T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AL L Y M. KI NN E Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. H O L I D A Y C O M P A N I E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35406 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 1 4 7 - RRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka R a l ph R . B e i s t l i ne , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y 30, 2010 A nc hor a ge , A l a s ka B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S a l l y K i nne y appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof de f e nda nt s ( “ H ol i da y ” ) on he rc l a i m s unde rthe F a m i l y a nd M e di c a l L e a ve A c tof 19 93 (“ F M L A ”) . K i nn eyar gu es thatH ol i day vi ol at ed the F M L A (1) by f i ri ng her for apret extual re as on i nt ended t o m as k the true, heal th-re l at ed m ot i vat i on for her 

# FI LED OC T 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

t e rm i na t i on a nd ( 2) by de ny i ng he ra l l e ge d r e que s tf orm e di c a l l e a ve on M a r c h 13, 2 0 0 7 . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . L i u v. A m w ay C or

p. , 347 F . 3d 1125, 1131 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . A l though w e a f f i rm the j udgm e nton the i s s ue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtr e a c he d, K i nne y ’ s F M L A t e rm i na t i on c la im

— w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to c o n s id e r— g iv e s r is e to ag e n u in e d is p u te of m a t e r i a l f

a c t . W e va c a t e s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o tha tc l a i m a nd r e m a nd f or fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. T he di stri ctcourterre d i n exp l i ci t l y dec l i ni ng t o add re ss K i nn ey ’ s c l ai m that H o lid a y v io la te dth e F M L A b y f ir in g h e rb e c au s e o f

h e rc a n c e r . I n te r f

e r e n c e w ith F M L A r i ght s i nc l ude s “ notonl y r e f us i ng t o author i z e F M L A l e a ve , but di sc ou ra gi ng an em pl oyee fr om usi ng such l ea ve. ” 29 C . F . R . § 8 25 . 22 0(b). “[ E ]m p lo y e r s c a n n o t u s e th e ta k in g o f F M L A le a v e a s an e g a tiv e f a c to rin em pl oym entac t i on s, such as hi ri ng , prom ot i on s or di sc i pl i naryac t i on s. ” I d. § 8 2 5 .2 2 0 ( c ) . K i nn eyhas aval i d F M L A t erm i nat i on cl ai m i f s he ca n sho w thatH ol i day u s e d h e r2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 6 F M L A - c o v e r e d ab s e n c e s , in c o n ju n c tio n w ith its aw aren ess th ath er i l l n ess m i g h treq u i re m o re m ed i cal l eav e i n th e fu tu re, as a “n e g a tiv e f

a c to r ” in its d e c is io n to f ir e h e r . A lth o u g h K in n e y d id n o t c le a r ly pres enta t erm i nat i on -r el at ed cl ai m i n h ercom pl ai nt , she di d al l ege a n i nt er fe re nce3

c la im th a t m e n tio n e d h e rte rm in a tio n , a n d s h e a r g u e date rm in a tio n th e o ry in o p p o s itio n to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. “E v e n w h e n [ p la in tif f’s c o u n s e l] in itia lly m i s c onc e i ve [ s ] the pr ope rl e ga l the ory of [ a ] c l a i m , s um m a ry j udgm e ntdoe s not fol l ow i f the pl ai nt i ff

i s e nt i t l ed t o rel i ef

on som e other l egal theory a nd re qu es t ed as m uch. ” A lv a r ezv . Hill , 518 F . 3d 1152, 1158 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m ar k s o m itted ). T h e d istrict co u rt d em o n stra ted it s a w ar en es s o f “K in n ey ’s a l l e ga t i ons of

w r ongf ul t e rm i na t i on” i n i t s or de rgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nt , a nd th e c o u rte rr e d i n f

a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s th e m. T h e r e c o r d m a k e s c le a rth a t K in n e y ’s te rm in a tio n c la im is n o t a m e n ab le to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n r e m a n d b e c au s e it r a is e s ag e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t. See A nder

son v. L i bert

y L ob by, Inc. , 477 U . S . 242, 248 ( 1986) . K i nne y c ont e nds tha t“ the pr oxi m i ty i n t i m e ” be tw e e n he rc a nc e r ’ s r e c urr e nc e a nd he rt e rm i na t i on

“ prov i des s up po rt i ng evi dence of a c on nect i on betw ee n the tw o event s, ” L iu , 347 F . 3d at11 37 , and thatH ol i day’ s gi ven reas on for f i ri ng her w as a pre t ext . K i nn ey pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tthe H ol i da y m a na ge r s i nvol ve d i n the t e rm i na t i on de c i s i on w er e aw ar e thather c ance r had re turned and di sc usse d w hether s he had t aken F M L A le a v e s h o rtly b e f o r e s h e w a s te rm in a te d . S u c h e v id e n c e c r e a te s atr iab le i s s ue a s t o w he the rhe rpot e nt i a l ne e d f orF M L A l e a ve i n the f

utur e w a s ane ga t i ve fa ct or i n H ol i day’ s dec i si on t o t erm i nat e her . F urtherm ore, al tho ug h H ol i day4

c l a i m s t o ha ve f

i r e d K i nne y , i n a c c or da nc e w i th c om pa ny pol i c y , be c aus e s he tw ic e f a ile d to v e r if

y th e a g e o f

ac u s to m e rp u r c h a s in g c ig a r e tte s , th e r e is confl i ct i ng evi dence as t o w hether K i nn ey ’ s f i rs tt ob ac co-s al e vi ol at i on occurre d at a l l . W he the ri tdi d i s aque s t i on f oratr i e rof

f a c ttha tbe a r s di r e c t l y on the lik e lih o o d th a t H o lid a y ’s r e a s o n f o rf ir in g K in n e y w a s g e n u in e , a n d th u s in d ir e c tly on the l i ke l i hood tha the ri l l ne s s w a s a“ ne ga t i ve f a c t or ” i n H ol i da y ’ s t e rm i na t i on d e c is io n . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y r e j e c t e d K i nne y ’ s c l a i m tha tH ol i da y vi ol a t e d the F M L A by de ny i ng he rs uppos e d r e que s tf orm e di c a l l e a ve on M a r c h 13, 2007. K i nne y ne ve rm a de a n unc ondi t i ona l r e que s tf ort i m e of

f on M a r c h 13, l e ta l one one tha tm e tthe F M L A ’ s not i c e r e qui r e m e nt . K i nne y t ol d he rm a na ge rtha ts he

“ w a s n’ tf e e l i ng good” a nd “ ne e de d t o go hom e , ” a nd s he a s ke d he rm a na ge ri f s he c oul d “ pos s i bl y f

i nd s om e body t o c om e i n. ” T he m a na ge rs a i d “ s he w oul d try , ” but nei ther party s po ke of the m att eragai n for the re stof K i nn ey ’ s s hi ft . K i nn ey cond i t i on ed her r equeston her m anager’ s f i nd i ng a r epl ac em entw orker, w hi ch her m anager app ar ent l y di d n otor coul d n otdo . E ven i f K i nn eyhad m ade an un cond i t i on al re qu es t , she w ou l d n othave sa t i sf i ed the F M L A ’ s not i ce r e qui r e m e ntf

ora n e m pl oy e e i n he rs i tua t i on. “ A n e m pl oy e e gi vi ng not i c e of the n e e d f o ru n p a id F M L A le a v e m u s t e x p la in th e r e a s o n s f o rth e n e e d e d le a v e s o a s to5

a l l ow the e m pl oy e rt o de t e rm i ne tha tthe l e a ve qua l i f i e s unde rthe A c t . I f

the e m p lo y e e f

a ils to e x p la in th e r e a s o n s , le a v e m a y b e d e n ie d .” 2 9 C .F .R . § 82 5. 20 8(a) (1) ( 20 07 ). K i nn ey ’ s vague st at em ent s w er e i nsuffi ci entt o p uther m anager on no t i ce thatshe w as se eki ng F M L A -prot ec t ed l ea ve. W e there fore a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nton the F M L A c l a i m ba s e d on deni al of l ea ve. T he di s tr i c tc ourta c t e d w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d K i nne y ’ s m ot i on t o a m e nd he rc om pl a i nt . B e c aus e K i nne y s oughtt o a m e nd he rc om pl a i nta f t e rthe d ead l i n e setb y th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sch ed u l i n g o rd er, sh e h ad t o sh o w g o o d cau se f o ra m e n d m e n t, w h ic h d e p e n d s p r im a r ily o n w h e th e rs h e a c te d d ilig e n tly . J ohns on v. M am m oth R ec re at i on s, Inc. , 97 5 F . 2d 60 4, 60 8-09 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). T he di stri ct c ourtpr ope r l y f

ound tha tK i nne y kne w ors houl d ha ve know n of the gr ounds f

or the cl ai m s s he soug htt o add w el l before she m ov ed for l ea ve t o am end h er com pl ai nt . W e there fore af fi rm the court ’ s c on cl usi on thatK i nn eyfa i l ed, for l ac k o f d ilig e n c e , to d e m o n s tr a te g o o d c au s e f o ra m e n d m e n t. E ach p arty i s t o b ear i t s o w n co st s. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , V AC AT E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.