T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i ne 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 C our tgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgement s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. H onor abl e J ul i e A . R obi ns on, U . S. D i s tr i ctJ udge, D i s tr i ctof K ans as , s i t t i ng by ** des i gnat i on. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### F e b r u ar y 13, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT S HE RR Y HAMBY,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 5043 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 6 3 1 - T C K - F H M) AS S OC I AT E D C E NT E RS F OR T H E R A PY , a/k/ a Tul s a Sy s t ems of C ar e; L A R R Y M A R K S, i n hi s offi ci al and in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s; C A R L H A W E S , in his off i ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es; B R I A N B L A N K E N SH I P, i n hi s offi ci al and i nd i vidual capac i t i es,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B ef o re HENR Y , B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udges and RO B I NS ON , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antSher r yH ambyw as empl oy ed byA s s oci at ed C ent er s for T h e ra p y(“ A C T ” ), an a g e n c yth a t p ro v id e s s e rv ice s f o r c h ild re n a n d f

a m ili e s w ithH ambyal s o named t he O kl ahoma D epart m entof M ent al H eal th, butl at er 1 vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed thi s partyfr om the ac t i on. H ambyal s o br oughtcl ai m s fors exual and r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and an 2 O kl ahoma st at e w age l aw cl ai m . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of def endant s on t he di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s , and H ambyconce ded hers t at e w age l aw c la im . T h e s e c la im s a re n o t p re s e n te d to th is C o u rt o n a p p e a l.

“ W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo , 3 r es ol vi ng al l fac tual di s put es and dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the non- m ovi ng party . ” A r go v. B l ue C r os s & Bl ue Shi eld of Kans as , I

nc. , 452 F. 3d 1193, 1 1 9 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). W e r evi ew the fol l ow i ng fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o H amby , dr aw i ng 4 re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s th e re f

ro m . See M

et z l erv. Fed. H

om e Loan B ank of

Topeka , 464 F . 3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 7 n . 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). -2- m e n tal h e a lth p ro b lem s. A C T ter m in a ted H a m b yf ro m h e r p o sitio n a s a “ f a m ily advoca t e” i n A pr i l 2004. H ambythen fi l ed an a ct i on agai ns tA C T , L arryM arks , B ry an B l ankens hi p, and C ar l H aw s : al l egi ng r et al i at i on underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ct 1 o f 1 9 6 4 ; v i o l a t i o n s o f

th e F a i rLa b o rS t a n d a r d s Ac t( “ F LS A” ) b yf a i l i n g t o p a yo v e r t i me and fort erm i nat i on i n r et al i at i on forr eport i ng s uch w age vi ol at i ons ; vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 1985; and O kl ahoma st at e l aw cl ai m s forpubl i c pol i cyt or tand i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor 2 o f d e f e n d a n t s o n a l l o f

th e s e c l a i ms . E x e r c i s i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w, we

3 a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound 4 A C T i s a n O k l a h o m a n o n - p r o f i tc o rp o r a t i o n th a to f

f e r s o u tp a t i e n tth e r a p y, r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , a n d c a s e ma n a g e me n ts e r v i c e s t o th e s e r i o u s l yme n t a l l yi l l . Th e S y s t e ms of C ar e ( “SO C ”) B es tPr act i ce M odel i s a def i ned fe der al and s t at e pol i cyforaddr es s i ng-3-

the nee ds of m ent al l yi l l chi l dr en and thei rfami l i es . I n J anuary2001, T ul s a Sy s t ems of C ar e ( “TS O C ”) w as cr eat ed as a pr ogr am offer i ng s ervi ces forchi l dr en and f ami l i es w i th m ent al heal th pr obl ems. A C T i s the hos tagenc yof TS O C , and i tr ece i ves fundi ng a n d is u n d e r c o n tra c t w ith th e O k lah o m a D e p a rtm e n t o f M e n tal H e a lth (“ O D M H ” ) to a d m in is te r t h e T S O C p ro g ra m . AC T e mp l o y s s e v e r a l p e r s o n s i n v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s t o a d mi n i s t e rth e T S OC program , i ncludi ng a po si t i on cal l ed “f am i l yadv ocate. ” T o q uali fyfor a po si t i on as a fami l yadvoca t e, a per s on m us thave r ai s ed orl i ved w i th a chi l d w i th emot i onal pr obl ems. T he fa m i l yadvoca t e pr ovi des t ar get ed s uppor ts ervi ces , i m pl ement s a s y s t em of ca r e thati s chi l d- cent er ed w i th the nee ds of the chi l d and the fa m i l ydi r ect i ng the a p p ro p ria te s e rv ice s, a n d a ss ists in p re v e n tin g a n o u t-o f -h o m e p lac e m e n t. I n 1999, C ar l H aw s as ked H amby , a par entof a c hi l d w i th a s er i ous emot i onal dis turbanc e, t o v olunt eer and assi sti n the cr eat i on of T S O C . In her volunt eer effort s, H am b yserv ed o n b o th the stat e a n d loca l st ee ri n g co m m ittees f o r S O C . In Ja n u ary 2001, H ambybeca m e a vol unt eerfami l yadvoca t e. I n J ul y2001, H ambybegan w or ki ng as a part - t i m e, s al ar i ed advoc at e w i th A C T . I n 2003, H ambyw as hi r ed i n a fu ll -t im e p o sit ion as a fa m il yad v o ca te. A t al l r elev an t t im es, H aw s w as H am b y ’s su p erv isor. H a w s e v a lu a te d H a m b y ’s jo b p e rf o rm a n c e in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 a n d o n J u ly 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 . H a m b yre c e iv e d a g o o d ra tin g o f 8 .1 5 o n a s c a le o f

1 to 1 0 o n b o th o f

th e s e e v a lu a tio n s . H ow ever , H aw s not ed s om e conc erns w i th H amby ’ s empl oym enti n the obj ect i ves-4-

s ect i on of both eval uat i ons . I n the J anuary2002 eval uat i on, H aw s not ed thatH amby neede d t o i m pr ove hercomm uni cat i on s ki l l s byom i t t i ng foul l anguage and col or ful exampl es . H aw s w r ot e thatH ambyneede d t o “bac k off” and “l etother s do thei rw or k. ” I n the J ul y2003 eval uat i on, H aw s w r ot e thatH ambyneede d t o avoi d i nt er - offi ce confl i ct s “byunder s t andi ng thatevery one i s di ffe r ent . ” H ambycont ends thatthe comm ent s i n the obj ect i ves s ect i on w er e notm ade byH aw s , butr atherthats he id e n tifie d th e se a re a s a s n e e d in g im p ro v e m e n t. D ur i ng herempl oym entw i th A C T , H ambyr ece i ved fourr epr i m ands . She w as fi r s tr epr i m anded on O ct ober17, 2002, w hen s he r ece i ved a doc um ent ed verbal r evi ew f ro m H a w s f

o r b e in g d is re s p e c tf

u l to h im a n d o th e r s ta f f m e m b e rs d u ri n g a m e e tin g . H ambyal l eges thats he r ece i ved thi s r epr i m and af t erques t i oni ng w hetherH aw s bought comput er s forempl oy ees us i ng “fl ex funds , ” w hi ch w er e pr i m ar i l yr es erved forcl i ent fami l i es . T he O D M H i nves t i gat ed H amby ’ s al l egat i on and found no w r ongdoi ng by H a w s . H a m b yre c e iv e d tw o m o re d o c u m e n te d v e rb a l r e v ie w s o n S e p te m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 . H ambyw as r epr i m anded f oral l egedl ynegl ect i ng herdut i es w hen s he as ked her d a u g h t e rt o i n f

o r m h e re mp l o y e rth a ts h e wo u l d n o tb e a t t e n d i n g a me e t i n g wi th T S OC cl i ent s on Sept ember11, 2003. H amby ’ s daught ert el ephoned A C T thi r tym i nut es pr i or t o the meet i ng, and s he appa r ent l ys poke t o s om eone otherthan H aw s . H ambyw as f u rth e r re p rim a n d e d o n O c to b e r 6 , 2 0 0 3 , fo r f a ili n g to g iv e su p p o rt to a c lien t-f a m ily and forbei ng rude. O n O ct ober8, 2003, H ambyw as di s ci pl i ned fordi s r egar di ng the m a n a g e m e n t s y s te m b yc o m p la in in g a b o u t h e r s u p e rv is o rs a n d c o w o rk e rs .-5-

H ambyal l eges thatoverthe cour s e of he rempl oym entw i th A C T , s he s uffe r ed m a n ya b u siv e a n d re talia to rya c ts b yH a w s a n d h e r c o w o rk e rs. H a m b ya ss e rts th a t in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 , H a w s v e rb a lly a c c o s te d h e r a f te r a T S O C S te e ri n g C o m m itte e m e e tin g . D ur i ng thatm eet i ng, i tw as di s cus s ed w hethertw o vol unt eeradvoca t es s houl d be change d t o pai d s t atus , and H ambyal l eges thatH aw s oppos ed the cha nge. H amby cont ends thataft erthe meet i ng H aw s t ol d hernevert o chal l enge hi m i n publ i c aga i n, an d af ter th at i n cide n t, H aw s b ec am e ro u ti n elyv erb all yab u sive an d retali atorytow ard h e r . Ha mb ya l s o a l l e g e s th a td u r i n g a s t a f f me e t i n g o n Au g u s t8 , 2 0 0 3 , Ha ws a n n o u n c e d th a t T S O C h a d in c u rre d a b u d g e t d e f icit. H a m b yre q u e ste d d o c u m e n ts r efl ect i ng the budgetfr om H aw s and tr i ed t o r econc i l e the def i ci t . H ambydi s cover ed w h a t sh e b e liev e d to b e d isc re p a n c ies in th e b u d g e t an d e x p re ss e d h e r c o n c e rn s to H a w s . H a m b ya lle g e s th a t H a w s s c re a m e d a t h e r t h a t s h e w a s w a s tin g h e r t im e . A f ter w a rd s, H a m b yin q u ire d a b o u t th e n e e d f o r a n a u d it o f

T S O C e x p e n d itu re s to v a ri o u s d ir e c to rs o f

th e T S O C p ro g ra m . O n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , H a m b ye m a iled Ja n ice H e n d rix , ch a irp e rso n f o r th e sta te S O C S teering C o m m ittee, an d co m p lai n ed that H aw s an d o thers m ad e d ero g atory comm ent s aboutheratthe mostr ece ntm eet i ng of the C om m i t t ee. H ambyal l eges that on A ugus t14, 2003, i n r es pons e t o heremai l t o H endr i x, H aw s thr eat ened H ambyand cal l ed hera l i ar . She fur theral l eges thata cow or kerhad t o pr eventH aw s fr om fur ther acc os t i ng her . O n A ugus t20, 2003, H ambyfi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th the TS O C St eer i ng C om m i t t ee a gai ns tH aw s r egar di ng the A ugus t8, 2003 i nci dent , the A ugus t14, 2003-6-

i nci dent , the amountof herannual r ai s e, and H aw s ’ r efus al t o pr ovi de herw i th a l et t er o f re c o m m e n d a tio n . H a m b ya lso f iled a c o m p lain t w ith th e O k lah o m a H u m a n R ig h ts C om m i s s i on ( “O H R C ”) , w hi ch w as l at ertr ans ferr ed t o the Equal E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on, al l egi ng hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entand r et al i at i on bas ed on th e A u g u s t 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 in c id e n t. O n A ugus t22, 2003, R uth A r cher , a cow or kerof H amby ’ s , fi l ed a gr i evanc e a g a in st H a m b yin w h ich sh e c o m p lain e d a b o u t H a m b y ’s jo b p e rf o rm a n c e a n d th e h o stile env i ronm ent that s he w as cr eat i ng atT S O C . A rcherst at ed thatH am byw ou l d “las h out ” and s end emai l s aboutT SO C and H aw s anyt i m e thats he gotups et . A r cher e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n th a tHa mb y ’ s c o mm u n i c a t i o n s we r e n o ti n th e b e s ti n t e r e s to f T S OC a n d its c lie n ts . A rc h e r l a te r w ith d re w th is g ri e v a n c e . On Se p t e mbe r2 , 2 0 0 3 , Haws a n d Br y a n Bl a n k e n s h i p , Cl i n i c a l Di r e c t o ro f AC T, m e t w ith H a m b y . H a w s a d v ise d H a m b yth a t sh e w o u ld n e e d h is p rio r a p p ro v a l o f a ll e m a il co m m u n ica tio n s a b o u t T S O C b e f o re d iss e m in a tio n . H a m b yw a s a lso to ld n o t to compl ai n t o other s abouthers upervi s or , butr athers he s houl d “vent ” t o cert ai n, a u th o ri z e d p e rs o n s . O n S e p tem b e r 5 , 2 0 0 3 , H a w s re c e iv e d a lette r f ro m a T S O C c lien t, M ich e lle M o tisi, req u e stin g th a t H a m b yb e re m o v e d f ro m h e r c h ild ’s c a se d u e to p e rso n a lity di ffe r ence s . M ot i s i s t at ed thatH ambyhad tr eat ed herhat eful l ydur i ng a t el ephone c o n v e rs a tio n . A ta r egul ar l ys chedul ed s t aff m eet i ng on Sept ember11, 2003, H ambyal l egesT hi s s t aff m eet i ng w as a s epar at e meet i ng fr om the TS O C cl i entm eet i ng that 5 o c c u rre d o n th e sa m e d a ya n d f o r w h ich H a m b yw a s re p rim a n d e d w h e n sh e f a iled to att end. -7- thats he w as confr ont ed byhercow or ker s w i th rum or s thats he w as s endi ng out d e ro g a to rye m a ils a b o u t T S O C . T h e c o w o rk e rs e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn th a t su c h e m a ils w e re th re a te n in g th e re p u ta tio n o f T S O C a n d c re a tin g a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t. A ft erthe meet i ng, H ambyal l eges thats he s uffe r ed extr eme anxi ety , di zzi nes s , naus ea, a n d v o m iti n g . S o o n a f ter w a rd s, H a m b yf

iled a c o m p lain t w ith th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty and H aza r d A dm i ni s tr at i on ( “O SH A ”) cont endi ng thats he fe l tthr eat ened byher cow or ker s atthe Sept ember11, 2003 m eet i ng. T hi s i nci dentpr ece ded the r epr i m ands 5 th a t H a m b yre c e iv e d o n S e p te m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 . H a m b ya lleg e s th a t o n S e p tem b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , an e m e rg e n c ysta f f m e e tin g w a s h e ld to d isc u ss h e r O H R C a n d O S H A c o m p lain ts. H o w e v e r, d e f e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th is w as a norm al , r out i ne “t eambui l di ng” meet i ng l unch hel d ata Pi zza H ut . H amby al l eges thats he aga i n fel tthr eat ened byhercow or ker s atthi s m eet i ng, butther e i s no te s tim o n yb ya n yw itn e s s w h o re c a lls a n yth re a ts o r h o s tilit yd ir e c te d a t H a m b y . O n Sept ember29, 2003, anotherT SO C cl i ent , Susa n B l oxs om , r eques t ed that H ambybe r epl ace d as the fa m i l yadvoca t e as s i gned t o herchi l d’ s cas e. M s . B l oxs om c o m p la in e d a b o u t H a m b y ’s ru d e n e s s a n d u n a v a ila b ility. H ambyal l eges thati n N ovember2003, H aw s al l ow ed A r chert o dr aftand pr es ent an agr eementforH amby ’ s s i gnatur e. T he agr eementpurpor t ed t o pr ohi bi tH ambyfr om t ape r ecor di ng m eet i ngs and w oul d i m pos e cr i m i nal penal t i es i f s he vi ol at ed the-8-

a g re e m e n t. T h e re is a d is p u te a s to w h e th e r t h e a g re e m e n t w a s p re s e n te d to H a m b y . Ha mb ya l l e g e s th a tth e p r e s e n t a t i o n wa s i n t e n d e d t o i n t i mi d a t e o rh a r a s s h e r . Ha ws d e n ie s th a t h e a u th o ri z e d A rc h e r t o p re s e n t th e a g re e m e n t. O n N ov em ber 26, 2003 , H aw s and B l ank enship m etw i th H am byt o d i scuss a lle g e d s ta te m e n ts th a t s h e m a d e w h ile a tte n d in g a m e e tin g in W a s h in g to n , D .C . H ambydeni ed s peaki ng aboutthe i nt ernal bus i nes s of TS O C , butH aw s agai n r emi nded hernott o di s cus s T SO C m att er s orherconfl i ct s w i th H aw s out s i de of TSO C . H amby a lleg e s th a t th e O D M H c o n tac ted B lan k e n sh ip to sta te its c o n c e rn s a b o u t h e r c o m m e n ts t o f e d e r a l p o l i c yma k e r s . On J a n u a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , AC T r e c e i v e d a n e ma i l f r o m T S OC St eer i ng C om m i t t ee mem berR egi na R oger s - B oy ce i n w hi ch s he expr es s ed conc ern t hat H am byw as m aking repeat ed co m plai nts t o o thers abou tH aw s and T S O C . R og ers B oy ce s t at ed thats he fe l ts uch comm ent s w er e notgood “fort eam m or al e oranythi ng el s e. ” H aw s and B l ankens hi p agai n hel d anotherm eet i ng w i th H ambyon February23, 2 0 0 4 , to d isc u ss im p ro p e r c o m m u n ica tio n s th a t sh e m a d e . H a m b yh a d a lleg e d ly comm uni cat ed w i th per s ons out s i de of TSO C r egar di ng event s atthe TS O C St eer i ng C om m i t t ee meet i ng. A tthe February23, 2004 m eet i ng, H aw s di s tr i but ed a m e m o ra n d u m to a ll staf f. T h e m e m o ra n d u m , d a ted F e b ru a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , sta tes th a t all co m m u n icati o n s ab o u t T S O C b u sine ss n ee d to b e se n t t o an d ap p rov ed b yH aw s b ef o re di s tr i but i on t o the i nt ended r eci pi ent . H ambycont ends thats he w as t ol d on M ar ch 10, 2004, thatthe pol i cyappl i ed onl yt o w r i t t en comm uni cat i ons , butther e i s evi dence t hat-9-

otherempl oy ees of A C T w er e aw ar e thatthe pol i cyappl i ed t o al l ext ernal com m un i cat i on s. O n A pr i l 12, 2004, B l ankens hi p r ece i ved i nform at i on thatH ambyhad cont act ed Ca r o l S c h n e i d e r , a n e mp l o y e e a tth e ODMH, r e g a r d i n g wh e th e rth e c h i l d o f a T S OC empl oy ee c oul d be el i gi bl e forthe TS O C pr ogr am. B l ankens hi p l earned thatH amby had gi ven Schnei ders peci fi c i nform at i on aboutthe empl oy ee’ s chi l d. H ambycont ends th a t sh e o n lya sk e d g e n e ra l p o licyq u e stio n s a b o u t th e a v a ilab ili tyo f th e p ro g ra m to c h ild re n o f

T S O C e m p lo y e e s, b u t S c h n e id e r te stif ied th a t H a m b yre v e a led sp e c if ic i nform at i on aboutthe pot ent i al cl i ent . D efe ndant s cont end thatH ambydi d notr ece i ve pr i orappr oval forthi s comm uni cat i on and thats he conve y ed pr i vi l eged i nform at i on abouta pot ent i al cl i ent . H ambycont ends thats he r ece i ved perm i s s i on t o cal l Schnei der fr om A s s i s t antPr oj ectD i r ect or , M ar ci a K ees ee. B utK ees ee t es t i fi ed thats he di d not gi ve H ambyappr oval t o cal l the O D M H r egar di ng the ques t i on of w hetherthe chi l d of a n T S O C e m p lo y e e is e lig ib le f o r t h e p ro g ra m . O n the s ame daythatSchnei derr ece i ved the ca l l fr om H amby , Schnei ders entan emai l t o hers upervi s or s atthe O D M H r egar di ng the conve r s at i on. T he r el evantpor t i on of S chn ei der’ s em ai l st at es:

J us tt o gi ve y ou a hea ds up. S h e rr yH a m b yc a lle d m e o n th e w a yto w o rk th is m o rn in g . She w as veryangrythatR uth A r cher ’ s s on w as bei ng r evi ew ed bythe C ar e Team . She s ai d i tw as n’ tr i ght . She sa id th e ru les w e re c h a n g e d a n d n o o n e to ld h e r. S h e sa id th a t sh e h a d to tell G ra c e th a t sh e c o u ld n o t b e a F a m ily A dvocat e unt i l herchi l d gr aduat ed. She s ai d thatT SO C has-10- 5 or6 cas es s t i l l w ai t i ng and w on’ tbe r evi ew ed unt i l next m o n th . S h e sa id th a t itw a s u n f a ir th a t a F a m ilyA d v o c a te get s pr efe r ent i al tr eatm ent . She s ai d the rul e cha nge had not b e e n d i s c u s s e d b e f

o r e th e Co mmu n i tyTe a m. H ambyw as t erm i nat ed on A pr i l 15, 2004 for“fa i l ur e t o m eetj ob expec t at i ons . ” T h e ter m in a tio n lette r re a d s: “ [ y ]o u r f a ilu re to c lea r a ll ex ter n a l co m m u n ica tio n s w ith y ours upervi s or , C ar l H aw s , pr i ort o the tr ans m i s s i on i s the off ens e on w hi ch thi s act i on i s bei ng t aken. ” H ambyappea l ed hert erm i nat i on, w hi ch A C T deni ed. T he l ett er d e n y in g H a m b y ’s a p p e a l d isc u ss e d th e n u m e ro u s in c id e n ts in w h ich H a m b yf a iled to cl earext ernal comm uni cat i ons w i th H aw s . Fur ther , A C T concl uded i n thi s l ett erthat bas ed on al l of the compl ai nt s , i nci dent s , and r epr i m ands s urr oundi ng the comm uni cat i on pol i cy , H ambyw as ful l yaw ar e of thi s pol i cyand s he w as i n vi ol at i on o f it w h e n s h e te le p h o n e d S c h n e id e r i n A p ri l 2 0 0 4 . H a m b yth e n b ro u g h t th is a c tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof def

endant s on H amby ’ s cl ai m s of r et al i at i on underT i t l e V I I , vi ol at i ons of the FL SA byfai l i ng t o payovert i m e and f ort erm i nat i on i n r et al i at i on forr eport i ng s uch w age vi ol at i ons , vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 1985, and O kl ahoma st at e l aw cl ai m s for p u b lic p o licyto rt a n d in ten tio n a l in f lictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss . E a c h c laim is di s cus s ed i n turn. I I . D i s cus s i on A. Ti t l e VI I Cl a i ms 1. R et al i at i on T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton H amby ’ s T i t l e V I I r et al i at i on-11-

cl ai m fi ndi ng thats he had f ai l ed t o s how thatdefe ndant s ’ pr offe r ed r eas ons forher term ination w ere p retex tual. W h en an aly zing T it le V II r etali ati o n claim s, this C o u rt appl i es the McD onnel lD ouglas b u rd e n s h if tin g a p p ro a c h . A r

go v. B l ue C r os s and B l ue Shi eld of Kans as , I

nc. , 4 5 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r t h a t a p p ro a c h , a pl ai nt i ff’ s es t abl i s hm entof a p rim a fa c ie c a s e c re a te s a p re s u m p tio n o f re ta lia tio n . McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802, 93 S. C t . 1817, 1824, 36 L . E d. 2d 668 ( 1973) . T he bur den then s hi ft s t o the def endantt o pr oduce e vi dence thatthe a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n w a s ta k e n f o r a le g itim a te , n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n . I d. , 93 S. C t . at1824. I f the def endantm eet s thi s bur den, the bur den then s hi ft s back t o t he p la in tif f to p re s e n t e v id e n c e th a t th e p ro f f e re d re a s o n w a s p re te x t. Id . a t 8 0 4 , 9 3 S . C t. at1825. “To est abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e ( 1) th a t h e e n g a g e d in p ro tec ted o p p o sitio n to d isc rim in a tio n , (2 ) th a t a r e a so n a b le e m p lo y e e w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e c h a llen g e d a c tio n m a ter iallya d v e rse , an d (3 ) th a t a causal con necti on exis t ed b et w een the prot ect ed acti vityand the m at eri al l yadv ers e act i on. ” A r

go , 452 F. 3d at1202 ( ci t i ng B u rlin g to n N . & Sa n ta Fe Ry . C o . v. W h ite , ___ U .S . ___ , 1 2 6 S . C t. 24 0 5 , 2 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 1 6 5 L . E d . 2 d 3 4 5 (2 0 0 6 ); Mi l l erv. A ut o. C l ub of N . M. , I nc . , 420 F. 3d 1098, 1119 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ) . H ambyhas es t abl i s hed a p rim a fa c ie c a s e o f r e t a l i a t i o n . F i r s t , Ha mb ye n g a g e d i n p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i tyb yf i l i n g a n OHRC compl ai nti n A ugus t2003 and an O SH A compl ai nti n Sept ember2003. Second, H amby began r ece i vi ng an i ncr eas ed numberof r epr i m ands , a cha l l enged a ct i on w hi ch a-12-

r eas onabl e empl oy ee w oul d fi nd m at er i al l yadver s e. Fi nal l y , the cl os e t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een the compl ai nt s and the r epr i m ands i s s uffi ci entt o al l ow an i nfer ence thatther e w as a ca us al connec t i on betw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand the cha l l enged a c tio n . Id . ( ci t i ng A nders on v. C oors B r ew i ng C o. , 1 8 1 F . 3 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). T h e b u rde n then sh ift s to d ef en d an ts t o sh o w a leg it im ate, no n d iscri m inato ry r eas on forthe empl oym entact i on. I n thi s cas e, H ambyw as t erm i nat ed fr om her em p loym en t w h en h er su p erv isors learn ed that sh e h ad d iscl o sed a p o tential cli en t’ s confi dent i al i nform at i on aft erbei ng r epea t edl yi ns truct ed t o cl earal l ext ernal com m un i cat i on s r egardi ng T S O C bu si ness throug h h er s up ervi sor, H aw s. T his i s a leg iti m a te r e a so n to ter m in a te H a m b y . T h e re f o re , the b u rd e n sh if

ts b a c k to H a m b yto s h o w th a t th e p ro f

f e re d re a s o n f

o r h e r t e rm in a tio n w a s p re te x t f o r r e ta lia tio n . Id . T o sho w pret ext, H am bym ustprodu ce evidence o f “such w eakn esses , im p laus ibil it ies, inco n sist en cies, i n co h ere n cies, or co n tr ad ict ion s in the em p loy er’s p ro f f e re d leg iti m a te r e a so n s f o r its a c tio n th a t a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld ra tio n a lly fi nd them unw orthyof cr edenc e and he nce i nferthatthe empl oy erdi d notactforthe a s s e rt e d n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n s .” Id . ( ci t i ng Mo rg a n v . Hilt i , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ) . H ambyar gues thats he br oughtfor th evi dence t o pl ace the fol l ow i ng m at er i al fac t s i n di s put e: ( 1) w hetherdefe ndant s had an e s t abl i s hed pol i cythatr equi r ed all fo rm s o f c o m m u n icati o n reg ard ing T S O C b u sine ss to b e c leared w ith H aw s b ef o re d is s e m in a tio n ; a n d , if

s o , (2 ) w h e th e r H a m b yv io la te d th a t p o lic y .H a m b ysu g g e ste d to th e d istric t co u rt th a t th is m e m o ra n d u m w a s f a b ric a ted to 6 su p p o rth er term ination , b u t she o ff ers n o ev iden ce , o ther tha n sp ec u lat ion , to su p p o rt this all eg ati o n . C o n clus o ryall eg ati o n s, lack ing ev iden ti arysu p p o rtin the rec o rd, are in s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w p re te x t. Sa lg u e ro v . C ity o f C lo v is , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A t oral arg u m en t, d ef en d an ts st ated that the f inal d ec isi o n m ak ers w ere 7 B l ankens hi p and M arks , w hi l e H ambys t at ed thatthe dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e her -13- H a m b yc o n te n d s th a t d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o m m u n ic a tio n p o lic ya p p lie s o n ly to e m a ils . T w o of hercow or ker s t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e aw ar e of the comm uni cat i on pol i cy , and s t at ed thatthe pol i cyappl i es t o emai l comm uni cat i ons . H ow ever , i n a February23, 2 0 0 4 m e m o ra n d u m , H a w s in f o rm e d a ll T S O C sta f

f th a t a llcomm uni cat i ons about T SO C bus i nes s m us tbe s entthr ough H aw s befor e di s s emi nat i on. H ambyas s ert s that s he neve rr ece i ved thi s m emora ndum w hi l e s he w as empl oy ed atA C T , butR uth A r cher t es t i fi ed thats he r emem ber ed r ece i vi ng a mem or andum desc r i bi ng the pol i cy . E ven th o u g h tw o e m p lo y e e s te stif ied th a t th e yb e liev e d th e p o licya p p lied to e m a il comm uni cat i ons , H ambycannotcontr overtthe fa ctthatdefe ndant s ’ comm uni cat i on pol i cy , as w r i t t en i n the February23, 2004 m emora ndum , w as thatal l comm uni cat i ons w er e t o be appr oved byH aw s befor e di s s emi nat i on. 6 E ven i f H ambydi d notvi ol at e thi s pol i cybeca us e, as s he cont ends , the pol i cy appl i es onl yt o w r i t t en comm uni cat i ons orthats he had pe r m i s s i on t o m ake the t el ephone c al l , the C our tm us t“l ook atthe fa ct s as theyappea rt o the per s on m aki ng t he deci s i on t o t erm i nat e the pl ai nt i ff. ” Kendr i ck v . P ens ke Tr ans p. Ser vs . , I

