A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he 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 ptundert he 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju n e21,2006 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 M I CH AEL SAV I LLE,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. I N TER N A TI O N A L B U SI N ESS M AC HI NE S CO RP OR AT I ON,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 4058 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 0 - CV- 6 8 1 - DB)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t M ich a e l S a v ill e a p p e a ls f ro m a su m m a ryju d g m e n t in hi s cas e forr et al i at or ycons t ruct i ve di s char ge i n vi ol at i on of the Fai rL abor S t a n d a r d s Ac t( F LS A) . W e a ffi r m.- 2- B AC KGROU ND S avil l e w orked for I nternati on al B usi ness M achines C orporat i on (I B M ) as a se n io r c u sto m e r e n g in e e r. H e w a s “ p rim a rilyre sp o n sib le fo r th e p o st s a le m ai nt enanc e of I B M equi pm enti n cus t om eracc ount s , ” w hi ch r equi r ed thathe pr ovi de “t echni cal as s i s t ance and advi ce t o l es s exper i ence d per s onnel ” and

“ d e v e lo p [ ] p o sitiv e re latio n sh ip s w ith c u sto m e r m a n a g e m e n t an d sta ff.” A p lt. Ap p . a t2 7 5 . “ S a v i l l e wa s n o ta p e r fe c te mp l o y e e , ” h o we v e r , a s h e h a d p r o b l e ms m ent or i ng and comm uni cat i ng w i th hi s peer s . A pl t . B r . at8. I n 1997, V i cki e Ful l m erbeca m e Savi l l e’ s s upervi s or . T ow ar d the end of t h e y e a r , S a v i l l e b e g a n v o i c i n g h i s c o n c e rn s t h a tI BM ’ s “ c r a c k d o wn o n o v e r t i me w as l eadi ng hi s peer s t o w or k over t i m e w i thoutr ecor di ng i tand w i thoutbei ng p a id fo r i t,” c re a tin g a m o ra le p ro b le m . Id. a t 1 1 ; see also A p lt . A p p . at 75 A . In J ul y1998, Ful l m erm etw i t h Savi l l e foran i nt er i m per form ance eval uat i on aft er s om e of Savi l l e’ s peer s compl ai ned thathe w as di ffi cul tt o w or k w i th and a c u s to m e r c o m p la in e d o f d is p a ra g in g tr e a tm e n t. A p lt. A p p . a t 1 4 2 -4 3 , 2 0 5 . D u rin g th e m e e tin g , F u llm e r re v e a led so m e o f th e c o m p lain ts a n d a c c u se d S a v ill e of havi ng a “ba d att i tude. ” Id. at88- 89. A ft erw ar d, Savi l l e s ubm i t t ed a “ Speak U p” e- m ai l t o I B M ’ s hum an r es our ces depart m ent , acc us i ng Ful l m erof “dr oppi ng m yper form ance ” r at i ng beca us e Savi l l e’ s gr oup had cr i t i ci zed he rl eade r s hi p i n a su rv e y . A p lee . S u p p . A p p . at 1 9 2 ; see also A p lt. B r. at 1 3 . In th e e -m a il, S a v ill e- 3-

a d mi t t e d , “ I t h i n k I d o h a v e a n a t t i tu d e p r o b l e m a s a r e s u l to f s o me o f my m anage r ’ s act i on and l ack of act i on . . . . ” A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at192. In Sep t em ber 199 8, S avil l e m etw i th F ull m er’ s supervi sor, B ri an M y ers , and t ol d hi m t hats om e cus t om erengi neer s w er e “grum bl i ng aboutw or ki ng over t i m e and notr ecor di ng i tand gett i ng pai d fori tbeca us e of how i t ’ s bei ng m icro-m an ag ed . ” A p lt . A p p . at 10 6 . S av il le fu rth er c o m p lai n ed that F u ll m er’s lea d e rsh ip n e g a tiv e lya ffe c ted m o ra le. F o llo w in g a n in v e stig a tio n , M y e rs to ld S av il le th at “h is at ti tud e, l ea d ersh ip, m en tori n g an d su p p o rtfo r M s. F u ll m er w ere unacc ept abl e and thathi s at t i tude pr obl em w as caus i ng cus t om ercompl ai nt s . ” Id. at149. Savi l l e w as gi ven the opt i on of bei ng pl ace d on a per form ance i m pr ovementpl an orr et i r i ng fr om I B M w i th a s ever ance packa ge. D ur i ng an O ct ober5, 1998 m eet i ng, Ful l m ert ol d Savi l l e thatthe im p ro v e m e n t p la n w o u ld b e th ir ty d a y s lo n g , i d. at121, thati tw oul d gage per form ance , l eade r s hi p, peers uppor t , m anage m ents uppor t , t eamw or k and c u s to m e r s a tis fa c tio n , i d. a t 1 2 3 , an d th a t if s h e re c e iv e d o n e c o m p lain t h e w o u ld fa il th e p la n a n d b e fir e d , i d. at121. Savi l l e w as gi ven thi r tyday s t o deci de w h ic h o p tio n to c h o o s e . Id. a t1 2 3 . On Oc t o b e r3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , S a v i l l e n o t i fi e d I BM t h a th e c h o s e r e t i r e m e n t , e ffe c t i v e th e n e x td a y. I n A ugus t2000, Savi l l e s ued I B M underthe FL SA , al l egi ng thathe w as cons t ruct i vel ydi s char ged for“voi c[i ng] hi s conce rns r egar di ng I B M ’ s pr act i ces i n r ecor di ng and pay i ng over t i m e. ” Id. a t1 3 . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d I BM- 4-

sum m aryj ud gm ent, rul i ng , am on g o ther things, that Savil l e suffered n o ad verse em ploym ent act i on . S avil l e app eal s. D I SC US SI ON I . Sum m ar y Judgment St anda r ds S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to 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 th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis 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) . A n i s s ue i s not “g en u ine,” a n d su m m aryjud g m en t w il l be w arran ted, i f n o rea so n ab le j u ry v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e c o u ld re tu rn a v e rd ic t fo r t h e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U . S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (19 8 6 ). W e re v iew “a g ran t of su m m ary j udgm entde novo w i t h an exa m i nat i on of the r ecor d and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t hatm i ghtbe dr aw n fr om i ti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng part y . ” P al l adi um Mus i c, Inc. v. E atSl eepMus i c, Inc. , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I I . The FL SA A m ong ot hert hi ngs , t he FL SA pr ohi bi t s empl oy er s fr om “di s char g[i ng] or i n anyot herm annerdi s cr i m i nat [i ng] agai ns tanyempl oy ee be caus e s uch e mp l o y e e h a s fi l e d a n yc o mp l a i n t. . . u n d e ro rr e l a t e d t o [ th e F LS A] . ” 2 9 U. S . C. § 215( a) ( 3) . T hi s “s ect i on pr ot ect s conductbas ed on a good fai th, al though unpr oven, bel i ef thatt he empl oy er ’ s conducti s i l l egal , ” and “ appl i es t o the- 5-

unoffi ci al as s ert i on of r i ght s t hr ough compl ai nt s atw or k. ” Love v. R E/ M A X of A m . , Inc. , 7 3 8 F . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). W e a n aly ze F L S A -retal iat ion claim s u n d er the b u rde n -shifti n g fra m ew o rk of McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). P achec o v. Whi t i ng Far m s , Inc. , 365 F. 3d 1199, 1206 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . U nderthatfr amew or k, the e m p lo y e e m u s t fir s t e s ta b lis h a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e o f re ta lia tio n . Id. I f the empl oy ee s ucce eds , t he empl oy erm us toffe ra l egi t i m at e, non- r et al i at oryr eas on fo r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Id. T hen, “the bur den s hi ft s back t o the empl oy ee t o s how [that ] genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s tr egar di ng w hether t he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on i s unw or thyof cr edenc e. ” Id. a t1 2 0 7 . We concl ude thatSavi l l e’ s r et al i at i on cas e fa i l s atthe fr amew or k’ s i ni t i al s t age. A n empl oy ee c annotes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r et al i at i on w i thoutan a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . S e e id . a t1 2 0 6 . S a v i l l e ’ s r e t i r e me n tf r o m I BM w oul d qual i fyas an adve r s e ac t i on onl yi f I B M del i ber at el ym ade oral l ow ed Savi l l e’ s w or ki ng condi t i ons t o become s o i nt ol er abl e thathe had no otherchoi ce b u t to re tir e . See MacKenz i e v. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 414 F. 3d 1266, 1281 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I n ot herw or ds , Savi l l e’ s r et i r ementw oul d have t o amount t o a cons t ruct i ve di s char ge, and w oul d depend upon w hethera r eas onabl e per s on w oul d vi ew t he condi t i ons atI B M as i nt ol er abl e, notupon Savi l l e’ s s ubj ect i ve v ie w o f th o s e c o n d itio n s . Id.S a v ill e ig n o re s th e f u ll ex ten t o f

M y e rs’ re m a rk s. A t h is d e p o sitio n , S a v ill e 1 t es t i fi ed thatM y er s s ai d, “‘ I w anty ou t o l eave I B M . W el l , y ou can a cce ptt he [per form ance i m pr ovementpl an] . ’ ” A pl t . A pp. at118. I n anyevent , an empl oy er ’ s s ubj ect i ve i nt ent i ons r egar di ng the empl oy ee ha ve no bea r i ng on w h e th e r t h e re w a s a c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e . B aca v. Sklar , 398 F. 3d 1210, 1216 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). S av il le also states tha t Fu ll m er a n d M y ers “ tr an sfo rm ed [a ] cu stom er’s 2 fai l ur e [t o per form i t s obl i gat i ons ] i nt o a cus t om ercompl ai ntagai ns tM r . Savi l l e. ” A pl t . B r . at38. B utSavi l l e fa i l s t o ci t e anypartof the r ecor d s how i ng s uch a t r ans form at i on. I ndeed, t he cus t om ers ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tt es t i fy i ng thati thad as ked I B M t o r emove Savi l l e fr om a pr oj ectbeca us e he “ w as obnoxi ous and ac t ed i nappr opr i at el y ” and “ w as nott r eat i ng us pr oper l yand w i th r es pect . ” A pl t . A pp. at205.

- 6- S a v ill e a rg u e s th a t a tria b le is su e o f fa c t ex ists a s to w h e th e r a re a so n a b le per s on w oul d have c hos en r et i r ementoverthe per form ance i m pr ovementpl an, b e c a u se (1 ) h e h a d re c e iv e d a n e g a tiv e in ter im e v a lu a tio n ; (2 ) h is c o m p lain ts agai ns tFul l m erw er e nots er i ous l ycons i der ed, and i ns t ead, he w as acc us ed of bei ng t he pr obl em; ( 3) M y er s t ol d hi m , dur i ng thei rSept ember1998 m eet i ng, “I w an t y o u o u t” o f IB M , A p lt . A p p . at 1 1 8 (qu o tat ion o m itted); an d (4) M y ers 1 s ai d t he dur at i on of the i m pr ovementpl an w oul d be ni netyday s , butFul l m er s hor t ened i tt o t hi r t yday s , “di d notputanythi ng on paper , ” and s ai d one compl ai ntw oul d r es ul ti n t erm i nat i on, A pl t . B r . at39. W e agr ee w i th the di s t r i ct 2 c o u rt th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fin d th e se c o n d iti o n s s o in to ler a b le a s to r enderSavi l l e’ s r et i r ementi nvol unt ary . T he i nqui ryi s notw hethert he condi t i ons at IB M w ere “d ifficu lto r un p leasa n t, ” b u t w h ethe r, at th e ti m e o f S av il le’s r et i r ement , I B M di d notal l ow hi m “the opportuni tyt o m ake a fr ee c hoi ceW e ar e notper s uaded bySavi l l e’ s s um m arycont ent i on thata thi r ty - day 3 pl an i s s om ehow m or e oner ous t han a ni nety - daypl an. N ordo w e attr i but e any w ei ghtt o Savi l l e’ s as s ert i on t hat , i f he ha d chos en the i m pr ovementpl an, he w oul d have r emai ned s ubj ectt o t erm i nat i on “a y earorm or e af t ert he s ucce s s ful c o m p le tio n o f

th e p la n ” if

h e v io la te d a n yo f

th e p la n ’s c ri te ri a , A p lt. B r. a t 3 5 . M e re s p e c u la tio n is in s u ffic ie n t to w ith s ta n d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S etl if f v. Mem ’l Ho sp . o f Sh e rida n C o u n ty , 8 5 0 F .2 d 1 3 8 4 , 1 3 9 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee als o A gnew , (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 7- r egar di ng hi s empl oym entr el at i ons hi p. ” Ex u m v . U. S . Ol y mp i c Co mm. , 389 F. 3d 1130, 1135 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . O thercour t s have he l d “that cr i t i ci s m i n per form ance r evi ew s and i ns t i tut i on of per form ance i m pr ovement pl ans , al one, do notcons t i tut e obj ect i vel yi nt ol er abl e condi t i ons . ” A gnew v. BA SFC or

p. , 2 8 6 F .3 d 3 0 7 , 3 1 0 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); accord G i vens v. C i ngular Wi rel ess , 3 9 6 F .3 d 9 9 8 , 9 9 8 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e a g re e . C f . Lybroo k v. Mem bers of Far m i ngt on Mun. Schs . B d. of E duc. , 232 F. 3d 1334, 1339 ( 10th C i r . 2000) (p lac in g e m p lo y e e o n a p ro fe ss io n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p lan a n d re q u irin g e m p lo y e e to m eetw eeklyw i t h h er s up eri or w as not an adv ers e em ploym ent act i on i n h er Fi rs t A m endmentr et al i at i on cas e) . Fur therm or e, w e have pr evi ous l yi ndi cat ed thatan empl oy er ’ s offe rof an a l t ernat i ve t o qui t t i ng i s notcons i s t entw i th cons truct i ve d is c h a rg e . S e e , e .g ., Exum , 389 F. 3d at1136. Savi l l e coul d have r emai ned at I B M and undert aken the per form ance i m pr ovementpl an. I ndeed, Savi l l e t es t i fi ed atdepos i t i on t hathe had pl ace d atl eas ts i x s ubor di nat es on ni nety - day im p ro v e m e n t p la n s a n d th e ya ll s u c c e e d e d , a lth o u g h s o m e “ fe ll o ff” a f te rw a rd . A pl t . A pp. at 127. Fi nal l y , Savi l l e w as gi ven thi r tyday s i n w hi ch t o cons i der 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 286 F. 3d at310 ( “A n empl oy ee w ho qui t s a j ob i n appr ehens i on thatcondi t i ons m a yd e ter io ra te la ter is n o t co n stru c tiv e lyd isc h a rg e d . In ste a d , the e m p lo y e e is obl i ged nott o as s um e the w or s t , and nott o j um p t o concl us i ons t oo fas t . ” (qu o tat ion o m itted)).

- 8- r emai ni ng w i t h I B M and w as verbal l ynot i fi ed of the cr i t er i a underw hi ch he w oul d be j udged i f he e l ect ed t o r emai n. T he t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s i n d i c a t e s , a s a m a t t e ro f l a w , t h a tS a v i l l e ’ s r e t i r e m e n tw a s v o l u n t a ry. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge