A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
J AM E S BO L T ON,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S P RI NT /UNI T E D M ANAGE M E NT CO M P ANY, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3042 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 2 1 5 6 - C M)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff Jam es B o lt o n ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s en tryo f su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof defendantSpr i nt/U ni t ed M anage m entC om pany( Spr i nt ) on M r . B ol t on’ s cl ai m of empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on underthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct , 29 U . S. C . §§ 621- 634 ( A D E A ) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m.- 2- I . Backg r ound M r. B o lt o n w as b o rn o n F eb rua ry5 , 1 9 5 3 , an d b eg an w o rkin g fo r S p ri n t’ s pr edec es s ori n 1987 as a s oftw ar e engi neerI I . I n 1990, he bega n w or ki ng part - t i m e on the A cce s s R eques tM anage m entSy s t em (A R M S) , an on- l i ne s y s t em thatfi el d r epr es ent at i ves us e t o ent ers ervi ce r eques t s . I n 1993, he bega n w or ki ng ful l t i m e on the A R M S t eam. M r . B ol t on w or ked on thatt eam unt i l hi s di s char ge i n O ct ober2003. D ur i ng the cour s e of hi s empl oym ent , M r . B ol t on r ece i ved per form ance ev alua ti o n s b yh is m an ag er fo r ea ch p erfo rm an ce y ea r. F o r pe rfo rm an ce y ea rs 1990 thr ough 1998, he r ece i ved gene r al l yfavor abl e over al l r at i ngs of “pr ofi ci ent , ” “a bove expe ct at i ons , ” or“ful l ym etexpec t at i ons . ” H e w as pr om ot ed t o s oftw ar e engi neerI I I ( SE I I I ) i n 1995 byhi s m anage r , B ettyM athi s , al though agai ns therbett erj udgm ent . A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at114, ¶ 9. M r . B ol t on r ece i ved payr ai s es eac h y earfr om 1990 thr ough 1997. T he r evi ew s forper form ance y ear s 1996 and 1998, how ever , w er e not w i thouts om e comm enton M r . B ol t on’ s per form ance pr obl ems. D es pi t e r at i ng h im a s “ f

u llysa tisfa c to ry ” (a m id d le r a tin g o f “ 3 ” o n a sc a le o f

“ 1 ” to “ 5 ,” w ith “5” be i ng the l ow es t ) forper form ance y ear1996, M s . M athi s r at ed hi m as “i m pr ovementneede d” i n the ar eas of l eade r s hi p, m anage m ent , and per s onal e ffe c tiv e n e s s , i d. a t 1 1 3 , ¶ 5 ; i d. a t 2 4 4 . S h e b a se d h e r a p p ra isa l o f h is
w eakn esses on her observat i on that he had a diffi cultt i m e graspi ng new t asks,- 3-

t ook l ongerthan ave r age t o per form a t as k, had veryw eak a nal yt i cal s ki l l s , l acke d an under s t andi ng of bas i c A R M S busi nes s funct i ons des pi t e the l ength of t i m e he h a d w o rk e d o n th e A R M S tea m , an d w a s e ith e r v e ryc o n se rv a tiv e o r la c k in g in s e lf-c o n fid e n c e in d e c is io n -m a k in g s k ills . Id. at113, ¶ 7. Sue G oodw i n t ook overas m anage rof the A R M S t eam i n M ar ch 1998 and b e c a m e M r. B o lto n ’s d ire c t su p e rv iso r. W h e n sh e m e t w ith M r. B o lto n in e a rly 1999 t o di s cus s hi s 1998 per form ance , s he expl ai ned thatal though he w as dedi cat ed, tr i ed har d, and w as w el l - l i ked, he w as notper form i ng atthe l evel of an SE I I I fora numberof r eas ons , i ncl udi ng hi s i nabi l i tyt o pr ovi de t echni cal gui dance t o l es s exper i ence d engi neer s , hi s need forcont i nuous gui dance on how t o s ol ve mostpr oduct i on pr obl ems, hi s di ffi cul tyw r i t i ng adequa t e t echni cal s p e c ific a tio n s , a n d h is la c k o f o rg a n iz a tio n . Id. at339. D es pi t e cons i der i ng a r at i ng of “4, ” M s . G oodw i n gave hi m the hi gherr at i ng of “3” butdi d notaw ar d a m e ri t- b a s e d p a yin c re a s e . Id. at341. M s . G oodw i n agai n r at ed hi m as a “3” for 1 9 9 9 . Id. at257. T her eaf t er , M s . G oodw i n s ol i ci t ed and r ece i ved comm ent s fr om t eam l eads underw hom M r . B ol t on w or ked thatr ei t er at ed manyof the s ame per form ance s hor t comi ngs M s . M athi s and M s . G oodw i n had not ed. T hes e pr obl ems ca us ed L a rryR e e v e s, o n e o f

