The Honor able John R. Gibs on, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit Court of * Appea ls, sitt ing by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0622n.06 No. 08-6549 Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als FO R TH E SIX T H C IR C U IT DA VI D E AD ES, ) ) Pla int if f - Ap pe lla

nt, )

) Appea l from the United States v. ) Di str ic t Co ur t f or the Mid dle ) District of Tenne ssee BROOK DAL E SENI OR L I VI

NG, I NC., )

) Def endant - Appellee

. )
B e fo re : B OG GS, MO OR E, and GI B SON , Cir c uit

Judg e s. *
J OHN R. GI BSON, Circ uit J udg e. Plaintiff David Eade s appea ls from an orde r of summary judgme nt e ntere d ag ainst him on his c laims of ag e discrimination a nd reta liation a

rising under the Ag e Discr imination in Em ploy ment Act (“ ADEA” ) and Title VI I , along with concomitant state lawclaims under the Tenne ssee Huma n Rights Act. Ea des broug ht this action afte r Br ookdale Senior L iving, I nc. (“ Br ookdale” ) terminate d his e mpl oy

me nt. He a

pp e a ls the jud g me nt on ly a s to the re ta liatio n c la im, arguin g that B ro ok da le offe red a prete x tual rea so n

f o r d ismiss ing him. B eca

use the district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt wher e mater ial fac ts conce rning Br ookdale’ s rationale f or dismissing Eade s ar e i n d ispute, we
reve rse.

### -2

- I. E a d e s b e g a

n w o r k in g for B rookdale ’s pre dece ssor in J uly 2005 as a Reg ional Rehab Dire ctor. One y ear later, B rookdale purcha sed th e compa ny , and in August 2006 Eades be came a Reg ional Direc tor of Start-up Oper ations. For the first thirty to forty -five da

y s in that positi on, Eade s repor ted to L e e Anne F e in. He late r re po rt e d to J a c k Car ne y . Ea de s had a numbe r o f i nte ra c tio ns wi th F e in – b oth wh ile sh e wa s h is d ir e c t su pe rv iso r a

nd con ti nu in g vir

tua lly thr ou g h th e e nd

of his employ ment – that he desc ribed a s “har assing , deg rading , intimi dating , and inappropriate by nature ” and that he ultimately

conclude d wer e motivated by ag e discrimination. Eade s was forty -one year s old when he w as hired a

nd forty -two whe n he wa s terminated. I n addition to Eades, t we n t y -s ev en -y ea r- o l d Zac hZer b o n i a w as n am edas a R egi o n al Di re ct or of Start-up Oper ations. He repor ted to the same individuals as Eade s. I n rea chingthe conc lusion that he was a victim of ag e discrimination, Eade s compare d his own treatment to that of Z erbonia , with wh o m h e w o r

k e d c lo s e ly

. Z e r

b o n ia r e c o g n iz e d th a t F e in tr e a te d E a d e s d if f e r e n tl y than she tr e a te d h im. B e c a us e Ea de s d ism iss e d hi s Ti tle V I Ic la ims and ha s n ot a pp e a le d th e jud g me nt a s to his discrimination claims under the ADEA and the Tenne ssee Human Rights Act, the only rema ining claim is B rookdale ’s alleg ed reta liation a g ainst Eade s for eng ag ing in a protec ted ac tivity . Thus, we
ne e d n ot s e t f

or th t he fa c ts c on c e rn inghis dis c ri min a tio n a lle g a tio ns . Eade s’s reta liation claim beg ins with his complai n t t o Br ookdale’ s human resour ces de pa rtme nt a bo ut F e in’ s c on du c t. T he re he sp ok e wi th D wi g ht T e w, wh o to ld E a de s th a t he c ou ld contac t Terr

y Fr isby , the company ’s hum an resource s compliance office r. Eade s did call Fr isby and eventua lly

arr ang ed a me eting wher e he inquired about his rig hts. Fr isby told him t hat “c orporate”