nc. , 220 F. 3d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In th is c a se , the p e o p le m a k in g th e d e c isio n to ter m in a te H ambyw er e B l ankens hi p, M arks and H aw s . A tthe t i m e of he rt erm i nat i on, the 7empl oym entw as m ade byH aw s . T he r ecor d s how s thatal l thr ee pa r t i ci pat ed i n the

t erm i nat i on deci s i on. Fi r s t , defe ndant s conce ded t o the di s tr i ctcourtthatal l thr ee peopl e made the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e H amby . A pl t . A pp. at23. Fur ther , i n a l ett er fr om M arks t o H ambyi nform i ng herof hert erm i nat i on, M arks s t at ed thathe r evi ew ed th e m a te ri a l p re p a re d b yB la n k e n s h ip a n d H a w s re c o m m e n d in g H a m b y ’s te rm in a tio n . A pl t . A pp. at144. T he l ett ers t at es thatthe r eas on forH amby ’ s t erm i nat i on i s her f a ilu re to c le a r c o m m u n ic a tio n s w ith H a w s , p ri o r t o th e tr a n s m is s io n . Id . H ambycont ends thats he r ece i ved perm i s s i on fr om K ees ee t o t el ephone 8 Schnei der , butK ees ee t es t i fi ed thats he di d notgi ve H ambyappr oval . E ven i f H amby r ece i ved appr oval fr om K ees ee, as H ambycont ends , K ees ee a uthor i zed he rt o cal l t o s ee i f the SO C pol i cyhad bee n change d. A pl t . A pp. at225. B as ed on herow n as s ert i on, H ambyonl yhad perm i s s i on t o as k gener al pol i cyques t i ons , and K ees ee c l ear l ydi d not author i ze H amby ’ s comm uni cat i on of confi dent i al i nform at i on. H a m b ya rg u e s th a t S c h n e id e r, as a m e m b e r o f th e S O C sta f

f , h a d f u ll ac c e ss to 9 al l confi dent i al i nform at i on of A C T and of SO C cl i ent s , and ther efor e H ambydi d not d isc lo se c o n f

id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n w h e n sh e d isc u ss e d sp e c if ic in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th is e mp l o y e e ’ s c h i l d . Bu td e f e n d a n t s a r g u e th a tS c h n e i d e r , a s a n e mp l o y e e o f th e ODMH, di d nothave a cce s s t o confi dent i al i nform at i on r egar di ng pot ent i alcl i ent s . A s s t at ed a b o v e , th e C o u rt m u s t lo o k a t th e f a c ts a s th e ya p p e a r t o th e d e c is io n m a k e r. Kendr i ck , 220 F. 3d at1231. A tthe t i m e of he rt erm i nat i on, the dec i s i onm aker s had r ece i ved -14- deci s i onm aker s had i nform at i on thatH ambyhad pl ace d the t el ephone c al l , unauthor i zed underthe comm uni cat i on pol i cy , and thats he had di vul ged conf i dent i al i nform at i on r egar di ng a pot ent i al cl i ent . A ft erSchnei derr ece i ved H amby ’ s t el ephone c al l , s he s ent an emai l t o hers upervi s or s atthe O D M H des cr i bi ng thei rconver s at i on, i ncl udi ng that H ambyhad r evea l ed conf i dent i al i nform at i on abouta pot ent i al cl i ent . O ne of Schnei der ’ s s upervi s or s cont act ed B l ankens hi p and i nform ed hi m thatH ambyhad gi ven Schnei ders peci fi c i nform at i on aboutthe empl oy ee’ s chi l d. B l ankens hi p al s o l earned thatH ambydi d nothave pe r m i s s i on t o m ake thi s t el ephone c al l . T he uncontr overt ed 8 evi dence s how s thatthe dec i s i onm aker s knew atthe t i m e of he rt erm i nat i on thatH amby had di vul ged conf

i dent i al i nform at i on abouta pot ent i al cl i ent , w i thoutperm i s s i on t o do 9i nform at i on thatH ambyhad di s cl os ed conf i dent i al i nform at i on t o Schnei derand te rm in a te d H a m b yf

o r i n itia tin g th is c o m m u n ic a tio n .

-15- s o , th e re b yp ro v id in g th e re a s o n f o r h e r t e rm in a tio n . T o the ext entH ambycont ends thatB l ankens hi p and M arks r el i ed on pr et extual r eas ons , pr ovi ded byH aw s , and gave per funct oryappr oval t o t erm i nat e H ambybas ed on H aw s ’ r ecomm endat i on, the C our tr ej ect s s uch cl ai m s . U nderthe “rubbers t amp” doctr i ne, a pl ai nt i ff c an br i ng a Ti t l e V I I cl ai m w hen “a deci s i onm akergi ves p e r f u n c t o ry a p p r o v a l f

o ra n a d v e r s e e m p l o ym e n ta c t i o n e x p l i c i t l y r e c o m m e n d e d b y a bi as ed s ubor di nat e. ” E . E . O . C . v. B C I C oca- C ola B ot t l i ng C o. of Los Angel es , 450 F. 3d 476, 484 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Hi l lv. Lockhee d Mar t i n Logis t i cs M gm t . , I nc. , 354 F. 3d 277, 288 ( 4th C i r . 2004) ) . T hi s C our thas hel d thatfora pl ai nt i ff t o pr evai l on such a c l ai m , she m ustshow that a bi ased sub ordi nate’ s di scr i m i natoryreport s, re c o m m e n d a tio n , o r o th e r a c tio n s c a u s e d th e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Id . a t 4 8 7 . A l though H aw s w as i nvol ved i n the t erm i nat i on deci s i on, B l ankens hi p, as the C l i ni cal D i r ect orof A C T , w as al s o act i vel yi nvol ved i n H amby ’ s t erm i nat i on, and not m er el ya “rubbers t amp. ” I n thi s cas e, B l ankens hi p i ndepende nt l yi nves t i gat ed the a lle g a tio n s o f

H a m b y ’s im p ro p e r c o m m u n ic a tio n s . S e e id . at488 ( “[A ] n empl oy ercan avoi d l i abi l i tybyconduct i ng an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of the al l egat i ons agai ns tan em p loy ee . ”). I n fa ct, B lank en sh ip w as c lose lyinv o lved in d isci p li n ing p lai n ti ff ’s im p ro p e r c o m m u n ica tio n s in th e m o n th s p re c e d in g h e r te rm in a tio n . B lan k e n sh ipT he r ecor d s how s thatB l ankens hi p att ended meet i ngs w i th H ambyon 10 S e p te m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 3 , N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d F e b ru a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . H a m b yc o n ten d s th a t H a w s to ld h e r th a t th e c o m m u n ica tio n p o licya p p lies o n ly 11 t o e m a ilco m m u n icati o n s, an d there fo re, he r t el ephone conver s at i on di d notvi ol at e the pol i cyand w as nota val i d bas i s forhert erm i nat i on. A pl t . A pp. at224. E ven ac cept i ng H amby ’ s al l egat i on as true, H aw s ’ al l eged s t at ementof the pol i cyw oul d notnegat e the vi ew s of B l ankens hi p and M arks w ho det erm i ned thatH amby ’ s t el ephone c al l w as u n a u th o ri z e d u n d e r t h e c o m m u n ic a tio n p o lic y . -16- p arti cipa ted in m ee ti n g s w ith H am b yo n sev era l occ asio n s in w h ich h e a n d o thers 10 addr es s ed H amby ’ s i m pr oper , ext ernal comm uni cat i ons . B l ankens hi p s t at ed thatatthe February23, 2004 m eet i ng, he i nform ed H amby , and s he expr es s ed an unde r s t andi ng, th a t “ c o m m u n ic a tio n ” in c lu d e d v e rb a l a s w e ll a s w ri tte n . A p lt. A p p . a t 1 2 8 . A m emora ndum w as i s s ued thats ame dayt o al l s t aff i nform i ng them of t he comm uni cat i on pol i cy . B l ankens hi p l earned on A pr i l 12, 2004 thatH ambyhad made 11 an unauthor i zed t el ephone c al l , and he s t at ed i n H amby ’ s appea l of hert erm i nat i on,

“ [ o ]n th e b a sis o f

th is c o n tac t, an d th a t y o u h a d b e e n re p e a ted lyc o u n se led p re v io u sly re g a rd in g o u tsid e c o n tac t h a v in g to d o w ith T S O C b u sin e ss , m a n a g e m e n t d e e m e d th is s er i ous conductt o w arr anti m m edi at e t erm i nat i on. ” A pl t . A pp. at128. T her efor e, the r ecor d s how s thatB l ankens hi p’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e H ambyw as bas ed on her i m pr oper , ext ernal comm uni cat i on and w as notbas ed on anyof the al l eged pr et extual re a s o n s a ttr ib u te d to H a w s . A lso , the re c o rd sh o w s th a t M a rk s, a s E x e c u tiv e D ire c to r o f A C T , m a d e h is deci s i on t o t erm i nat e H ambyaft err evi ew i ng B l ankens hi p and H aw s ’ r ecomm endat i ons and det erm i ni ng thatH ambyvi ol at ed the comm uni cat i on pol i cy . W hi l e M arks-17-

cons i der ed H aw s ’ r ecomm endat i on, M arks al s o r el i ed on B l ankens hi p’ s val i d r eas on for r ecomm endi ng H amby ’ s t erm i nat i on— heri m pr operext ernal comm uni cat i on— and M arks det erm i ned thathercomm uni cat i on di d, i n fac t , vi ol at e the comm uni cat i on pol i cy . H ambyhas nots how n thatH aw s ’ al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat oryr ecomm endat i on caus ed hert erm i nat i on w hen M arks al s o r el i ed on B l ankens hi p’ s val i d r eas on forfi r i ng H amby . T hus , M arks bas ed hi s deci s i on on a val i d r eas on forH amby ’ s t erm i nat i on, a n d th e re is n o e v id e n c e o f p re tex t. H ambyal s o cont ends thatpr et exti s es t abl i s hed bythe t i m i ng betw een he r compl ai nt s and the adve r s e empl oym entact i ons t aken a gai ns ther . “C l os e t empora l proxim i tybetw een the em ploy ee’s com plai nt and t he ad verse em ploym ent act i on i s a fac t ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas on i s a pr et extfor r et al i at i on. ” P as tr an v. K- Mark C or p. , 2 1 0 F . 3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B u t m ere con j ecture that defend ants act ed w i th d i scr i m i natoryreas on s i s not s uff i ci ent t o est abli sh p re te x t. A nnet tv. U

ni ver s i t y of Kans as , 371 F. 3d 1233, 1241 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng A nders on v. C oors B r ew i ng C o. , 181 F. 3d 1171, 1179 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ) . H ambyar gues th a t th e e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t af ter sh e m a d e h e r c o m p lain ts, sh e su f f e re d re talia tio n in that sh e b eg an rec eivin g an incre ase d n u m b er o f re p ri m an d s. B u t, as th e d istri ct co u rt not ed, al l of the r epr i m ands thatH ambyr ece i ved ar e t i ed t o an i m pr operact i on by H amby , and ther e i s no evi dence thatthe r epr i m ands r es ul t ed fr om hos t i l i tybas ed on h e r c o m p la in ts . Fur ther , H ambyas s ert s thatther e i s addi t i onal evi dence of pr et exti ncl udi ng her-18-

al l egat i ons thatH aw s verbal l yas s aul t ed heron s ever al occa s i ons , hercont ent i on thatt he O D M H w a s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t h e r c o m m e n ts to f e d e ra l p o licy m a k e rs a n d th a t sh e w o u ld c o n t a c tl e g i s l a t o r s i n th e f u tu r e , a n d th e f

a c tth a tHa mb yh a d r e c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e v i e ws befor e s he fi l ed hercompl ai nt s . H ow ever , none of thes e al l egat i ons demonstr at e any w eakne s s es ori m pl aus i bi l i t i es i n defe ndant s ’ l egi t i m at e r eas on fort erm i nat i ng her empl oym entaft erl earni ng thatH ambyhad made an unauthor i zed c om m uni cat i on and di vul ged conf

i dent i al i nform at i on, and a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d notr at i onal l yfi nd thi s r eas on unw or thyof cr edenc e. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatthes e al l egat i ons ar e notevi dence of pr et extt o r ebutdefe ndant s ’ l egi t i m at e r eas on fort erm i nat i ng H a m b y . B e c a u se H a m b yh a s f a iled to ra ise a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t as to wh e th e rd e f

e n d a n t s ’ p r o f

f e r e d r e a s o n f

o rh e rt e r mi n a t i o n i s p r e t e x tf o rr e t a l i a t i o n , we aff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm enti n favorof def endant s as to th is c la im .

2. Cow orkerR etaliati on Foran empl oy ert o be hel d l i abl e forcow or kerr et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i ff musts how thats upervi s or s orm anage m entper s onnel ei ther( 1) or ches tr at ed the har as s m entor( 2) knew aboutthe har as s m entand ac qui es ced i n i ti n s uch a manneras t o condone a nd e n c o u ra g e th e c o w o rk e rs ’ a c tio n s . G u n n e ll v. Uta h V a lley S ta te C o ll. , 152 F. 3d 1253, 1 2 6 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B e c a u se T itl e V II is n e ith e r a g e n e ra l civ ili tyc o d e n o r d o e s it pr ovi de r el i ef f

orthe or di narytr i bul at i ons i n the w or kpl ace , i nci dent s of rudenes s by c o w o rk e rs a re in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c la im f o r r e ta lia tio n . Id . ( ci t i ng Fa ra g h e r v . C ity-19-

of B oca Rat on , 524 U . S. 775, 788, 118 S. C t . 2275, 2286–84, 141 L . E d. 2d 662 (1 9 9 8 )) . H ambyr el i es on tw o i nci dent s as evi dence t o s uppor thercl ai m forcow or ker r et al i at i on. Fi r s t , H ambycont ends thatan emer gencys t aff m eet i ng w as hel d on Sept ember24, 2003, and thatthi s m eet i ng w as cal l ed s peci fi cal l yt o addr es s her compl ai nt s t o O SH A and the O H R C . H ambyfi l ed herO SH A compl ai ntaft era meet i ng on Sept ember11, 2003, i n w hi ch hercow or ker s di s cus s ed hercomm uni cat i on of i nt ernal i nform at i on aboutT SO C t o out s i de s our ces and herconfl i ctw i th H aw s . H amby c o n t e n d s th a tHa ws c a l l e d th e S e p t e mb e r2 4 me e t i n g t o a d d r e s s Ha mb y ’ s OS HA c o m p lain t, an d sh e a rg u e s th a t H a w s’ a tten d a n c e a n d p a rticip a tio n in th e m e e tin g is c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t h e o rc h e stra ted a n d c o n d o n e d th e h a ra ss m e n t th a t alle g e d ly t oo k p l ace atthe m eet i ng . H ow ever, H am byoff ers no evidence to r efute that this w as a r egul ar l ys chedul ed “t eam bui l di ng” meet i ng hel d ata Pi zza H ut , att ended byA C T and T SO C empl oy ees t o bui l d pos i t i ve, w or ki ng r el at i ons hi ps . H ambypoi nt s t o an unoffi ci al tr ans cr i ptthatpurpor t s t o documentthe di s cus s i ons atthe Sept ember24 m eet i ng. B utthe di s tr i ctcourtnot ed thatthr oughoutthe tr ans cr i pt , i tappea r s that H a m b y ’s c o w o rk e rs w e re u n a w a re th a t sh e h a d m a d e th e c o m p lain ts. F u rth e r, th e re is no evi dence i n thi s tr ans cr i ptthatH aw s or ches tr at ed orcondoned a nyal l eged h a ra s s m e n t a t th e S e p te m b e r 2 4 m e e tin g . A s t o the s econd i nci dent , H ambyal l eges thatH aw s condoned the dr aft i ng and pr es ent at i on of an a gr eementt o H ambyforhers i gnatur e thatw oul d pr eventherfr om-20-

t ape r ecor di ng m eet i ngs . T her e i s evi dence thatH ambyw as t ape r ecor di ng m eet i ngs at A C T , an d th a t th is w a s c re a tin g a n in ter n a l co n f lict a m o n g th e sta f

f. It i s u n c lea r a s to w hetherH ambyw as actual l ypr es ent ed w i th thi s agr eement . H ambyar gues thati tcan be i nferr ed fr om R uth A r cher ’ s t es t i m onythatthe agr eementw as pr es ent ed t o H amby and thati ti s uncontr overt ed thatH ambyr ece i ved the agr eement . A s s um i ng thatH amby w a s p re se n ted w ith th e a g re e m e n t f o r h e r sig n a tu re , sh e c a n n o t p ro v id e e v id e n c e to s how thatthe pr es ent at i on of the agr eementw as r et al i at i on agai ns ther . R ather , the r ecor d s how s thatH amby ’ s t api ng of m eet i ngs w as cr eat i ng an i nt ernal confl i ctthat defe ndant s s oughtt o r es ol ve. W hi l e H ambyal l eges thats he s uffe r ed har as s m entw hen s he w as pr es ent ed thi s agr eement , heral l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci entt o br i ng a cl ai m for c o w o rk e r r e ta lia tio n , f

o r s u c h a n o rd in a ry trib u la tio n in th e w o rk p la c e . I n addi t i on t o thes e tw o i nci dent s , H ambyar gues thatthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s s how thathers upervi s or s or ches tr at ed har as s m ent . H ambycont ends that al l of the eve nt s des cr i bed above , w hen t aken a s a w hol e, s uppor thercl ai m for co w o rke r retal iat ion . H o w ev er, ev en w h en v iew ing all o f th ese incid en ts t o g ethe r, H a m b yh a s f

a iled to p u t f

o rth a n ysp e c if

ic f a c ts o r e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld i nferthats upervi s or s orm anage m entor ches tr at ed, condoned orencour aged c ow or ker retali ati o n . A cc o rdin g ly , b ec au se th ere is i n su ff ici en t evid en ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rt a c laim a g a in st d e f

e n d a n ts b a se d o n c o w o rk e r re talia tio n , su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is cl ai m i s aff

i r m ed.T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a s s u m e d , w ith o u t d e c id in g , th a t th e F L S A a p p lie d to A C T . 12 D efe ndant s ar gue thatthe FL SA does notappl yt o A C T beca us e the D epart m entof Lab orc on c l ud e d the s a me. Li ke the di s tr i c tc ou r t , w e w i l l a s s ume tha tthe FLSA a p p lie s to A C T w h e n a n a lyzi n g H a m b y ’s F L S A c la im s . -21- B . F L S A O v e r tim e C la im T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton H amby ’ s FL SA overt i m e w age c l a i m f i n d i n g th a ts h e q u a l i f

i e s f o rth e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e e x e mp t i o n f r o m th e F L S A. 12 U nder29 U . S. C . § 207, an empl oy eri s r equi r ed t o payan empl oy ee ove r t i m e w ages unl es s the empl oy ee f

i t s i nt o an exe m pt i on under29 U . S. C . § 213. “Exem pt i ons t o the F L S A a re to b e n a rro w lyc o n stru e d ; th e e m p lo y e r m u st s h o w th e e m p lo y e e s f it ‘p lain ly and unmi s t akenl yw i thi n [the exe m pt i on’ s ] t erm s . ’ ” R ei ch v. W yom i ng , 993 F. 3d 739, 741 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W hetherH amby ’ s empl oym entact i vi t i es p lain lya n d u n m ista k e n lyf it i n to th e e x e m p tio n a n d e x c lu d e h e r f ro m F L S A c o v e ra g e is q u e s t i o n o f

