appropri ate l y rais ed th e No v e mb e r 3 0 e ma i l b e f o r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, the di st r i ctc o ur t di sc us se d i t i n i ts o pi ni o n, a nd the r e i s no r e a s o n S h a ffe r c a n n o tp o i n tt o i to n a p p e a l n o w.

B. V iab le Fam il y an d M ed ical Leave A ct Claim The AM A al so a r g ue s th atS ha fferdi d n ot es tabl i sho ne ofthe prer equi si tes f orFM LA pro tect i on, that he worke d m ore tha n 1 ,2 5 0 h ou rs forthe A M A i n th e pre vious yea r.8 N o. 10

- 2117 See 29 U

. S. C. § 2 611(2)(A )( i i )

. I t i s t rue that the par ti es’ Rule 56. 1 s tat em ents off acts ar e s i l ent a s t o thi s r equi re m en t. Y et th e A M A a d m itted i n its ans w er to Shaffer’ s am ende d c om pla i nt thathe ha d w or ked the re f oro ver 1, 250 hours the pr evi ous y ear, so t here was no nee d f o r S ha ffert o r ai se the matt era g ain. W i th t h at h urdl e cl ear ed, we turn t o the m er i ts of S ha ffer ’ s cl ai m . I n do i ngs o , w e k eep i n mi nd tha t atthe sum m ar y j ud gm en t st age , “the j ud ge’ s functi on i s no t hi m sel fto weigh th e ev i dence and deter m i ne the tr uth ofthe m att erbut to deter m i ne wh etherther e i s a genui ne i ssue f ortria l. ” A nders on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U .S. 24 2, 24 9 (1 98 6); se e also Kodish v. O akbroo kTerrace Fire P rot. D is t. , 60 4 F

. 3d 49 0, 50 7 ( 7th Ci r . 20 10) ( r ev er sing g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n tw h e r e p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i ms no t so i m pl au sibl e th ata r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d no t fi nd in his favor). T he re are tw o typ es of FM L A clai m s, t h o s e for i nt erfer ence an d tho se f orr eta l i ati on. The FM LA m andates that an em plo yer m ay not “i nter fer e w i th, re stra in , o r den y the exer ci se o fo r the a tt empt t o e xe r ci se ” an y F M LA r i g ht s. 2 9 U. S

. C. § 2 61 5( a)(1)

. I n a ddi ti o n, the FM L A co n ta in s a n an ti-r et alia tio n p ro vis ion, m ak in g it “u nl awfulf o r a ny e m pl oyer to di sc ha r g e o r i n a ny othe r m anner disc ri m i nate aga i nst a ny i nd i vi du alf or op p os i n g a n y p r a c t i c e m a d e u n law fu l by th is subchapter

. ” 2 9 U.S

. C. § 2 615( a) ( 2)

. A n em p loyerdoes n ot, ho w ev er , viola te th e F M L A for fa ilin g t o re tu rn h im to h is for m er p os itio n aft er h e r e t u r n s fro m lea ve if the e m plo yee would have been l et go eve n if he had notN o. 10

- 2117 9
t a k e n the l e a v e a nd the t e r mi na t i o n de c i s i on was u n re lat ed to th e le av e re q u es t. G o elz er, 60 4 F

. 3d at 993. “The differ ence between a re tal i ati on a nd i nter fer ence th eory is th at th e fi rst ‘req uires p roof of discrim inatory orr eta l i ato ryi nten t w hi l e [ an i nter fer ence theo ry ] r equi r es o nl y pr o o fth atthe e m pl o y erde ni ed th e em plo yee hi s or her enti tl em ents und er the A c t.’ ” Id. ( ci ti ng Kauf

f m an v. Fe de r al Expre s s Corp. , 4 26 F. 3d 880, 884 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) )

. The i nter fer en c e a nd r eta l i ati on c laim s h e r e a re clo se ly lin ke d , s e eSmit h v

. H O PE Sc hool, 56 0 F.3d 69 4, 70 1 (7th C ir. 20 09 ), as Sh affe r st at ed in h is m em or andu m i n opposi ti on t o the A M A ’s m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent; we do n ot fi nd the i nter fer ence ar gum ent wai ved. S hafferwas el i gibl e f orFM LA pro te ct i o n, c o ve r ed bythe F M LA , a nd pro vi ded su ffi ci en t n ot ice of h is in te n t t o t ak e le av e. See G o e l z er, 60 4 F