M r. B o lto n ’s te a m lea d s, to g iv e h im th e e a sie st ta sk s in o rd e r t o a v o id s p e n d in g tim e fix in g e rr o rs . Id. a t 3 0 6 :9 -1 7 . W h e n M s. G o o d w in m etagai n w i th M r . B ol t on i n J ul y2000, s he i ndi cat ed thathi s need for- 4-

cont i nuous , s ubs t ant i al s uppor ts houl d notbe r equi r ed of a n SE I I I w i th as m any y e a rs e x p e ri e n c e o n th e s a m e s y s te m . Id. at356. Forper form ance y ear2000, M s . G oodw i n agai n r at ed M r . B ol t on a “3, ” “f ul l ym etexpec t at i ons , ” not i ng that h e w as a team p lay er a n d co m p let ed h is assign m en ts bu t con ti n u ed to req u ir e a s s is ta n c e f

ro m o th e r t e a m m e m b e rs . Id. at267. M r . B ol t on r ece i ved anotherpay i ncr eas e. S p rin t em p lo y e d tw o ra tin g sy ste m s fo r p e rfo rm a n c e y e a r 2 0 0 1 , the o ld s y s t em underw hi ch i taw ar ded a for m al num er i cal r at i ng and a ne w , l ett er - bas ed sy ste m u n d e r w h ich it aw a rd e d a n “ a d v iso ryra tin g ” o f M o st e ffe c tiv e (M ), H ig h ly effect i ve ( H ) , E ffe ct i ve ( E ) , I m pr ovementneede d ( I ) , orSubst ant i al I m pr ovement n e e d e d ( S I ) . S p r i n td i r e c t e d i t s m a n a g e r s t o u s e a b e l l c u r v e s ys t e m a n d c l a s s i f y a cert ai n p ercent age o f em ploy ees ateach o f t he ad vis oryl evels , w i th the l argest p e rc e n tag e , 4 0 % , rate d “ E .” M r. B o lto n w a s ra ted a “ 3 ” o n th e fo rm a l sc a le (“ f u lly m e t e x p e c ta tio n s ” ), i d. at279, an “E” on the advi s orys cal e, and r ece i ved a payi ncr eas e. Forper form ance y ear2002, Spr i ntus ed onl ya four - t i er ed l ett er - bas ed scal e, M osteffecti ve (M ), H i gh l yeffecti ve (H ), V eryeffecti ve (V ), or L ess e ffe c tiv e (L ), an d S p rin t ag a in e m p lo y e d th e b e ll cu rv e sy ste m . M s. G o o d w in r ece i ved addi t i onal r eport s fr om otherA R M S t eam m ember s conce rni ng M r. B o lto n ’s p e rfo rm a n c e p ro b le m s , w h ic h w e re s im ila r t o th o s e d e s c ri b e d a b o v e . She r at ed hi m an “L” and w r ot e thathe t akes l ongert o acc om pl i s h t as ks than any- 5-

o th e r S E II I o n th e A R M S te a m d e s p ite b e in g th e lo n g e s t- te n u re d m e m b e r. Id. at293- 94. I n J anuaryand February2003, Shel l yB ecke rw as M r . B ol t on’ s t eam l ead and gave hi m tw o pr oj ecteval uat i ons . A l though s he found M r . B ol t on t o be a cons ci ent i ous w or kerw ho di d w hat everw as neede d t o m eetdeadl i nes , s he s t at ed thathe nee ded t o have gr eat ers el f- confi dence and pr ovi de qui ckercode tu rn a ro u n d , a n d th a t h e s tru g g le s w ith m a n ya re a s o f A R M S . Id. at369- 70, 372- 73. I n M ar ch 2003, Spr i ntadded a l ay erof s upervi s i on t o the A R M S t eam b e twe e n M s . Go o d wi n a n d th e t e a m me mb e r s , a n d M s . Be c k e rb e c a me M r. B o lt o n ’s su p erv isor. M s. B ec k er testi fied that w h il e sh e w as M r. B o lt o n ’s s upervi s or , no one on the A R M S t eam t ook cons i s t ent l yl ongert o compl et e t as ks th a n M r. B o lto n d id . Id. a t 1 6 6 :3 -6 . I n M ay2003, M s . G oodw i n conduct ed an i nform al as s es s m entof M r . B ol t on’ s know l edge a nd s ki l l s and, m or e s peci fi cal l y , hi s demonstr at i on of “S p ri n t D im en sion s. ” A m o n g the fac tors iden ti fied as S p ri n t D im en sion s w ere ( 1 ) Le a d e r s h i p , a n d ( 2 ) P e r s o n a l Effe c t i v e n e s s . M r . Bo l t o n r e c e i v e d th e s a me poors cor e i n both ar eas — a “4, ” w hi ch w as one s t ep fr om the bott om of a fi ve- poi nts cal e. A ppr oxi m at el yone mont h l at er , M s . B ecke rconduct ed a s i m i l ar in fo rm a l as se ss m e n t o f a ll o f th e m e m b e rs o f