l a w th a twe r e v i e w de novo . Id . ( ci t i ng I ci cl e Seaf

oods , I nc. v. W or thi ngt on , 4 7 5 U .S . 7 0 9 , 7 1 4 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 5 2 7 , 1 5 3 0 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 7 3 9 (1 9 8 6 )) . T he di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on 29 C . F. R . § 541. 214 ( 2002) , w hi ch pr ovi des that em p loy ee s w h o are co m p en sated o n a sa laryb asis rate o f a t l ea st $2 5 0 . 0 0 p er w ee k are e x e m p t f ro m th e o v e rtim e re q u ire m e n ts p ro v id e d th a t “th e e m p lo y e e ’s p rim a ryd u ty c o n sis ts o f

e ith e r th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

o f f ice o r n o n m a n u a l w o rk d ire c tlyre late d to m anage m entpol i ci es orgener al bus i nes s oper at i ons of the empl oy er. . . w her e the per form ance of s uch pr i m arydutyi ncl udes w or k r equi r i ng the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on andT h e 2 0 0 2 v e riso n o f th is C .F .R . reg u latio n w a s in e f f e c t at a ll t im e s p e rtin e n t to 13 th is c a s e . T h is re g u la tio n h a s b e e n a m e n d e d a n d c o d if ie d a t 2 9 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .2 0 0 . -22- i ndepende ntj udgm ent . ” I ti s undi s put ed thatH ambym eet s the s al aryr equi r ement , and 13 ther efor e w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherH amby ’ s pr i m arydut i es cons i s t ed of of fi ce or nonm anual w or k di r ect l yr el at ed t o m anage m entpol i ci es orgener al bus i nes s oper at i ons i n w hi ch s he exe r ci s ed di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm enti n herpos i t i on. H ambyar gues thatherj ob des cr i pt i on fai l s t o m eetthe r equi r ementthather “p ri m aryd u tyco n sist s o f e ith er the p erf o rm an ce o f th e o ff

ice o r no n m an u al w o rk di r ect l yr el at ed t o m anage m entpol i ci es orgener al bus i nes s oper at i on of the empl oy er . ”

“ T h e p h ra s e ‘d ir e c tly re la te d to th e m a n a g e m e n t o r g e n e ra l b u s in e s s o p e ra tio n s . . .’ descri bes t ho se types of act i vit i es r el at i ng t o the adm i nis trat i ve o perat i on s of a b usi ness a s d is tin g u is h e d f

ro m ‘p ro d u c tio n ’ o r, i n a re ta il o r s e rv ic e e s ta b lis h m e n t, ‘ s a le s ’ w o rk .” 29 C . F. R . § 541. 205( a) ( 2002) . T he Fi fth C i r cui thas des cr i bed the di s t i nct i on betw een th e se tw o typ e s o f

w o rk a s: “ b e tw e e n th o se e m p lo y e e s w h o se p rim a ryd u tyis a d m in iste rin g th e b u sin e ss a f f a irs o f th e e n terp rise f

ro m th o se w h o se p rim a ryd u tyis produ ci ng the co m m od i tyor com m od i t i es, w hethergo od s or s ervi ces, that the en t erpr i se exi s t s t o pr oduce a nd m arket . ” D alhe i m v . KD FW - TV , 9 1 8 F . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 0 (5th C ir . 1990) . H ambycont ends thats he pr oduced a comm odi tyforA C T bycarry i ng outthe d a y -t o -d a yo p e ra tio n s o f A C T . H ambydes cr i bes herdut i es as a fa m i l yadvoca t e as fol l ow s : “( 1) [s ] uppor tfor the chi l d and hi s /herfami l y ; ( 2) [b] e ac t i ve mem berof the l ocal t eams; ( 3) [b] e a m emberof the fa m i l yt eam t o as s i s ti n the s tr engths and the as s es s m entand ca r e pl anT he di s tr i ctcourtci t ed the curr entver s i on of thi s r egul at i on, codi fi ed at29 14 C .F .R . § 5 4 1 .2 0 2 (a ). W h ile th e tw o v e rsio n s a re su b sta n tiv e lyp a ra llel, th e C o u rt w ill ap p lythe 2 0 0 2 v ersion o f th is r eg u lat ion b ec au se itw as in ef fe ct du ri n g H am b y ’s e mpl o yme n twi th AC T. -23- devel opm ent ; ( 4) [t ] o m edi at e betw een the fa m i l i es and the pr ofes s i onal s ; ( 5) [a] tt i m es pr ovi de tr ans por t at i on; ( 6) [t ] o fi l l outand s ubm i t‘ fl ex form s ’ forthe fa m i l i es as neede d; ( 7) [t ] o att end ors peak a tconfe r ence s as neede d and as s i gned bythe Pr oj ect D i r ect or ; and, ( 8) [o] therdut i es as as s i gned bythe Pr oj ectD i r ect or . ” A l l of thes e dut i es ar e the type of w or k thati s di r ect l yr el at ed t o as s i s t i ng w i th the runni ng ors ervi ci ng of A C T . H amby ’ s j ob r equi r ed hert o as s i s tcl i entfami l i es byadvi s i ng and couns el i ng them reg ard ing their pro b lem s an d b yad v o ca ti n g fo r th em in o rde r t o p rom o te A C T ’s go al of h el ping fam i l i es of m ental l yi l l chil dren. In provi ding supp ortt o these fam i l i es, H amby ’ s j ob dut i es cannotbe l i kened t o the type of w or k per form ed on a manufac tur i ng p rod u cti o n li n e o r i n sell ing a p rod u ct i n a re tai l or serv ice e stab li sh m en t. H am b y ’s w or k i n pr ovi di ng s ervi ces t o the cl i entfami l i es w as notaki n t o pr oduct i on ors al e of a comm odi ty ; r ather , herw or k w as di r ect l yr el at ed t o the gene r al bus i nes s oper at i ons of AC T. Fur ther , H ambycont ends thats he di d notexer ci s e the r equi s i t e di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm enti n herempl oym entpos i t i on. “[T] he exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm enti nvol ves the compar i s on and the eva l uat i on of pos s i bl e cour s es of conductand ac t i ng orm aki ng a dec i s i on aft erthe var i ous pos s i bi l i t i es have be en cons i der ed. ” 29 C . F. R . § 541. 207( a) ( 2002) . T he exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and 14 i ndepende ntj udgm ent“i m pl i es thatthe per s on has the author i tyorpow ert o m ake a n-24-

in d e p e n d e n t ch o ice , fr e e f ro m im m e d iate d ire c tio n o r su p e rv isio n a n d w ith re sp e c t to m att er s of s i gni fi canc e. ” Id . H ow ever , empl oy ees can e xer ci s e di s cr et i on and ind ep en d en t j u d g m en t “de sp it e the fa ct th at th eir de cisi o n s o r reco m m en d ati o n s are r evi ew ed ata hi gherl evel . ” Id . at§ 207( e) ( 2) . T he exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm entr equi r es m or e than “w or k al ong s t andar di zed l i nes i nvol vi ng w el l - es t abl i s hed t echni ques and pr ocedur es w hi ch mayhave be en ca t al oged and des cr i bed i n m anual s orothers our ces . ” Id . at§ 207( c) ( 2) . T ypes of w or k thatdo not r equi r e the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm enti ncl ude cl er i cal or s e c re ta ri a l w o rk , h ig h ly te c h n ic a l a n d m e c h a n ic a l o p e ra tio n s , a n d o th e r r o u tin e w o rk . Id . at §§ 2 0 7 (c)(5), ( c)(7 ), (d)(2 ). I n addi t i on t o the j ob dut i es pr evi ous l yl i s t ed, H ambys t at es thatherpos i t i on r equi r ed her“t o be ther e forthe par enttw enty - four - hour s - a- day , s even- day s perw eek byt el ephone ori n per s on w hen the fa m i l yw as i n cr i s i s due t o an epi s ode i nvol vi ng t he chi l d ort o as s i s tw i th a t empora r yl ack of r es our ces , hel p the par entl earn how t o cope w i th and as s ertthemsel ves w i th the court s , s oci al s ervi ces , pr ofes s i onal s , doct or s , and the educ at i onal s y s t em. ” B as ed on H amby ’ s des cr i pt i on of herpos i t i on, s he w as re q u ire d to c o u n se l an d a d v ise h e r c lien t f a m ili e s m a k in g , as th e d istric t co u rt a c c u ra tely des cr i bed, “game- t i m e” de ci s i ons i n or dert o pr ovi de s uppor tt o hercl i entfami l i es and t o pr om ot e A C T ’ s goal of hel pi ng the ment al l yi l l . I n thi s empl oym entpos i t i on, H amby e x e rc is e d d is c re tio n a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t w h e n h e lp in g th e c lie n t f a m ilie s . T herefore, H am byqu al i fi es for the ad m i nis trat i ve ex em pti on un der the F L S A becau se-25-

h e rwo r k d i r e c t l yr e l a t e d t o ma n a g e me n tp o l i c i e s o rg e n e r a l b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s o f ACT a n d sh e e x e rc ise d d isc re tio n a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t in h e r p o sitio n a s a f a m ily advoca t e. A s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, H ambyw as t erm i nat ed forfai l i ng t o fol l ow the comm uni cat i on pol i cy , butdefe ndant s ’ r equi r ementthatH ambygai n pr i orappr oval of h er c o m m u n icati o n s d o es n o t al ter th e a n aly sis. H am b y ’s co m m u n icati o n s w ith o thers r egar di ng T SO C ar e notpartof herj ob des cr i pt i on, buteven i f theyw er e partof herj ob des cr i pt i on, an empl oy ee c an exe r ci s e di s cr et i on and i ndepende ntj udgm enteven i f her e m p lo ym e n t a c tiv itie s a re re v ie w e d b yh ig h e r m a n a g e m e n t. See 2 9 C .F .R . § 541. 207( e) ( 2) ( 2002) . B eca us e H ambydoes notqual i fyas an admi ni s tr at i ve empl oy ee, s h e is e x e m p t f

ro m F L S A o v e rt im e c o v e ra g e , a n d h e r c la im u n d e r t h is s ta tu te f a ils . C . F L SA R et al i at i on 29 U . S . C . § 2 15 prohibi t s an em ploy er fr om dis chargi ng or di scr i m i nati ng against an em p loy ee fo r ex erc isi n g ri g h ts un d er the F L S A . F L S A retali ati o n claim s are anal y zed unde rthe McD on nell D ou glas b u rd e n -s h if

tin g f ra m e w o rk . P achec o v. W hi t i ng Far m s , I nc. , 365 F. 3d 1199, 1206 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng R i chm ond v. O N E O K , I nc. , 120 F. 3d 205, 209 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ) . H ambyar gues thats he meet s the fi r s tpr ong of the McD on nell

D ou glas t es tbeca us e s he has es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e cas e of r et al i at i on by s h o wi n g th a t( 1 ) s h e e n g a g e d i n p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i tywh e n s h e f i l e d a c l a i m f

o ro v e r t i me w ages on A pr i l 6, 2004; ( 2) s he s uffe r ed an a dver s e empl oym entact i on w hen s he w as-26-

t erm i nat ed on A pr i l 15, 2004; and ( 3) ther e i s a ca s ual connec t i on bas ed on the t empora l pr oxi m i tybetw een the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand the adve r s e empl oym entact i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o appl ythe McD on nell D ou glas b u rd e n -sh if

tin g a n a ly sis a n d sim p ly fou nd that “[t ]he r ecord sho w s, ov erw helm i ng l y , that Pl ai nti ff w as t erm i nated becau se sh e v iolated leg it im ate d ir ec ti v es o f h er su p erv isors an d there b yjeop ard ized T S O C ’s a b ility to e f

f e c tiv e ly se rv e its c lie n te le .” A p lt. A p p . a t 5 7 4 . A ppl y i ng the appr opr i at e ana l y s i s t o H amby ’ s cl ai m , w e neve r thel es s aff i r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent . W e agr ee w i th H ambythats he has es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of r et al i at i on. H ambyengage d i n pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw hen she fi l ed h er cl ai m for ov ert i m e w ages on A pri l 7, 20 04 , and she suffered an adv ers e empl oym entact i on w hen s he w as t erm i nat ed ei ghtday s l at eron A pr i l 15, 2004. T he tem p o ra l p ro x im ityb e tw e e n th e p ro tec ted a c tiv itya n d th e a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n is s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a ca s ual connec t i on t o m ake outa pr i m a f aci e c a s e o f

re ta lia tio n . C om par e Anders on v. C oors B r ew i ng C o. , 181 F. 3d 1171, 1179 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( s i xw eek t i m e per i od betw een pr ot ect ed conduc tand adve r s e empl oym entact i on w as s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe ca us at i on pr ong t o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie ca se) w i th R i chm ond , 120 F. 3d at209 ( hol di ng thatthr ee- m onth per i od of t i m e betw een pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyand te rm in a tio n w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a c a s u a l c o n n e c tio n ). T he bur den then s hi ft s t o defe ndant s t o offe ra l egi t i m at e non- r et al i at oryr eas on f o r t h e a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . P achec o , 365 F. 3d at1207. A s s t at ed above , H am b yw as term inated fo r a leg it im ate rea so n — d iscl o sing a p o tential cli en t’ s-27-

confi dent i al i nform at i on aft erbei ng r epea t edl yi ns truct ed t o cl earal l ext ernal comm uni cat i ons r egar di ng T SO C bus i nes s thr ough hers upervi s or . T he bur den then s hi ft s back t o H ambyt o s how thatthe pr offe r ed r eas on forhert erm i nat i on w as pr et ext f o r r e ta lia tio n . Id . T he C our thas pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed al l of H amby ’ s al l egat i ons of pr et ext , and has det erm i ned thats he has notdemonstr at ed anyw eakne s s es or i m pl aus i bi l i t i es i n defe ndant s ’ r eas on fort erm i nat i ng herempl oym ent . H ambyhas not pr es ent ed “a nyevi dence on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d i nferr et al i at orym ot i ve or di s bel i eve D efe ndant s ’ pr offe r ed r eas on fort erm i nat i ng herempl oym ent . ” Id . T her efor e, beca us e H ambyhas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pr et ext , hercl ai m forFL SA r et al i at i on c a n n o t su rv iv e su m m a ryju d g m e n t. D . V i ol at i on of

42 U . S. C . § 1985 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 (3 ) p ro v id e s: I f tw o orm or e per s ons . . . cons pi r e . . . forthe purpos e of depr i vi ng . . . anyper s on . . . of the equa l pr ot ect i on of the law s, o r o f

e q u a l p riv ileg e s a n d im m u n iti e s u n d e r th e law s; .

. . orcaus e t o be done, anyacti n fur ther ance of the obj ectof s uch cons pi r acy. . . the partys o i nj ur ed ordepr i ved may h a v e a n a c tio n f

o r t h e re c o v e ry o f

d a m a g e s . . . . T o e sta b lish a c laim u n d e r th is s tatu te, a p lain tiff m u st s h o w : (1 ) a c o n sp ira c y ; (2 ) to d e p riv e a p e rso n o f

e q u a l p ro tec tio n o r e q u a l p riv ileg e s a n d im m u n iti e s; (3 ) a n a c t in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y ; a n d (4 ) a re s u ltin g in ju ry o r d e p ri v a tio n . G r i f f i n v. B r eckenr i dge , 4 0 3 U .S . 8 8 , 1 0 2

– 0 3 , 9 1 S . C t. 1 7 9 0 , 1 7 9 8

– 9 9 , 2 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 3 8 (1 9 7 1 ). Sect i on 1985( 3) “does not‘ appl yt o al l t or t i ous , cons pi r at or i al i nt er fer ence s w i th the r i ght s of other s , ’ butr atheronl yt o cons pi r aci es m ot i vat ed by‘ s om e r aci al , orperhapsD efe ndant s ar gue thatbeca us e H ambyi s nota mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s , s he 15 cann ot br i ng a cl ai m un der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 5. H ow ever, H am byargues that s he is a m e m b e r o f

a p ro tec ted c las s b e c a u se sh e is a p a re n t o f a m e n tallyill c h ild a n d sh e is as s oci at ed w i th m ent al l yi l l peopl e. T he “‘ cl as s - bas ed ani m us ’ l anguage . . . has been narr ow l ycons trued. ” Ti l t on , 6 F. 3d at686 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B eca us e H ambyhas fai l ed t o s how evi dence of a c ons pi r acyt o s uppor ther§ 1985 cl ai m , w e nee d not addr es s w hetherthe cons pi r acyw as m ot i vat ed bys om e r aci al orcl as s - bas ed dis cri m i natoryanim us. -28- otherw i s e cl as s - bas ed, i nvi di ous l ydi s cr i m i nat oryani m us . ’ ” Ti l t on v. R i char ds on , 6 F. 3d 683, 686 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( ci t i ng G riffin , 4 0 3 U .S . a t 1 0 2 , 9 1 S . C t. a t 1 7 9 8 ). H ambyal l eges thatH aw s , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci ty , and M arks and B lan k e n sh ip , in th e ir o f f icia l ca p a c iti e s, v io late d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 b yc o n sp irin g to depr i ve H ambyof herFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat b e c a u se H a m b yc a n n o t p ro v id e e v id e n c e o f a c o n sp ira c y , h e r c laim u n d e r th is s tatu te fai l s. 15 T o s uppor thercons pi r acyar gum ent , H ambyal l eges thatthe O D M H br ought pr es s ur e on A C T t o s i l ence H amby ’ s pol i cydi s cus s i ons i n W as hi ngt on, D . C . She ar gues thatthe s t at e w as conce r ned thathereff or t s i n W as hi ngt on, D . C . w oul d m ake O kl ahoma l ook bad, and ther efor e the s t at e pr es s ur ed A C T i nt o advi s i ng H ambythat s he coul d fac e t erm i nat i on. T o s uppor tthes e cl ai m s , H ambypr ovi des an unoff i ci al tra n sc rip t th a t p u rp o rts to d o c u m e n t a m e e tin g b e tw e e n H a m b y , H a w s, a n d B lan k e n sh ip on N ovember26, 2003. I n thi s m eet i ng, the part i ci pant s addr es s ed the pol i cy di s cus s i ons thatH ambyhad w i th fede r al SO C s t aff i n W as hi ngt on, D . C . , butther e i s no evi dence of a c ons pi r acyt o s i l ence her . R ather , i n thi s m eet i ng, B l ankens hi p di s cus s ed h i s c o n c e rn s th a tH a m b y c o m p l a i n e d a b o u tH a w s t o th e f e d e r a l S O C s t a f

f. P r e v i o u s l y,-29-

H ambyhad bee n di s ci pl i ned fordi s r egar di ng the managements y s t em bycompl ai ni ng abouthers upervi s or s and cow or ker s , and s he had be en r epea t edl yt ol d thats he w as not t o compl ai n abouthers upervi s or s t o other s , butr athers he w as t o “vent ” t o author i zed per s ons . T hi s m eet i ng appea r s t o be anotheratt empt t o r emi nd H ambythats he w as not t o compl ai n aboutT SO C i nt ernal bus i nes s out s i de of TSO C . T her e i s no evi dence of a cons pi r acyt o s i l ence H amby ’ s pol i cydi s cus s i ons , noranyothercomm uni cat i ons that d id n o t e n ta il p e rs o n n e l m a tte rs . H ambyal s o cont ends thatSchnei der ’ s di s cus s i on w i th others t at e empl oy ees r egar di ng H amby ’ s t el ephone c al l i s evi dence of a c ons pi r acy . H ambyal l eges thatt hey d isc u ss e d h o w to h a n d le th e m a tter “ q u ick lya n d a p p ro p ria tely ” so th a t H a m b yw o u ld nott al k t o l egi s l at or s dur i ng the appr opr i at i ons s es s i on. H ow ever , the r ecor d s how s t hat Schnei der ’ s di s cus s i ons w i th others t at e off i ci al s conce rned H ambydi vul gi ng c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t a p o te n tia l c lie n t w ith o u t a p p ro v a l f ro m h e r s u p e rv is o rs . Al th o u g h S c h n e i d e ra c k n o wl e d g e d th a tHa mb y ’ s a c t i o n s c o u l d b e d a ma g i n g t o TS OC, th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e o f