### -3

-

had talked to F ein about her people skills to n o av ail , and he r ecommende d that Eade s not pursue a for mal investigation. Eade s next contac ted Greg Richard, the company ’s Chief Ope ratingOffic er, who sug g ested that Ea des cr eate a wr itten list of conc erns a nd addre ss them directly

with Fein. Ea de s d id m e e t w ithF e in. I n fa c t, the y me t mo re tha n o nc e . T he fi rs t me e tin g wa s a c tua lly at her reque st, and Eade s does not know whethe r F ein knew that he had been complaining about her or if the timing w as mere ly coincidenta l. J ack Ca

rney , the Senior Reg ional Direc tor of Innovative Senior Ca r e an d E a d e s ’ s s u p e r v is o r , a ls o a tt e n d e d th is me e ti n g . F e in to ld E a d e s th a t s h e w as not g oing to f ire him, but that she wanted to discuss a specif ic incident with him and re view his job
re sp on sib ili tie s. She tol d h im that sh e wa s c omm itt e d to him be inga pa rt of the re g ion a l te a m. Eade s’s second meeting with F ein was at his request. It took place on Oc tober 9, 2006, a nd Carney and Te w a l s o attended. E ades voic ed his conc erns a bout specific instanc es of F ein’s behavior , eac h of which she ref uted. Fe in told Carney that Eade s had been given his curr ent position be c a us e he ha d n ot b e e n pe rf

or min g we ll in his pr e vio us po sit ion , but that wa s ne ws to E a de s. F e in also said t hat Eades would be put on an action plan bec ause his per formanc e had not improve d, and Te w t old Ea de s h e wo uld

re c e ive the pla

n w ith in s e ve n d ay s. Ea de s n e ve r r e c e ive d it

. On Octobe r 18, Eade s emailed a letter to Richa rd and the co- CEOs of B rookdale outlining his complaints and st ating that he believe d he wa s being discriminated ag ainst beca use of his ag e. I n response , Richard and Fr isby met with Eade s the foll owing day , and Richar d told Eades that he thought it would be difficult for Eade s to c ontinue working with F ein. Eade s ag ree d with him, and Richard sa id t h er e m i gh t b e other positions in the company for Ea des and a sked if he w ould be interested in a seve ranc e pac kag e. Ea des said he w ould be intere sted and a sked if he w as beingfired. Rich ar d an d F r is b y to ld h im h e w a s n o t. Ri c h ar d me n ti o n e d a s ix- mo n th s e v e r an c e w it h a two-

### -4

-

mon th e xten sio n if

Ea de s h a d n ot f

ound a re pla c e me nt p os iti on , a

nd the n h e tol d E a de s to g o h ome
e arl y and sa id t he y wo uld be in t ou c h w ithhim

. Z erbonia called E ades later that e veningand said that Fe in told him that Ea des wa s no longe r employ ed by

Br ookdale. Ea des tried to a cce ss his company email and wa s unable to do so. Fr isby
c a l l e d E a d e s t h e n e xt d ay t o t e l l h i m t h a t t h e c o mp an y w a s o f f e r i n g h i m o n l y a

thr e e -m on th
sever ance packa g e bec ause of questions about his severa nce f rom his last e mploy er. Ea des dec ided
no t to a c c e pt t

he c omp any ’s of

fe r b e c a us e he be lie ve d h e ha d s uf fe re d unf a ir and ill e g a l tr e a tme nt. F ri sb y ma de no me nti on

of oth e r p os iti on s w ith in t

he c omp any

that mi g ht b e a va ila

ble to E a de s. On No ve mbe r 2 1, 20 06 , E a de s f ile d c ha rg e s w iththe EE OC , a lle g ingthat he wa s th e vic tim of ag e discrimination and reta liation. He rec eived a Notice of Right to Sue on J une 20, 2007, and t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d t h i s c o mp l a i n ta l l e g i n g a g e d i s c r i m i n a t i o nan d r e t a l i a t i o nu n d e r

t h e A D E A , T i t l e V II, and Te nnessee state law. H e later dismiss ed his Title VI Iclaims, and the district c ourt g rante d Br ookdale’ s motion for summary judgme nt. Eades timely

appea led. II. Th is c ourt re vie ws the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt of summa

ry jud g me nt de no vo , v ie wi ngthe fa c ts and infe renc es there from in the ligh t m o st favora ble to the nonmoving pa

rty
. Ho llo way

v . B ru sh , 22 0 F .3 d 7 67 , 7 72 (6 th Cir . 200 0) (e n banc ). Sum mary jud g me nt is g ra nte d o nly if the mov ingpa

rt y is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c)

. Ea de s a lle g e s th a t B ro ok da le re ta liate d b y fi ri nghim

a ft e r h e e ng a g e d i n

t h e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity of c omp la ini ng about d isc ri min a tor y tr e a tme nt h e re c e ive d o n th e ba sis of his a g e . B ro ok da le
c on c e de d in

the dis tr ic t c ourt

that E a de s e sta

bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie c a se of

re ta liatio n. On

a pp e a l, B ro ok da le se e ks to r e tr a c t it s c on c e ssi on and argue s th a t f

ir ing Ea de s d id n ot c on sti tut e a mate ri a lly

### -5
-

adver se action related to his protected a ctivity

. Se e Bu rli ng ton N. &Sa nta FeRy . Co . v . W hite , 548 U. S. 5 3, 68 (2 00 6) (“ mate ri a lly a dv e rs e ” a c tio n is on e “ wh ic h in thi s c on te x t mea ns it mig ht w e ll have d i s s u ad eda r ea s o n ab l e w o rk er fr o mm ak i n g o r s u

p p o rt i n g a c h ar ge o f d i s cr i m i n ati on”) ( internal qu otatio n mar

ks and c itatio n o mitte d) . We wi ll h old B ro ok da le to i ts c on c e ssi on . E ve n w ith ou t it , though, the argument fails. Ter minating a

person’ s employ

ment is a materia lly

adver se ac tion. Once a plaintiff e stablishes a prima f ac i e case , the burde n of produc tion shifts t o the employ er to a

rticulate a leg itimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the discharg e. The plaintiff then has the oppor

tunity to demon s t ra te by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the e mploy er’ s proff ere d explanation is a pretext for discr imination. Ree ves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc ., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43 (2000). Br ookdale states cl ea rl y

and unequivoc ally

in its brief on appe al that it fired Ea des for a

“ le g iti mate , n on -r e ta liator y re a so n, ” name ly “ be c a

us e he state d that he co uld no lon g e r w or k w ith Ms. Fein a

nd reque sted a seve ranc e pac kag e.” B eca use B rookdale has articulated a leg itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea son for ter

minating Ea des’s e mploy ment, Eade s ca n n o t preva il without demonstratingby

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the proff ere d rea son was a prete x t. Id . To establish prete x t, Eades must show that B rookdale ’s stated re ason has no ba sis in fact , d i d not actua lly motivate Br ookdale to fire him, or was insuffic ient to warr ant his firing

. See M icke y v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. , 516 F.3d 516, 526 ( 6th Cir. 2008). As B ro ok da le po int s o ut, Ead es mu st poi nt t o e vid e nc e that sh ow s n ot o nly that th e re is a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to pretext but also that there is a genuine issue as t o whether the re al
rea son for his firingwas intentional re taliation. Imwalle v. RelianceMed. Prods., I nc ., 515 F.3d 531, 544 (6th Cir. 2008). Howe ver, Ea des may rel y o n “t he trier

of fa ct to infer the ultimate fac t of

### -6

-

discrimination from the fa lsity of t he employ er’ s expl anation,” id

. at 5 4 4 -4 5 (q u o t i n g Ree ves , 530 U.S. at 147) , if he prese nts a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to the falsity of B rookdale ’s proff

ere d
rea son. Proof that the defe ndant' s explanation is unworthy of cre dence is simply one for m of circ umstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discr imination, and it may be quite persua sive.

. . . Thus, a plaintiff' s prima fa cie c ase, c ombined with sufficient evidenc e to find that the e mploy er' s asserte d justification is false, may permit the trier of fa ct to conclude that the employ er unla wfully discriminated. Ree ves , 530 U.S. at 147-48. Eade s asserts t h at Br o o k d ale has advanc ed a numbe r of diff ere nt
rea sons for firing him f

rom the time of

his dismi ssal throug h this appeal, a nd that such inconsistency raises a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to whether the proff ere d rea sons are true. The district court
c onsi dere d E ades ’s a rgum ent andackn owl edged t hat a chan ging rat io nal e can b e evi den ce of pr e te xt. Howeve r, the district cour t co n cluded that Eades provide d no evidenc e of pr etext, Brookdale ’s
rea sons were amply supported, and “ the fa ct that the def endant’ s expl anations have become more
nuance d and deta iled over the course of litigation does not establish evidence of pre text .” L ooking at the fac ts in the light most favora ble to E ad es , without resolving a ny fac tual disputes, leads us to a diffe rent c onclusion. Br ookdale has chang ed its story many times since Eade s was fir ed, including advanc ing differ ent re asons in its brief on appe al than it repr esente d to the dis tr ic t c ourt
. First, when Ea des had his ultimate meetingwith Richard and F risby , Eade s indicated that he would consid e r

a s e v e r an c e p a c k a g e . T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r , th a t h e s a id an y th in g that
wo uld have fo re c losed th e po ssi bil ity of his c on tin

uin g e mpl oy

me nt w ithB ro ok da le , e ith e r i n h is
curr ent position or in a differ ent ca pacity . Whil e he a

ppear s t o h av e bee n unresponsive to a sug g estion by

Richard t h at o ther positions might be available to him, we a re f orbidden at the

### -7
-

summa ry jud g me nt p ha se to d

ra w the inf

e re nc e that E a de s’ s la c k o f r e sp on se sig na le d h is
unwi lli ng ne ss t o c on sid e r t he po ssi bil ity of

c ha ng ing job s. B ro ok da le no w a sse rt s th a t E a de s sa id he could not wor

k with Fein a

nd that he wa

nted a se vera

nce packa g e, but this position i s inconsistent with the rec ord testimo n y o f t h e attende es of that mee ting a nd the infer ence s we must draw the re fr om. Second, Ea des filed a

char g e of discr imination

w it h th e E E O C a

p p r o xim a tely one month afte r he wa s fired. In its posit ion statement in response to the c harg e, B rookdale wrote: For the re asons shown below, [Eade s] was discharg ed for valid non-discriminatory re a so ns , n on e of

wh ich had

any thi ngto d o w ithany

thi ngoth e r t

ha n [E a de s’ s] complete inability

. . . to perfor

m the work for

which he w as hired.

. . . Why was [Eades] terminated? The answer lies in his lack of a ny perf ormanc e in any position. The offer

of severanc e given to [ him] was not and should not be c onsidered any thing other

than an attempt t o al l o w [ him] to leave the employ of [Brookda le] wi th s ome dig nit

y . [E a de s] ha s c ho se n th is pat h, and a s su c h, [B ro ok da le ] mus t defe nd itself.

. . . W a s t h e r e a s o n f

o r h i s t e r m i n a t i o na s h e s u g g e s t s , o r w a s i tf o r o t h e r r e a s o n s ? A close look at the a ctual fa cts above , and not mere alleg ations, can le ad to but one conclusion – [Eades] was terminate d for not doing his job.

. . . His termination was not a re taliation for par

ticipating in pr otect ed ac tivity , but based upon fa ilure of [Eades] to m eet the most b as ic eleme nt of his job accor ding to his re sume and job duties – to work in a pr ofessional re lationship to hi s coworke rs, subordinates, a nd vu lne ra ble se nio r a du lts . H e fa ile d w itha ll thr e e c la sse s o f p e rs on s. On appe al, B rookdale tried to minimi ze this response as having be en pre pare d bya “nond e c i s i o n m a k e r ” ( t h e c o mp an y’ s S e n i o r V i c e P r e s i d e n tf

o r L e g a l S e r

v i c e s ) , w h o “ m i s t a k e n l y” inf or me d th e EE OC that E a de s w a s te rm inate d d ue to h is p e rf

or manc e . T he la

wye r c on su lte d w ith Fe in and Richard a fter ha ving r eviewe d Eade s’s employ ment file and a fter dr af

t i ng the re sponse.

### -8

-

B ro ok da le of

fe rs no e vid e nc e that e ith e r on e su g g e ste d that the re sp on se wa s e rr on e ou s, no r do e s it explain how its Senior Vice President for L eg al Service s made such a “mistake.” Third, in his deposition, R ichar d testified that he made t h e d ec ision to t erminate Eade s’s employ ment afte r he lear

ned that Ea des had r ece ived a se vera nce pa y ment from a f

ormer e mploy er and had ke pt the money

in spite o f h av i n g agr eed that he would re turn it if he found re place ment
e mpl oy me nt. Fo u rth , in it s mo ti o n f

o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t, B r o o k d a le a dv an c e d thr e e r easons f or te rm inatin g Ea de s’ s e mpl oy me nt: 1) Ea de s h a d p e rf

or ma nc e iss ue s; 2) he c ou ld n o lo ng e r w or k w ith Fe in; and 3) he declined the sever ance packa g e he w as off ere d. Howeve r, Eade s denies that he w as
e v e r i n f o r m e d t h a t h e h a d p e r f

o r m an c e i s s u e s , an d B r o o k d a l e o f f e r s n o e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r ar y . In
a dd iti on , Ri c ha

rd te sti fi e d th a t he a sk e d Fe in i f s he tho ug ht E a de s sh ou ld b e te rm inate d, and sh e sa id
no. Finally , in its brief on appea l, B rookdale expli citly denies having terminated Ead es for perf ormanc e issues. In descr ibing the district court’s ruling , Br ookdale c hang es its char acte rization of its response to the EE OC char g e: “[A] non-decis i o n m ak er [Senior Vice President for L eg al Service s] advanced a

leg itimate rea son, albeit a re ason upon which B rookdale did not rely , for Eade s’[s] termination.” “An e mploy er’ s chang ing r ationale f or makingan adve rse e mp l o y ment decision ca

n be evidenc e of pr etext.” Thurman v. Y ellow Freight Sys., Inc. , 90 F.3d 116 0 , 1167 (6th Cir. 1996). “S hi ft in g jus ti fi cat io ns ov er t im e ca l l s t h e c r edi bi li ty of t ho se j us ti fi cat io ns in to qu est io n. By sh ow ingthat th e de fe nd ants ’ j us tif ic a tio n f or fi ri nghim

c ha ng ed ov e r t ime , [pl a int if f] s ho ws a g enuine issue of

fac t that the defendants’ proffe red reason was not only false, but that the f

alsity was

### -9

-

a pre text for discr imination.” Cicero v. Borg-W arner Auto., Inc. , 280 F.3d 579, 592 (6th Cir. 2002). The exte nt

to which such shifting justifications are pr obative of pr etext depends upon the circ umstances of

a g iven ca se. At its root, pretext is a co m m o n -sense inquiry into whether the employ er took the adver se employ ment action for the stated re ason or not. Chen v. Dow Chemic al Co. , 58 0 F. 3 d 394, 400 n.4 (6th Cir. 2009). Henc e, we look not only to whether

chang es in an employ er’ s rationale have occur red, but to whether the circ umstances could permit a r at i onal fa c tf ind e r t o con c lud e tha

t th e se c ha

ng e s a re ind ic a tiv e that th e c ur

re ntl y -p ro ff

e re d e xplanatio n is false. See R eev es , 530 U.S. at 148-49 (“ Whether judg ment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particula r ca se wi l l d ep end on a numbe r of f actor s. Those include . . . the probative va lue of the proof that the e mploy er’ s expl anation is false .”). Br ookdale’ s many chang es i n its explanation for Eades’s termination may or may not lead to an u lt im a te c o n c lu s io n th a t it r e ta li a te d a g a in s t E a d e s f o r e n g a g in g in a p r o te c te d a c tivity , but
cer tainly they show a genuine issue of m ater ial fac t that should prec lude s ummary judgme nt. See Asmo v. Keane

, Inc. , 4 71 F .3 d 5 88 , 5 96 (6 th Cir . 200 6) (i nc on sis te nc y be tw e e n w hat e mpl oy e r t old pla int if f a n d w h a ti ta s s e rt e d

i nl aw s u i t s a s i t s r e a s o n s f o r t e r m i n a t i n g p l a i n t i f

f ’ s e mp l o y m e n t“ is suspicious and is evidence of pre text ”). In particula r, B rookdale ’s unequivoca l as s er t i o n to the EEOC that Eade s “wa s discharg ed for valid non-discriminatory

rea sons, none of whic h had any thing to do with any

thing other

than [Eades’s] c omplete inability to pe rfor m the work for

which he w as hir e d” sim

ply c ann ot, on

its te rm s, be re c on c ile d w ithits late r e xplanatio ns , a fa c t th a t w ou ld p e rm it

a ratio na l fa c tf

ind e r to c on c lud e that B ro ok da le ’s c ur re ntl y -p ro ff

e re d ra tio na le i s p ret e xtua l. Com pa re Tho ma s v . U

nio n I ns t. , 98 F. Ap p’ x 46 2 (6t

h Cir. 20 04 ) (e mpl oy e r’ s shif tin g ra tio na le he ld to be insufficie nt evidence of pre text beca use all rationales wer e int erna lly inconsistent) with Pec k

### -1 0-

v. Elyria Foundry Co. , 2009 WL 2868831 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2009) (slip op.) (hiringdecisionmake r’s logic ally contra dictory

rea sons for not hiring claimant held to be e vidence of pre text ).

III
. Eade s argues that the tempora l prox imity of his complaint and discha rge i s evidence that Br ookdale’ s proffe red r eason of poor performanc e as a reason for his discharg e is prete x tual. As he points out, t here is no indication in the recor d that Br ookdale c onsidered his pe rfor mance in the one day that passed be tween his c omplaint and his discharg e. Ea des ac knowledg es that tempora l p ro x i m i t y i s t y

p i c al l y re gar d edas ev i d en ce o f acau s al co n n ec t i o nfo r t h e p u rp o s e o f s at i s fy i n g a prima fa cie c ase of

reta liation, see M

icke y v. Z ei d l er T o o l & Die Co. , 516 F.3d 516, 525 ( 6th Cir. 20 08 ), and

tha t th is c ourt

vie ws te mpo ra l pr oximi ty in th e pretext ana ly sis a s in dir e c t e vid e nc e to support a pre text claim and r ebut proff ere d non-discriminatory rea son for a n adver se employ

ment action, se e Im wal le , 5 15 F .3 d at 55 0- 51 ; Asmo , 471 F.3d at 598. Be cause we ha

ve alr eady

conclude d that materia l disputed fac ts exis t that prec lude summary jud g me nt, we ne e d n ot r e a c h th is a rgume nt. We r e ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.