. 3d at 99 3 (s u m m ar izin g t h re sh o l d FM L A int er fer en c e c laim r e q u i r e me nt s )

. I fS h a ffe r c a n d e mo n s t r a t e th a tth e A MA fi re d him to pre vent h im fro m exer ci si ng hi s r i ght t o r eins ta te m enti n h i s po si ti o n, he c ans ucc ee d o n a n i nte rfe re n c e t h eo ry . S e e i d. To s ucceed on a r eta l i ati on t h e o r y, u n d er th e d ire c t m et h od ap p lica b le h er e, a pl aint i ffs ur vi ve s su m m ar y j ud gm en t by“ ‘ cr ea ting a t ri abl e i ss u e of whether the a dvers e e m plo ym ent a ction of w hi ch she com pla i ns had a disc ri m i nat o r y mo t i v a t i o n. ’ ” L ewis v. Sc hool D i s t
. #7 0 , 52 3 F

. 3d 730, 74 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng Rudi n v . Li nc ol n L and C m ty. Co ll

. , 420 F.3d 712 , 721 (7th C ir. 2005)). As i n G o elz er, t h e n , th e is su e fo r u s t o d et er m in e in th is case i s whether a re aso nabl e j ury coul d concl ud e that10 N o. 10

- 2117 Shaffer ’ s e xerci se ofhi s rig h t to tak e F M LA l eave was a m ot iva tin g fa c to r in th e d ec isio n to elim in at e h is p os itio n . See G o elz er, 60 4 F

. 3d at9 95
. The AM A m aint ains th atthe de ci si o n t o t er m i na te S ha ffer ’ s empl o y m en t had nothi ng to do with hi s F M LA r equest. S hafferthinks othe rwis e, and c onte nd s that a re aso nabl e j ury co u ld conclud e the AM A te rm i nated hi s e m plo ym ent b ecause he r equeste d l eave pro tect ed by th e FM LA

. W e a gr ee w ith Sha ffer th at th e evid en ce in the record , w he n in terprete d i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl y t o h im as we m ust a t th i s st ag e, s uppo r ts th at a r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd th at th e AM A c ho se hi m as th e per so n i n hi s d ep artm en t to l et go because he exer ci sed hi s r i ght t o tak e F M LA l eave . A s o fOctobe r 28, 20 08, Ly n c h h ad deci ded to el i m i nate F r i edman’ s po si ti o n a nd no t S ha ffer ’ s. Ly nc h e ve n s en t an em ai l to hi s s up er visor detai l i ng wh y he did not th i nkthe e l i m i na ti o n o fa ny a ddi ti o na l po si ti o ns beyo nd Fr i edm an’ s was i n th e AM A ’ s be st i nter est
. Lync h a l s o s a i d in hi s de po s i t i o n tha tdo wns i z i ngF r i e dm an ’ s po si ti o n woul d be th e “obv i o us ch o i ce ” to anyo ne l o o k in ga t th e si tu at i o n fr o m the o ut si de sinc e th e A M A w as no l ong er proc eed ing w ith o ne of Friedm an ’s cor e ca m pai gns. Th r e e we e k s l a t e r, h o we v e r, Ly nc h ch a ng e d h i s mi nd

. T he only even ts of not e in th e interim w e r e Sh affer’ s re q u es t fo r lea ve on N ov em b er 20 a n d t h e ea rly N ove m berA M A I nter i m M eet i ng i n Orl ando. S haffer se ntLy nc h a n e m ai l o n Th ur sday, Nov embe r 2 0 i nf o r mi n gh i m th a th e wo u l d b e h a v i n gkn e e r e p l ac ement surg er y in J an u ar y an d w as set ti ng up a cl ai m f orsho rt
-N o. 10

- 2117 11
ter m di sabi l i ty benefi ts. W he n L yn ch em ai l ed Pare nti o n N ove m ber30 thathe ha d now deci ded to el i m i nate S ha ffer ’ s posi ti o n a nd k ee p F r i edman’ s, he i nc l ude d the c om m en t t h at “[t ]h e t ea m is alre ad y p r ep ar in g for B ill [Shaffer] ’s sh ort-term leave in Janu ary, so hi s d ep artu re sh ou ld n ot ha ve an y i m m e d ia t e neg ative im p act.” A j ury coul d find that t h is stat em ent, the change i n the deci si on of w h om to te rm in at e, an d th e t im in g of t h e n ew d ec isi on s oo n after Sh affer ’ s l eave r equest supp or t that hi s r eque stf o r l ea ve l ed to hi s te r m i na ti o n. A j ur y mighta l so g i ve c r ede nc e to S haff er’s a r g um en t t ha t D a n i e l s b a c k d a t e d a me mo r a n d u m t o ma k e i ta ppear that the deci si on t o l et hi m go w as not i nfl uenced by th e le av e re q u es t. See B ru n k e rv . Sch w a n’s H o m e Serv., Inc. , 5 83 F

. 3d 10 04, 1 00 8- 09 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( bac kd at i ng of term ination n otice to a dat e befo r e em p loyee l eft f o r t r ea tm en t to a vo i d i m pr es si o n tha t co ndi ti o n i nfl uenced ter m i nati on deci si on hel ped crea te issue f or tr ial); se e also Le w is , 52 3 F

. 3d at 7 43

. On Febr uary3, 20 09, D an iels ty p ed u p a c op y of h an d w ri t t e n n ot es h e s aid ca m e f rom a n e ar l i erdi sc us si o n wi thLy nc h r eg ar di ng Shaffer ’ s t er m i nati on. Danie l s d at ed the typed not es N ov em b er25 , 20 08, wh i ch he s ai d w as the s am e date as h is e ar lier h an d w rit te n n ot es . B u t L yn c h h ad n o re c ollec tio n of a m e e t i n g t h at d ay w ith D an iels , no r d id hi s ca l endar r efl ect one. The A M A em phasi zes thatN ove m ber 25 cam e a fter S ha fferr eque st ed l ea ve . At fi r stg l an ce , a mem o r an dum dated afterS hafferr equeste d l eav e w oul d not s eem to supp or t a theo rythatevid ence had been m anufa cture d12 N o. 10

- 2117
to s ug g es t th atthe l ea ve r eque stdi d no t i nfl ue nc e th e te r m i na ti o n de ci si o n. Howev er, v i ewe d i n the l i g ht m ost favorabl e t o Shaffer as w e m us t, th e record su pp o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n th a t wh e n Da n i e l s t y p e d up th e notes i n Feb ruar y, he was ac ti ng under the i m press i o n th a tth e l e a v e r e q u e s th a d no t c o me u n t i l N o v e mber26

. Danie l s stat ed i n hi s deposi ti on that he had seve ra l co nver sat i ons w i th Lynch , incl ud i ng o ne o n N ov em b er 25 a n d a n ot h er th e n ex t d ay . D an iels sa id that Lynch rai sed S haffer ’ s r equest f orm edi call eave f or th e fi r stt i m e dur i ngthe Nov embe r 2 6 convers at i o n. D an iel s also sai d that Ly nc h told him du ring tha t con versat i on that he had j ust l ear ned of t h e le ave re quest. Th e t ro ub l i ngf a c ttha tDa ni e l s s hr e dde d h i s h a nd

w ri tte n note s a fterl ear n in g ofpote nti all i ti gat i on a l so c o ul d we i g h i n f avo r o fS ha ffe r . A j ur y mi g htc o nc l ud e f ro m al l thi s that Dani el s had be en try in g to cre ate a p ap er tra il. A j ury coul d a l so l o o kt o the di ffer en t ex pl an at i o ns gi ve n atd iffer en t t im es for Sh affe r’s te rm in at ion
. See Sim ple v . Wa lgreen Co. , 5 1 1 F

. 3 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 07) ( “T he i nc o ns i st en cyi s su g g es tive of pr et ex t an d thus i s e vi dence ofdi scr i m i nati on . . . . ”)

. The A M A poi nts t o th e e ar ly N ov em b er Int er im M ee tin g a n d m ain ta in s it hel ped lea d Lynch to change hi s m i nd abo ut wh om to ter m i nate, as it s ay s Lynch had to fi l l in f orS haffer to h elp a j u n ior s p ee c h w ri te r w h en Sh affe r w as u n av ailab l e, a nd a l so tha t Lyn chwas c o nc erne d abo utthe abse n c e w i thout expla nati on. Yet Lynch tol d Shafferthat the ter m i nati on deci si on had no thi ng to do w i th h is per f o r m an ce a nd di d no t m en ti o n a ny c o nc er n abo utN o. 10

- 2117 13 th e In te rim M ee tin g, an d D an iels te st ified i n h is d ep os iti on that he w as not tol d o f any probl em s w i th Sh affer at the m eet i ng o r that Shaffer ’ s per f or m ance pl aye d any ro l e i n the deci si on to ter m i nate h is e m plo ym ent. Daniel s’ s typed-up n ote s s tat e that the posi ti on was el i m i na te d be ca us e Lyn ch co ul d ac co m m o dat e ha ving the s peech wri ti ng st affr epor t t o h im , a m ong othe r thi ngs. I n the N ove m ber30 , 20 08 em ai l to P arenti, Lynch j usti fi ed hi s chang e in deci si on t o ter m i nate Sha ffer i nste ad o fFr i edm an by st ati ng tha t F ri edm an had ev o l ve d i nt o a fl ex ibl e uti l i tyman who c o ul d fi l l i n the g aps . Thi s emai l said n o th i ngabo utthe I nt er i m M ee ting o r Ly nc h’ s ab i l i tyt o abs o rb hi s r esp onsibi l i ti es . And o ne ofthe sta ffspeec h w ri ter s s tat ed in hi s deposi ti on that Lynch tol d him S haffer ’s posi ti on had bee n el i m i nated f orano therr eas on, thathe ha d the hi ghest sal ar y a nd l ar ges t co st. Of c ours e, a j ury m ay w ell agr ee w i th the A M A that S ha ffe r ’ s l e a v e r e qu e s th a d n o i mpa c to n the t e r mi na t i on d ecision. O ne em p loyee had to b e let go i n Sh affer’ s departm ent, and he w as c ertai nl y o ne o fthe candidate s. A s the A M A ar gues, a j ury m igh t a l so vi ew the m enti on i n Ly nc h’ s e mai l t o P a r e nt i tha tthe t e a m was a l re a dy prepar i ng f orS haffer ’ s upcom i ng l eave notas a re aso n f orte rm i nati ng hi m , but as an expl anati on o fi ts effec t. A j ury m i ght a gr ee that S h afferwas abse nt duri ng an i m po r ta ntt i m e atthe I nt er i m M eeti ng and tha t th e ab se n c e t h er e h elp ed lea d th e A M A to se lec t h is p os iti o n f o r e l i m i nati o n. And Dan i el s te st i fi ed th athe dropped by Lynch’s o ffi ce o n N ove m ber25 , wh i ch i s a re aso nabl e e xplanat i on f orwh y there was no app oi nt-14 N o. 10

- 2117

m ent in Lynch’s cal endar fort hat day. H e m ay have then typed up hi s handw ri tte n note s a fterhe l earn ed o f l i ti gat i on a n d d at ed the docum ent the date ofhi s no tes , wi th o uta ny i nt en t to ha ve tha t dat e help su ppo r t th e te r m i na ti o n de ci si o n. The c o m pet i ngr ea so nabl e i nfer ences that can be d ra w n fr om the re cor d are notf or us to resolve at the su m m ary j ud gm en t stage, how ever. W e a re o bl i gat ed to vi ew t h e r eco rd i n the l i ght m ost f av o r ab l e to S ha ffera nd t o r efr ain fr o m wei g hi ngthe evi dence ordeci ding w hi ch i nfe re nces to d ra w fro m th e fa c ts
. See K o dish , 60 4 F

. 3d at 507. Because a r easonab l e j ury coul d find i n Shaffer ’ s f avo r, w e r eve rs e th e g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n ta g a i n s th i m.

C. At t o r ne y - Cl i e ntPri v i l e g e Pr o t e c t s Memo r a ndu m W e no w address o n e m or e pi ece ofev i dence S haffer w ou l d l i k e to us e o n r emand, a mem o r an dum the dist ri ct c ourtr ule d w as p ro tect ed by the a tto rney cl i ent pr i vi l ege . The co ntents ofthe docum ent di d not pl ayi nt o o ura na l y si s o fwhethe r s um m ar y j udg m en t wa s p r o p e r, b u ts o th e r e i s n o qu e s t i o n o n r e ma n d , we addr es s th e pr i vi l eg e ques ti o n n o w. The s co pe o fthe attor ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege i s a questi on o fl aw we re vi ew de novo , wh ile w e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs of f act an d ap p li cation of law to f act for clear error. Je nkins v. Ba rt le tt, 487 F.3d 482 , 490 (7th C ir. 2007). T he docum ent in questi on i s a o ne- page typew ri tten m em or andu m fro m Lynch that on i ts f ac e is dated N ovem ber 21, 2008, an d e n titl ed “E li m ination of staff position
. ” The m em or andu m i s a dd re sse d to H ar veyN o. 10

- 2117 15 Dani el s, b utLy nc h t es ti fi ed i n h i s depo si ti o n tha t he typed up the m em orandum i n ear l y F ebr uaryo f20 09 f orthe sol e in te n tio n ofm eet i ng with i n-ho use a tto rney K a t s uy a ma a nd tha th e g a v e i to nl y t o Ka t s uy a m a. The do cument w as i na dve r te nt l y tur ne d o ve r dur i ng d iscovery, and t h e district cou rt agreed w ith th e A M A ’s subsequent ass er ti on that the at torney
- cl i ent pr i vi l ege prot ecte d i t. The a tt o r ne y - cl i en t pr i vi l eg e “ ‘ i s th e o l dest of the pr i vi l eg es f o r c o nfi den ti alc om m uni ca ti o ns kno wn to the com m on l aw . ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ji ca r i l l a Apac heNat i on , 13 1 S. Ct. 23 13, 23 20 ( 2011 ) ( quoti ng Upjo hn C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 449 U

. S. 38 3, 38 9 ( 1981 ) )

. I ts pu rpos e is “to enco urag e ful l a nd fr an kc o m m uni ca ti o n b etwee n a tt o r ne y s an d th eir clie n ts an d th er eb y p ro m ot e b ro ad er p u b lic i nter ests i n the obs er vance ofl aw and adm i ni str ati on o f j usti ce. ” Upj ohn , 44 9 U.S

. at38 9. Fo r the a tto rney cl i ent pr i vi l ege to at tach to the m em or andu m , we have sum m ar i zed the requir em ents to be that the co m m unica

ti o n c o nt aine d the r ein mustha ve b een m ad e i n c o nfi dence, i n the connect i on with the provi si on o fl ega l ser vi ces, to an att or ney, and i n the conte xt o fan a tto rney c lien t re l at ion sh ip
. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . BDO S e i d man, L L P, 49 2 F

. 3d 80 6, 8 15 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Th e pri vi l eg e i s co nstr ued narr owly, and the burden i s on the party see ki ng to i nvoke the pri vi l ege

— h e r e , th e A MA

— to est abl i sh that it a p p lies

. U nite d State s v. White, 95 0 F

. 2d 426, 43 0 ( 7th C ir. 1991). The com m unica ti on was m ade i n confi dence and to an at to rn ey . L yn c h cr ea te d th e m em or an d u m for t h e s ole16 N o. 10

- 2117 pu rpos e o fm eet i ng with in -h ouse counselKatsuyam a. L ynch cre ate d the docum ent al one, did not disc us s it w i tha ny o ne e l s e , a nd g a v e the me mor a nd um o nl y to K at s uy a ma i n a mee t i ng whe r e o nl y the t wo we r e pr esen t. L y n c h th er efo re p ro d u c ed th e m em or an d u m in confi dence to an a tto rney . The n ex t qu est i on i s whether the c om m unica ti on was m ade i n connect i on with the provi si on o f l ega l se rv i ces. S ha ffer ar g ue s th at Lyn ch pr epa r ed th e m emor an dum onl y a s a m att ero fst andard proce du re unrel ate d to thre ate ned l i ti gat i on a nd thati t was noti n conne c tion wi th th e p r o v i s i o n o fl e g a l s e r v i c e s . Ho we v e r, t he evid en ce in th e record show s othe rw ise. Shaffer’s counselse nt a l ett erto the A M A o n J anua ry 21 , 20 09 s ta tingtha t h e i nt en ded to fi l e su i t f o r wro ng ful ter m i nati on o fem plo ym ent. Katsuyam a r ecei ved i t o n Febr uary2. Katsuyam a then spoke w ith Dani el s, and, as a r esul t, Danie l s info rm ed Lyn c h t h at Lynch w oul d be m eeti ng with K ats uyam a t o disc uss S haffer ’ s t er m i nati on a nd thathe s houl d prepare the docum ent forthat m ee ting . S ha fferpoi nt s o uttha t Dani el s den i ed te l l i ng Ly nc h tha tS ha ffe r wa s t a k i ngl e g a l a c t i o n. Bu ta l though D an iels d en ied m ak in g t h at sp ec ific s ta te m en t, D an i e ls a l s o t e s t i fi e d h e wa s a wa r e tha tLy nch ass ume d a law su it w as p en d ing or th r eaten ed

. Ly nc h, the m ore i m portan t per son i n thi s inquir y, bel i eve d he w as provid in g t h e m em or an d u m in c on n ec tio n w ith th e p ro visi o n o fl eg als er vi ce s. W he n a sk ed why h e dr afte d the memo r a nd um, h e t e s t i fi e d tha t D ani e l s t o l d h i m i ta ppea r ed th er e woul d b e so m e l i ti g at i o n r eg ardi ngthe el i m i nati on o fS haffer ’ s pos itio n , a nd thati n prepar ati onN o. 10

- 2117 17 for th e m ee tin g w ith in-h ou se co u n se l, h e s h ou ld p u t in wr i t i n gh i s r e c o l l e c t i o n o fh i s d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g . We agr ee w i th the d i str i ct c ourtthatLynch w ro te the m em ora nd um and gav e it t o K ats uyam a i n connect i on with the pr ovi si on o fl ega l se rv i ces. Shaffer al so conte nd s that the m em or andu m w as n ot pr o duce d i n the c o nt ex t o fa n a tt o r ne y - cl i en t r el at i o nsh ip . A lth ou gh H u m an R es ou rc es R ep re se n ta tiv e D an iels ask ed L yn c h to cr eat e the m em or andu m and i t was add re sse d to Daniel s, Lynch expla i ned that the c onte xt o f D a n i e l s ’ s r e q u e s tw a s th a t“ th e r e w a s g o i n gt o b e s o me leg al a c tio n reg ar d in g t h e e lim i n a t ion of Sh affe r’s p os ition” an d that Ly nc h n eed ed to m eet w ith th e A M A ’s at to r ne y . Ly nc h a lso u nd er st o o d tha t he c r ea te d the do cumentf o r the s o l e pur po se of mee tingwi thi nhouse counselKatsuyam a about the pos sibl e l aw sui t. The mem o r an dum was the r efo r e pr epa r ed i n the c o nt ex t o fthe a t t o r ne y - c l i e ntr e l a t i o ns hi p. Final l y, S hafferar gues that eve n i fthe att or neycl i en t pr i vi l eg e woul d no r m al l y pr o te ctthe do cument, the cri m e- f ra ud exce pti on s houl d app l y here because , he as serts , i t was pr epa r ed afte r the f ac t to j us ti fy the t e r mi na t i o n . “ T h e c r i me - f r a u d e x c e p t i o n p l a c e s c o mm uni ca ti o ns made i n fur th er an ce of a cr i m e o r fr au d outsi de the att or ney- cl i ent pr i vi l ege . ” BD O Se i dm an , 49 2 F. 3d a t 8 18. Thi s e xcepti on co m es f ro m the re cogni ti on that w hen l ega l advi c e rel ate s “ nott o pr i orwr ongd oi ng, but to f ut urewr ongd oi ng, ” the pri vi l ege go es beyo nd wh at is n ec es sa ry to ac h i e v e it s p u rp os e. U nite d State s v. Z olin , 4 9 1 U. S

. 5 5 4 , 5 6 2

- 6 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d)

. T he e xc e p-18 N o. 10

- 2117 ti on’ s purpose i s t o en su re that the confi denti al i ty aff o r ded to c o m m uni ca ti o ns b etwee n a tt o r ne y a nd cl i en t “do es not e xt en d t o c o m m uni ca ti o ns ‘ m ade f o r the pu r po s e o fg e t t i nga dv i c e f o r the c o mm i s s i o n o fa fr a ud ’ orcr im e. ” Id. at 563 ( quoti ng O ’R o urk e v. D a rbishire, [1920] A

. C

. 581, 604 (P.C

. ))

. W e ha ve s ai d tha t th e par ty ar g ui ngtha t th e cr i m e- f r au d ex c ep tio n s h o u ld ap p ly m u st first “p re se n t p rim a fa c ie e v i d e n c e th a t g i v e s c o l o r t o th e c h a r g e b y s h o win gs o me f oundati on i n f act. ” U nited Sta tes v . B o end er, 64 9 F

. 3d 650 , 655 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng BD O Se i dm an , 49 2 F

. 3d at8 18 )

. The di st r i ct cou rt c anthe n r equi r e th e defen dan t to com e for w ar d w ith an explanat i on f orthe evi dence offe re d ag ain st th e p riv ileg e. Id. Finally, the d is t r ic t cou rt ex ercises its discretio n i n ac cep ting or rej ectin g the proffer ed ex pl an at i o n. Id. I n th is case, after receiving b rief s f ro m both sides, the dist ri ct c ourtco nd ucted an i n c am e r a r ev i ew o fthe do cument, a nd, b as ed o n the ci r cumst an ce s i n thi s ca se , r ul ed th atthe c r i m e- f r au d excepti on did notapply

. W e r evi ew thatdeci si on for an ab u se of d i sc re tio n . Se eBD O Se i dm an , 49 2 F

. 3d at 818. I t i s ce rt ai nl y o dd thatnotj u st D ani el s, but al so Lynch typed up m em or anda afterl ear ni ng o fthe potenti al l i ti gat i on a nd dated the m m onths bef or e the dates o n w hi ch theywere typed. T hat s ai d, ther e i s no sugg esti on from the re cor d that Lynch’ s m em or andu m was in fu rt h er an c e o f a c rim e o r fra u d . L yn c h sp ec ifica lly to l d i n- ho us e co uns el th at he ha d pr epa r ed th e m emor an du m i n pr e pa r a t i o n f o r the i r me e t i ng, a nd n o a t t e mptN o. 10

- 2117 19

w as m ade to hi de that f act d u ringthe m eet i ng o r to an y o ne e l s e the r e a ft e r . Th e AM A ha s no t a t t e mpt ed to us e Ly nc h’ s me mor a nd um t o s up po r ti t s t e r mi na t i on dec i s i o n, a nd the r e i s n o e v i de nc e tha ti n- ho use c ou n sel ass i ste d Lynch in the co m m i ssi on o fa f ra ud o r g av e an y adv i ce to hi m r eg ar di ng th e co m m i ssi on of a fra u d

. C f. U nited S tate s v. A l- Shah in , 474 F

. 3d 941, 94 6- 47 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( a p p l y i n gc r i m e - f r a u d e x c e p t i o n t o c o mm unica ti ons that further ed schem e t o col l ect m oneyfro m ani ns ur an ce c o m pan y f or a s ta g ed ac ci den t)

. The r e i s no sugge sti on fro m the re cor d that Lynch i ntended to com m i t a fra ud e ith er . Lynch w as up fro nt with K at su ya m a, th e m em or an d u m ’s int en d ed an d on ly a u d ience, t h at despi te i ts date he had prepare d the m em ora nd um o nl y r ecent l y a nd not i n N ove m ber

. Lynch f re e l y a c k no wl e dg e d in hi s de po s i t i o n tha th e dr a ft ed the me mor a nd um i n F e b r ua r y 2 0 0 9
. He a l s o e xp l ai ned that he pl aced the N ove m ber21 d at e on the m em ora n d u m b ec au se h e h ad be en to ld to w rit e d ow n h is ra tio n ale for t ak in g t h e a c tio n h e d id atth e t im e h e d id i t. Nota bly, Ly nc h c l ea r l y kne w onNov embe r 2 1, the date he pla ced on the m em or andu m ati ss u e, that Shafferhad al re ady r equeste d l eave since S hafferhad se nthi m a n e m ai l r eque sting itthe pr ev i o us da y . The date Ly nc h pl ac ed o n h i s m emor an dum , unl i k e th e date o n the one Daniel s typed , t here f or e doe s no t s up po r ta the o ry that the me mor a nd um wa s a n a t t e mpt to rationalize the d ecision before l earn ing of Sha ffer’s F M LA l ea ve r eque st
. Underthe se c i r cumst an ces, the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t ab use i ts di sc r et i o n whe n i t co nc l ud e d tha tthe c r i me- f r a ud e xc e pt i o n di d n o tapply

.20 N o. 10

- 2117 W e there f or e uphol d the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on th atthe a tt o r ne y - cl i en t pr i vi l eg e pr o te ct s th e m emorand u m.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The j u dgm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s R EVER S ED , a nd this case i s R EMAND ED f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

10- 18- 11