a c o n s p i r a c y t o s i l e n c e H a m b y. F in a lly , H a m b ya rg u e s th a t th e p o licyth a t H a w s w a s to a p p ro v e a ll em a ils is evi dence of a c ons pi r acyt o s i l ence her . B utthe evi dence s how s thatH ambyhad bee n re p e a te d ly re p ri m a n d e d f o r m a k in g im p ro p e r c o m m u n ic a tio n s to p e o p le o u ts id e T S O C . T he pol i cythatemai l s w er e t o be appr oved bef or e di s s emi nat i on i s notevi dence of a co n sp ir ac yto sil en ce H am b y , b u t r athe r i t sho w s T S O C ’s att em p ts atli m it ing H am b y ’s i m pr opercomm uni cat i ons . Fur ther , the February23, 2004 m emora ndum des cr i bi ng t he-30-

comm uni cat i on pol i cyw as di s tr i but ed t o al l s t aff . T her e i s no evi dence thatthi s pol i cy wa s a c o n s p i r a c yd e s i g n e d t o s i l e n c e Ha mb ywh e n th e p o l i c ya p p l i e d t o e v e ryT S OC s t a f f m e m b e r , n o tj u s tt o H a m b y. W e r ecogni ze that“[d] i r ectevi dence of a c ons pi r acyi s r ar el yavai l abl e, and the exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acym us tus ual l ybe i nferr ed fr om the ci r cumst ance s . ” F is herv. Sh am bu rg , 624 F. 2d 156, 162 ( 10th C i r . 1980) ( ci t i ng L o e w’s , I n c . v . Ci n e ma A m u se m e n ts , 2 1 0 F . 2 d 8 6 , 9 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 5 4 )). B u t a plaintiff m u st bring fo rth “m o re th a n m e re c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s ” to e s ta b lis h a c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 5 . B re v e r v . R o c kw e ll Int ’l C orp ., 4 0 F .3 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). In th is c a se , H a m b yh a s f a iled to pr ovi de evi dence , ei therdi r ectorci r cumst ant i al , of a c ons pi r acy . T her efor e, the di s tr i ct c o u r tp r o p e r l yg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ta s t o Ha mb y ’ s § 1 9 8 5 c l a i m. E . P ubl i c Pol i cy T ort T he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas hel d that“ci r cumst ance s w hi ch pr es entan act i onabl e t or tcl ai m underO kl ahoma l aw [occ ur ] w her e an e m pl oy ee i s di s char ged for r efus i ng t o acti n vi ol at i on of an e s t abl i s hed and w el l - defi ned publ i c pol i cyorfor per form i ng an ac tcons i s t entw i th a cl earand compel l i ng publ i c pol i cy . ” B urk v. K- Mar tC or

p. , 7 7 0 P .2 d 2 4 , 2 9 (O k la. 1 9 8 9 ). H a m b ya rg u e s th a t d e f e n d a n ts’ a ttem p ts t o l i m i thers peec h vi ol at ed the pol i cyof the SO C ’ s B es tPr act i ce M odel w hi ch pr om ot es the i nt er es t s and conc erns of m ent al l yi l l chi l dr en and thei rfami l i es thr ough d e liv e rya n d m a n a g e m e n t o f se rv ice s. In iti a lly , the C o u rt n o tes th a t itis u n c e rta in w hetherO kl ahoma cour t s w oul d r ecogni ze the SO C B es tPr act i ce M odel as a cl earand-31-

c o m p e lli n g p u b lic p o licyu n d e r O k lah o m a law . A p u b lic p o licyto rt c laim is a c tio n a b le w hen an e m pl oy ee’ s di s char ge i s “contr aryt o a cl earm andat e of publ i c pol i cy . ” B urk , 7 7 0 P .2 d a t 2 9 ; s ee e . g. , G r oce v . Fos t er , 880 P. 2d 902, 905 ( O kl a. 1994) ( hol di ng publ i c pol i cyt or tw as act i onabl e w hen an e m pl oy erfi r ed i nj ur ed an e m pl oy ee w ho had tr ied to co ll ec t w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n as w ell as b ri n g an ac ti o n ag ains t th e c o n tr ac tor); Sar gent v. C ent . N

at ’ lB ank & Trus tC o. , 809 P. 2d 1298, 1301 ( O kl a. 1991) ( fi ndi ng p u b lic p o licyto rt w h e n e m p lo y e e w a s te rm in a ted f o r re f u sin g to d e stro ya re p o rt in v io latio n o f

sta tu te) ; V

anners on v. B d. of

R egent s of U ni v. of O kla. , 784 P. 2d 1053, 1055 ( O kl a. 1989) ( hol di ng empl oy ee c oul d br i ng publ i c pol i cycl ai m i f he c oul d s how thathe w as t erm i nat ed foral l egi ng thathi s s upervi s orm ade a n i l l egal di s pos i t i on of sta te- o w n e d p ro p e rty ); Todd v. Fr ank’s Tow i ng Ser v. , I nc. , 784 P. 2d 47, 50 ( O kl a. 1989) (f in d in g p u b lic p o licyto rt w h e n e m p lo y e e w a s f ire d f o r re f u sin g to d riv e a v e h icle w ith f a u lty b ra k e s a n d h e a d lig h ts ). H ow ever, even i f H am bycou l d est abli sh t hat the S O C B estP ract i ce M od el i s a compel l i ng publ i c pol i cyunderO kl ahoma l aw , s he ca nnots how thats he w as t erm i nat ed forr efus i ng t o acti n vi ol at i on of an e s t abl i s hed and w el l - defi ned publ i c pol i cyorfor per form i ng an ac tcons i s t entw i th the SO C B es tPr act i ce M odel . A s expl ai ned above , the evi dence s how s thatH ambyw as t erm i nat ed w hen A C T l earned thats he had f ai l ed t o cl earan ext ernal comm uni cat i on w i th hers upervi s orw hen s he t el ephoned Schne i der and di vul ged conf

i dent i al i nform at i on. A ddi t i onal l y , as the di s tr i ctcourtfound, the requi rem ent that H am bycl ear ext ernal com m un i cat i on s di d n ot vi olat e t he S O C B est-32-

P ra c tice M o d e l, bu t ra th e r th is re q u ire m e n t ap p e a rs to f u rth e r th e in ter e sts o f

th e c lien ts b yp rotec ti n g p ri v ate inf o rm ati o n an d p rev en ti n g the c rea ti o n o f a h o sti le w o rk e n v iro n m e n t. T h e re f

o re , w e a f

f irm th e d istric t co u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t ru lin g in f a v o ro f d e f e n d a n t s o n Ha mb y ’ s p u b l i c p o l i c yt o r tc l a i m. F . Intenti on al I n fl i cti on of E m oti on al D i st ress T o s uppor ta cl ai m fori nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s under O kl ahoma l aw , H ambym us ts how thats he s uffe r ed “e xtr eme and outr ageous conduct coupl ed w i th s ever e emot i onal di s tr es s . ” G ayl or d E ntm ’ tC o. v. Thom ps on , 958 P. 2d 1 2 8 , 1 4 9 (O k la. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e O k lah o m a S u p re m e C o u rt re c o g n ize s th a t th is a c tio n is governed bynarr ow s t andar ds and expl ai ns that“[c ] onductw hi ch, though unr eas onabl e, i s nei ther‘ bey ond al l pos s i bl e bounds of dec ency ’ i n the s ett i ng i n w hi ch i toccurr ed, n o r is o n e th a t ca n b e ‘re g a rd e d a s u tterlyin to ler a b le in a c iv ili z e d c o m m u n ity ’ f a lls s hor tof havi ng act i onabl e qual i ty . ” Id . (q u o tin g R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f T o rt s § 4 6 ). “G ener al l y , the ca s e i s one i n w hi ch the r eci t at i on of the fa ct s t o an ave r age mem berof th e c o mmu n i tywo u l d a r o u s e h i s r e s e n t me n ta g a i n s tth e a c t o r , a n d l e a d h i m t o e x c l a i m,

‘ O utr ageous ! ’ ” D ubbs v. H ead Star tI

nc. , 336 F. 3d 1194, 1218 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Franks v. Mayb erry , 985 P. 2d 773, 776 ( O kl a. 1999) ( quot i ng R es t at ement( Second) of T o rt s § 4 6 , cm t. d )). H ambyal l eges thatH aw s verbal l yas s aul t ed heron a numberof occ as i ons , and thes e i nci dent s caus ed hert o s uffe rhi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, anxi ety , and depr es s i on. We a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t ev e n if tru e , H a m b y ’s a lleg a tio n s a re in a d e q u a te to-33-

su p p o rt a c laim f

o r in ten tio n a l in f

lictio n o f e m o tio n a l h a rm b e c a u se th e re is n o th in g in the record t o sho w that H aw s’ act i on s r i se t o the l evel of extr em e ou trageou sness r equi r ed t o s uppor ta cl ai m fori nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s under Ok l a h o ma l a w. I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m the j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof def endant s on al l of the pr ece di ng cl ai m s as s ert ed by H a m b y.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

J ul i e A . R obi ns on D i s tr i ctJ udge