th e A R M S tea m . A s to L e a d e rsh ipM r . B ol t on’ s br i efs on thes e fa ctual m att er s ar e conf us i ng and hi s ci t at i ons 1 to the rec o rd a re u n h elpf u l. In h is op en ing b ri ef, h e states tha t M s. B ec k er’s e v a lu a tio n o c c u rr e d fir s t, s ee A pl t . O peni ng B r . at10, buta cha r ti n thatbr i ef s u g g e s ts th e o p p o s ite , s ee i d. at 11 -12 , as d o es th e d iscu ssion an d the s am e c h art in h is re p ly b ri e f, s ee A pl t . R epl yB r . at13- 14. H i s s uppor t i ng ci t at i ons t o the re c o rd re fe r to a c h a rt in th e b rie f h e filed in th e d istric t co u rt in re sp o n se to S p ri n t’ s m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, s ee A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at443- 44, w hi ch i s i dent i cal t o the cha r ti n hi s appel l at e br i efs , and t o a bar el y - l egi bl e document thatappea r s t o eval uat e M r . B ol t on and otherA R M S t eam m ember s on the “Spr i ntD i m ens i ons , ” s ee i d. a t 7 1 6 , w h ich h e a ttribu ted to M s. G o o d w in in h is o p e n in g b rie f

a n d to M s. B e c k e r in h is re p ly . T h e c h a rt in d ica tes th a t b o th M s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke rgave M r . B ol t on a “4” on L eade r s hi p and Per s onal E ffe c tiv e n e ss . T h e c ited d o c u m e n t at p a g e 7 1 6 o f th e re c o rd a p p e a rs to ra te M r . B ol t on a “4” i n L eade r s hi p and Per s onal E ffe ct i venes s , buti ti s uncl earfr om the documenti t s el f w ho compl et ed i torw hen i tw as compl et ed, and w e have fo u n d n o d o cu m en tat ion o f a sec o n d ev alua ti o n . A lth o u g h M s. B ec k er’s d e p o s itio n te s tim o n yin d ic a te s th a t s h e g a v e M r. B o lto n a “ 4 ” o n L e a d e rs h ip , i d. a t 6 8 9 :6 -7 , a n d th a t h e r e v a lu a tio n w a s d a te d J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , s ee i d. a t 6 9 1 :1 8 to 692: 24, s he neve rs t at es w hatr at i ng s he gave M r . B ol t on on Per s onal E ffecti ven ess. F ortun at el y , for ou r purposes, w e need no tres olve this m orass beca us e the part i es do notappea rt o di s put e thatboth M s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke rcompl et ed an i nform al eval uat i on and both s cor ed M r . B ol t on a “4” o n L e a d e rsh ip a n d P e rso n a l E ffe c tiv e n e ss . T h e se q u e n c e o f th e ir e v a lu a tio n s is im m a ter ial.

- 6- an d P erso n al E ffec ti v en ess, M r. B o lt o n fa red n o b ett er o n M s. B ec k er’s a s s e s s m e n t; a s to b o th , h e re c e iv e d a “ 4 .” 1 I n l at e M ay2003, Patr i ci a M i t chel l , then fi fty - ei ghty ear s ol d, eval uat ed M r . B ol t on’ s per form ance on a pr oj ects he l ed. A l though om i t t ed fr om heri ni t i al
w r i t t en eva l uat i on, M s . M i t chel l eventual l ydocument ed ce rt ai n per form ance pr obl ems thats he had onl ydi s cus s ed w i th M r . B ol t on, i n or dert o addr es s theFol l ow i ng M r . B ol t on’ s comm ence m entof thi s l i t i gat i on, M s . M i t chel l had 2 occa s i on t o t es t i fythats he w as s urpr i s ed t o l earn of M r . B ol t on’ s t erm i nat i on, A p lt . A p p . , V o l. II at 63 0 :13 -24 , an d that sh e h ad n o t ob serv ed in M r. B o lt o n ’s p e rfo rm a n c e a n yp ro b le m s th a t w a rr a n te d h is te rm in a tio n , i d. at625: 22 t o 626: 2.

- 7- c o n c e rn o f

M s . G o o d w in a n d M s . B e c k e r t h a t a ll p ro b le m s b e d o c u m e n te d . Id. at 164: 12- 20. 2 I n J une 2003, M s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke rt al ked t o M r . B ol t on about appl y i ng fora di ffe r entpos i t i on w i th the company , one thatm i ghtbe a be t t er m a tch fo r h is s k ill s. M r. B o lto n d e c lin e d , an d M s. G o o d w in o ra llyw a rn e d h im th a t s h e w o u ld b e g in S p ri n t’ s c o rr e c tiv e -a c tio n p ro c e s s . O n July15 , M r. B olt on w as pl aced o n w ri t t en w arni ng and t old he m ust i m pr ove i n 30 day s orhe w oul d be pl ace d on fi nal w r i t t en w arni ng. H e w as gi ven a l i s tof di s cr et e goal s t o m eet , i ncl udi ng compl et i on of as s i gnm ent s i n the al l ocat ed t i m e and w i th m i ni m al err or s , and w as gi ven the opportuni tyt o m ake a pr es ent at i on on a t opi c of hi s choi ce. M r . B ol t on’ s pr es ent at i on fel l w el l s hor tof the expe ct at i ons of M s . G oodw i n, M s . B ecke r , and M s . M i t chel l . Fur ther p e rfo rm a n c e p ro b lem s w e re d o c u m e n ted , an d M s. G o o d w in , alo n g w ith M r . St r ani m i er , w ho had t aken ove ras M r . B ol t on’ s i m m edi at e s upervi s orfr om M s . B ecke r , pl ace d M r . B ol t on on fi nal w r i t t en w arni ng on A ugus t15. A ft eraddi t i onal per form ance pr obl ems and a notherpr es ent at i on thatm et w ith crit ici sm , M s. G o o d w in an d M r. S tr an im ier t erm inated M r. B o lt o n ’s e m p lo ym e n t o n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 3 . H e w a s 5 0 y e a rs o ld . F o r a sh o rt tim e a f ter h is- 8-

di s char ge, M r . B ol t on w or ked fora contr act oras a t empora ryw or kerper form i ng ta s k s fo r S p ri n t s im ila r t o th e w o rk h e p e rfo rm e d a s a m e m b e r o f th e A R M S te a m . M r. B o lto n c o m p lete d th is te m p o ra ryw o rk w ith o u t an yre v iew o f h is per form ance . A ft erobt ai ni ng a r i ght - t o- s ue l ett erfr om the Equal E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on, M r . B ol t on fi l ed s ui t . T he di s tr i ctcourtent er ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of S pri nt, and M r. B olt on app eal s. II . A n a ly sis A . G e ne r alLega l St anda r ds W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, us i ng th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd a p p lic a b le in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B aca v. Sklar , 398 F. 3d 1210, 1216 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e vi ew the evi dence , and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om i t , i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng p a rt y . B aca , 398 F. 3d at1216. I n eval uat i ng an A D E A cl ai m bas ed on i ndi r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on, w e us e the bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k out l i ned i n McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -0 4 (1 9 7 3 ), a n d its p ro g e n y . See Mc Kn ig h t v. K im b e rly- 9-

C lark C or

p. , 149 F. 3d 1125, 1128 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng McD onnel lD ouglas t o A D E A cl ai m ) . W i thi n thi s fr amew or k, a pl ai nt i ff musti ni t i al l yes t abl i s h a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e o f

a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . See McD onnel lD ouglas , 4 1 1 U .S . a t 8 0 2 . T hi s bur den i s “notoner ous . ” P lo tke v . Wh ite , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). I f a pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hes a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the bur den s hi ft s t o the defendant“t o art i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on” fo r i ts a c tio n . McD onnel lD ouglas , 4 1 1 U .S . at 8 0 2 . If th e d e fe n d a n t m e e ts th is bu rden, “sum m aryj ud gm ent i s w arr anted un l ess the em ploy ee can show there i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherthe pr offe r ed r eas ons ar e pr et extual . ” P l otke , 405 F. 3d at1099. B . P ri m a F acie C ase I n a typ i c a l ADEA c a s e b a s e d o n d i s c h a r g e , a p l a i n t i ff e s t a b l i s h e s a p r i ma faci e case byshow i ng that he ( 1) i s w i thin the p rot ect ed ag e group (i . e. , atl east fo rt yy e a rs o ld , s ee 29 U . S. C . § 631( a) ) ; ( 2) w as doi ng s at i s fac t oryw or k; ( 3) w as d is c h a rg e d ; a n d (4 ) w a s re p la c e d b ya y o u n g e r p e rs o n . See, e. g. , R i ver a v. C i t y & C ount y of D enve r , 3 6 5 F .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). B u t w h e th e r th e c laim ar i s es underthe A D E A oranotherant i di s cr i m i nat i on s t atut e, the fourth el ementof a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e “i s a fl exi bl e one thatcan be s at i s fi ed di ffe r ent l yi n vary i ng s cena r i os . ” P l otke , 405 F. 3d at1100. A s the di s tr i ctcourtr ecogni zed, w hen a p la in tiff is n o t r e p la c e d b ya y o u n g e r w o rk e r, w h ic h a p p e a rs to b e th e c a s e h e re , a p lain tiff m a ysa tisf

yth e fo u rth e lem e n t w ith a m o re g e n e ra l sh o w in g th a t h is- 10-

di s char ge “oc curr ed underci r cumst ance s w hi ch gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id. (qu o tat ion o m itted). T her e i s no di s put e thatM r . B ol t on s at i s fi es the fi r s tand thi r d pr ongs of the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e— he w as 50 y ear s ol d w hen he w as di s char ged. A s t o the s econd el ement , the di s tr i ctcourtbegan i t s anal y s i s bys t at i ng, “D efe ndantcont ends , and the courtfi nds thatthe r ecor d demonstr at es , thatpl ai nt i ff w as notper form i ng up to th e e x p e c tatio n s o f h is e m p lo y e r a t th e tim e d e fe n d a n t term in a ted h is empl oym ent . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at811. W e agr ee w i th M r . B ol t on thatthe c o u rt’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f S p rin t’s n o n d isc rim in a to ryre a so n fo r d isc h a rg in g h im
w a s im p e rm is s ib le a t th e p ri m a fa c ie s ta g e o f th e a n a lysis . A s w e expl ai ned i n MacD onald v. E as t er n W yom i ng MentalHeal th C ent er , 941 F. 2d 1115 ( 10th C i r . 1991) , concl udi ng thatpl ai nt i ffs “di d notes t abl i s h a p r i ma fa c i e c a s e b a s e d o n th e r e a s o n s fo rth e i rd i s c h a r g e r a i s e s s e r i o u s p r o b l e ms underthe McD onnel lD ouglas a n a ly sis ” b e c a u se it “f ru stra tes a p lain tiff ’s a b ili ty t o es t abl i s h thatthe defendant ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e pr et extual and/ orthatage w as the det erm i ni ng fac t or . ” 941 F. 2d at1119. W e ther efor e hel d thata pl ai nt i ff m aym eetthe s econd e l ementof “a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on i n a di s char ge ca s e bycr edi bl e evi dence thats he cont i nued t o pos s es s the obj ect i ve q u ali fica ti o n s sh e h eld w h en sh e w as h ir ed , o r byh er o w n test im o n ythat h er w o rk
w as s at i s fac t ory , even w hen di s put ed byherempl oy er , orbyevi dence thats he- 11-

had hel d herpos i t i on fora s i gni fi cantper i od of t i m e. ” Id
. at1121 ( ci t at i ons o m itted). I ti s undi s put ed thatM r . B ol t on w or ked as a s oftw ar e engi neerforSpr i nt and i t s pr edec es s ori n i nt er es tfr om 1987, and s peci fi cal l yas an SE I I I on the A R M S t eam fr om 1995, unt i l hi s di s char ge i n 2003. E ach of thes e per i ods of tim e , 1 6 a n d 8 y e a rs , re s p e c tiv e ly, is a s ig n ific a n t p e ri o d o f tim e . See i d. ( concl udi ng thatfoury ear s w as s i gni fi cant ) . B eca us e the MacD onald tes t is phr as ed i n the di sj unct i ve, thi s fac tal one i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the s econd e le m e n t o f

th e p ri m a fa c ie te s t. See E ng l ish v. C olo. D ep’tof C orr. , 248 F. 3d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (re ly in g o n lyo n len g th o f p lain tiff ’s e m p lo ym e n t to sati sfysec o n d elem en t un d er Ma cD o n a ld). M r . B ol t on al s o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n i t s cons i der at i on of the fourth el ementof the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, w hetherhi s di s char ge occ urr ed under ci r cumst ance s thatgi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. I n i t s anal y s i s of the fo urth elem ent, the d i stri ctcou rtcon si dered m uch of the evidence thatal so goes t o pr et ext . W e w i l l as s um e forpurpos es of thi s appea l , ther efor e, that M r. B o lto n h a s m e t h is p ri m a fa c ie b u rd e n , w h ic h is n o t a n o n e ro u s o n e , s ee P l otke , 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 9 , a n d a n a lyze th e e v id e n c e u n d e r t h e p re te x t s ta n d a rd . T h a t p re tex t re v iew m a yp ro p e rlye n c o m p a ss e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e p rim a fa c ie c a s e . See Reev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods
. , Inc. , 5 3 0 U .S . 1 3 3 , 1 4 3 (2 0 0 0 ). M r. B o lto n h a s c o n c e d e d th a t S p rin t’s p ro ffe re d re a so n fo r d isc h a rg in g h imB ecause o ur r eview i s de no vo , w e need no tseparat el yadd res s 3 M r. B o lto n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in its a n a ly sis b yim p ro p e rly w e ig h in g e v id e n c e , d ra w in g in fe re n c e s in fa v o r o f S p rin t, an d m a k in g c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n s . See R i vera , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 9 2 0 . T o r ei t er at e, the 2002 r at i ngs w er e M os teffect i ve ( M ) , H i ghl yeffect i ve 4 (H ), V e ry e ffe c tiv e (V ), o r L e s s e ffe c tiv e (L ).

- 12- s at i s fi es the company ’ s bur den underthe s econd pr ong of the McD onnel lD ouglas fr amew or k, s o w e pr ocee d t o the pr et extanal y s i s thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d not r eac h. 3 C. Pr e t e xt “P ret ext can be sho w n b ysuch w eakn esses , i m plausi bil i t i es, i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons fori t s act i on thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d r at i onal l yfi nd them unw or thyof cr edenc e and he nce i nferthatthe empl oy erdi d notactfort he as s ert ed non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons . ” Morgan v. Hi l t i, Inc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e do not , how ever , “ac tas a s uper per s onnel depart m entthats econd gue s s es empl oy er s ’ bus i nes s j udgm ent s . ” Sim m s v. O kl a. ex rel
. D ep’tof MentalHealth & Su bstan ce A bu se Servs. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 3 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). M r . B ol t on fi r s tar gues thatol derm ember s of the A R M S t eam r ece i ved g e n e r a l l yl o we rp e r fo r ma n c e r a t i n g s o n th e i r2 0 0 2 e v a l u a t i o n s . F o rth a ty e a r , two te a m m e m b e rs , a g e d 4 5 a n d 4 0 , re c e iv e d th e h ig h e s t r a tin g , “ M .” See A p lt. A p p ., 4T h is r efere n ce to the rec o rd is a c h art set fo rth in the d istri ct co u rt ’s 5 o p in io n su m m a riz in g th e a g e s o f th e m e m b e rs o f

th e A R M S tea m a s w e ll as th e ir per form ance r at i ngs . W e r efe r ence thi s s um m aryforconveni ence . M r . B ol t on h as n o t t ak en issue w ith the a cc u rac yo f th is sum m ary , an d n o thing in the rec o rd ind icates tha t i t i s in e rror.

- 13- Vo l . I I a t 7 9 8 . T h r e e t e a m m e mb e r s , a g e d 5 5 , 3 4 , a n d 2 8 , r e c e i v e d a n “ H” 5
ra tin g . See i d. F i v e t e a m m e mb e r s , a g e d 5 7 , 5 0 , 4 2 , 4 1 , a n d 3 9 , r e c e i v e d a “ V” ra tin g . See i d. A nd thr ee t eam m ember s , aged 56, 49 ( M r . B ol t on) , and 27, re c e iv e d th e lo w e s t “ L ” ra tin g . See i d. at 79 7 -98 . T h ere is no ag e-related p att ern that r ai ses an i nference o f dis cri m i nati on evidenti n the di stri bu t i on of these r at i ngs . T w o t eam m ember s aged 45 a nd 40 r ece i ved the hi ghes tr at i ng and the y ounges tt eam m emberr ece i ved the l ow es tr at i ng. M or eover , M r . B ol t on’ s r at i ng w as suppo rt ed b yM s. G oo dw i n’s narrat i ve o utl i ning his perform ance is sues. M r . B ol t on nextar gues thatthe y ounges tm emberof the t eam, Sandi O zgen , w as not di scharged ev en thoug h h e, l i ke M r. B olt on , recei ved the low est rati n g fo r 20 0 2 . T h is argu m en t ov erloo k s the fa ct th at M r. O zg en left S p ri n t’ s empl oym enton A pr i l 22, 2003, appar ent l yof hi s ow n vol i t i on. M r . B ol t on w as notpl ace d on w r i t t en corr ect i ve ac t i on unt i l J ul y15, 2003, and notdi s char ged un t i l O ct ob er 3, 20 03 . N o reasonab l e i nference o f age dis cri m i nati on can ari se f ro m S p rin t’s fa ilu re to p lac e M r. O z g e n o n c o rre c tiv e a c tio n o r te rm in a te h is empl oym enti n s hor t ercour s e than i tt ook w i th M r . B ol t on.- 14-

M r. B o lto n a lso p o in ts to tw o o th e r A R M S tea m m e m b e rs, P a u l M c D o n n e ll a n d P a u l R o b in so n , w h o w e re d isc h a rg e d a s p a rt o f a re d u c tio n in fo rc e (R IF ) in 2004 w hen theyw er e appr oxi m at el y58 and 52 y ear s ol d, r es pect i vel y . Spr i nt a r g u e s th a tth e i rd i s c h a r g e i s i rr e l e v a n tb e c a u s e th e yv o l u n t a r i l yl e f tth e ARM S gr oup, w er e di s char ged fr om anothergr oup, and nei therM s . G oodw i n nor M r. S tr a n im ie r h a d a n yro le in th e d e c is io n to in c lu d e th e m in th e R IF . A s s um i ng arguendo thatthi s evi dence i s r el evanton thes e fa ct s , even th o u g h a d iffe re n t s u p e rv is o r w a s in v o lv e d in th e R IF , s ee Mendels ohn v. Spr i nt/Uni t ed M

gm t . C o. , 4 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 6 -2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (d e c lin in g to ext end the “s ame supe r vi s or ” rul e t o cont ext s otherthan thos e i nvol vi ng d is c ri m in a to ry d is c ip lin e ), w e c o n c lu d e th a t it is o f m in im a l p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . M r. B o lto n h a s n o t p ro v id e d a n ye v id e n c e o r a rg u m e n t th a t w o u ld e lim in a te nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons forSpr i nt ’ s di s char ge of M r . M cD onnel l and M r . R obi ns on. I tw oul d be unr eas onabl e, ther efor e, t o i nferthatSpr i nt m aintaine d a c o m p an y -w ide p o li cyo f a g e d iscri m ination that led to M r. B o lt o n ’s t erm i nat i on fr om the bal d fac tthatSpr i ntl ai d off tw o w or ker s aged 58 a nd 52 as pa r tof a RI F. M r . B ol t on char act er i zes the evi dence r el at i ng t o hi s per form ance i n 2003 as “s harpl yconfl i ct i ng”: s peci fi cal l y , the pr oj ecteval uat i ons compl et ed by M s . B ecke rand M s . M i t chel l ; hi s ow n vi ew of hi s per form ance ; and the i nform al as s es s m ent s — w hi ch M r . B ol t on r efe r s t o as “s ecr eteval uat i on[s ] , ” s ee A p lt.C on traryt o M r. B olt on ’s sugg est i on , w e see no i m propri et yi n the r equ est 6 thatM s . M i t chel l documentar eas of conc ern thats he had s poken t o M r . B ol t on aboutbutom i t t ed fr om an ea r l i erver s i on of the eva l uat i on.

- 15- O peni ng B r . at11— conduct ed byM s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke ri n 2003 of the te c h n ic a l a b iliti e s o f

th e A R M S te a m m e m b e rs a n d th e “ S p ri n t D im e n s io n s .” C ontr aryt o hi s fi r s tcont ent i on, M s . B ecke r ’ s pr oj ecteval uat i ons do not sh arp lyco n fli ct w ith M s. G o o d w in’s o p inion o f h is ab il ityto p erfo rm as a n S E III on the A R M S t eam. A l though M s . B ecke rdes cr i bed M r . B ol t on’ s pos i t i ve a ttribu tes , sh e a lso listed a re a s fo r g ro w th o r c o n c e rn , in p a rticu lar h is n e e d to m ake mor e i ndepende ntdeci s i ons , A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at709, and pr ovi de qui cker c o d e tu rn a ro u n d , i d. at 71 0 , co n ce rns s im il ar to tho se th at l ed to M r. B o lt o n ’s c o rr e c tiv e a c tio n a n d e v e n tu a l d is c h a rg e . Si m i l ar l y , M s . M i t chel l ’ s eval uat i on w as notunqual i fi edl ypos i t i ve but id e n tifie d p ro b le m a re a s . See i d. , V o l . I a t 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 . A d d i t i o n a l l y, 6 M s . M i t chel l ’ s opi ni on thats he s aw nothi ng i n M r . B ol t on’ s per form ance i n 2003 w arr ant i ng t erm i nat i on ( s ee s upr a not e 2) i s i ns uffi ci entt o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tas t o the opi ni ons of M s . G oodw i n, w hi ch conc erned a br oader p e ri o d o f

tim e th a n ju s t 2 0 0 3 , o r t h o s e o f M r. S tr a n im ie r. See Kendri ck v
. P ens ke Trans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F. 3d 1220, 1231 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( r el evantpr et ext i nqui ryi s how fac t s appea r ed t o the dec i s i on m aker ) . L i kew i s e, i n the pr et ext- 16-

a n a lysis , M r. B o lto n ’s o w n o p in io n o f h is p e rfo rm a n c e is ir re le v a n t. See Kel l ey v . G oodyearTi r e & R ubberC o. , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 -78 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e p a rt o f

th e re c o rd to w h ich M r. B o lto n c ites in su p p o rt o f h is c o n ten tio n th a t h e w a s ra ted th e sa m e fo r te c h n ica l p ro ficie n c yo n c e rta in comput erpr ogr amm i ng l anguage s , s y s t ems, and appl i cat i ons as otherA R M S t eam m e m b e rs w h o w e re n o t d isc h a rg e d is o f su c h p o o r p rin t q u a lityth a t w e a re u n a b le to re a d it in a n ym e a n in g f u l w a ya s to th e te c h n ic a l p ro fic ie n c ie s . See A p lt. A p p ., V o l. II at 7 1 6 . B u t ev e n a ss u m in g M r. B o lto n ’s s u m m a tio n o f th e in fo rm a tio n is ac cu rate, itsay s n o thing ab o u t w h ethe r an yo f th e o ther A R M S team m em b ers s har ed anyof the s peci fi c per form ance pr obl ems thatform ed the bas i s for M r. B olt on ’s dis charge. In fact , the record i s devo i d o f anysuch ev i den ce. T hu s, M r . B ol t on has notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng thathe w as s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he otherempl oy ees butw as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y , and ther efor e the compar i s on i s not le g a lly re le v a n t. See H ys t en v. B ur l i ngt on N. & Santa Fe Ry. C o. , 296 F. 3d 1177, 1 1 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A s t o the r at i ngs M s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke rgave hi m on the “s ecr et eval uat i ons ” pert ai ni ng t o the “Spr i ntD i m ens i ons , ” w e s ee no s harp confl i ct c re a tin g a m a te ri a l q u e s tio n o f fa c t a s to w h e th e r h is d is c h a rg e w a s p re te x tu a l. A gai n, the pr i m aryr eas ons forhi s di s char ge w er e hi s s l ow w or k pace , poor analyt i cal ski l l s, and need for assi st ance a nd app roval for decis i on s. T ho se reas on s ar e enco m passed b ythe S pri nt D i m ensi on s of “P ers on al E ffecti ven ess”- 17-

and “Leade r s hi p, ” the tw o cat egor i es forw hi ch M s . G oodw i n and M s . B ecke r both gave hi m the s ame subpa rs cor e, “4” on a s cal e of “ 1” t o “5, ” w i th “5” be i ng the l ow es ts cor e. M r . B ol t on nextcont ends thatM s . G oodw i n’ s comm ent s “thathe ‘ had the l onges tt enur e of a ny one’ on the A R M S t eam and thathe ‘ s houl d know m or e’ bas ed upon hi s y ear s of expe r i ence , ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at29, gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of age bi as . T hi s cont ent i on i gnor es the fa ctthatM s . G oodw i n m ade tho se com m ents i n the speci fi c con t ext of evaluat i ng his perform ance— that i s, M s . G oodw i n w as expr es s i ng hercr i t i ci s m of M r . B ol t on’ s s ki l l l evel i n r el at i on to th e len g th o f

tim e h e h a d w o rk e d o n th e A R M S tea m ; ith a d n o th in g to d o w ith how ol d he w as des pi t e the l i nk betw een t enur e and a ge. A n empl oy erm ay leg iti m a telyh a v e a n e x p e c tatio n th a t an e m p lo y e e ’s a b ili tyto p e rfo rm a jo b w ill i m pr ove w i th exper i ence , and nothi ng i n M s . G oodw i n’ s expr es s i on of that exp ect at i on as t o M r. B olt on sugg est s that hertrue r eason for di schargi ng him w as hi s age. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatno r eas onabl e i nfer ence of age bi as can be dr aw n fr om M s . G oodw i n’ s comm ent s , and ther efor e hercomm ent s do not cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatSpr i nt ’ s r eas on fordi s char gi ng M r. B o lto n w a s p re tex tu a l. M r . B ol t on’ s fi nal cont ent i on i s thatthe “s ecr eteval uat i on” and the s equenc e of e vent s l eadi ng up t o hi s t erm i nat i on ar e the type of “ di s turbi ng p ro c e d u ra l ir re g u la ri tie s ” th a t c a n c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f p re te x t, S i mms , 165 F. 3d- 18-

at1328. H e fi r s tpoi nt s t o the t es t i m onyof R uby e B eal , a Spr i nthum an r es our ces r epr es ent at i ve, s ugges t i ng thatther e w as no companypol i cyorgui del i nes r el at ed t o the “s ecr eteval uat i on. ” See A p lt. A p p ., V o l. II at 6 5 0 -5 1 , B e a l D e p o . at 5 8 :1 t o 63: 24. E ven i f thi s w as true, w e fa i l t o s ee how an addi t i onal eval uat i on conce rni ng char act er i s t i cs appar ent l yr ecogni zed bythe companyi s s ugges t i ve of age bi as . T o the contr ary , M s . B ecke rt es t i fi ed thats he compl et ed s uch e v a lu a tio n s fo r a n y o n e w h o a p p lie d fo r a d iffe re n t jo b w ith S p ri n t, i d. a t 6 8 1 :7 -1 2 , an d it i s u n d isp u ted th a t sh e w a s try in g to a ss ist M r. B o lto n in o b t a i n i n g a d i ffe r e n tp o s i t i o n w i th th e c o m p a n y. T h e o ther a ll eg ed p roc ed u ral i rreg u lari tyco n ce rns S p ri n t’ s corr ect i ve- act i on gui del i nes and the purpor t edl yacc el er at ed pac e atw hi ch M r. B o lto n ’s c o rr e c tiv e a c tio n p ro c e e d e d , a p p ro x im a te ly 8 1 d a y s in to ta l. A ccor di ng t o M r . B ol t on, the gui del i nes pr ovi de thata w r i t t en w arni ng w o u ld nor m al l ybe i n effectforthr ee t o ni ne mont hs and a f i nal w r i t t en w arni ng w o u ld n o rm a lly b e in e ffe c t fo r t h re e to tw e lv e m o n th s . A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 9 . M r . B ol t on poi nt s t o no r ecor d s uppor tforhi s i nt erpr et at i on, butourr evi ew i ndi cat es thatthe corr ect i ve- act i on pr oces s w as s ubj ectt o m anage m entdi s cr et i on, and that al tho ug h the aforem enti on ed ti m e fram es c o u ldbe us ed, l ocal pr act i ce c o n tr o lle d . See A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at319- 20. A ddi t i onal l y , M s . B eal t es t i fi ed that a p e rs o n c o u ld s p e n d a m in im u m o f 3 0 d a y s in e a c h p h a s e , Id. , V ol . I I at640, B e a l D e p o . at 2 0 :2 0 to 2 1 :4 ; th a t d isc re tio n is u se d to tailo r th e tim e f ra m e s to- 19-

e a c h in d iv id u a l s itu a tio n , i d. a t 6 4 7 -4 8 , B e a l D e p o . at 4 9 :1 6 to 5 0 :4 ; an d th a t a 30- dayt i m e fr ame pr ovi des a good meas ur e of a n empl oy ee’ s i m pr ovement e ffo rt s , i d. at648, B eal D epo. at51: 4- 6. T hus , the choi ces m ade a s t o M r . B ol t on w e re n o t p ro c e d u ra llyirre g u lar o r su g g e stiv e o f p re tex t. W e conc l ude thatnone of the evi dence , even w hen vi ew ed i n the aggr egat e, s ee E. E . O
. C
. v. Hor iz on/CMS Heal thcar e C or p. , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 0 0 (10 th C ir . 2000) , cr eat es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatSpr i nt ’ s r eas on fort erm i nat i ng M r. B o lto n ’s e m p lo ym e n t w a s p re tex tu a l. I I I . C oncl usi on T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge