FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L6, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 80 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 02 34 6- CV-GET-1 ELLENSCHAAF, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SMI THKLINE BEE CHAM COR PORATION, d.b .a. Glax oS m ithKl in e, GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 6, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BIRC H andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:App el la ntEll enSch aaf wo rk edforGlax oS m ithKl in e as a Reg io na l Vi ce

Pres id en t, b ut , aft er re tu rn in g fr om m at ern ity

lea ve , was d em ot edto Dis tri ctSal es Man ag er. Sch aaf t he n s ue d GSK, al le gi ng th athe r m at ern it y lea ve im pe rm is si bl y co nt rib ut edto he r de m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t o n so m e o f he r cl ai m s an d ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law o n o th ers , all in fav orof GSK. Sch aaf app eal s t he se ord ers ; thi s C ou rt a ffi rm s t he di st ric t co urt. I. BACKGROUND Sch aaf wo rk edforGlax oS m it hKl in e (GSK) fi rs t as a Sal es Rep res en ta ti ve an d t he n a s a Di st ric t Sa le s M an ag er (DSM ) be fo re as su m in g t he rol e o f Reg io na l Vice Pres id en t (RVP) in 19 99 . In h er n ew ro le as RVP, Sch aaf was tas ke d wi th ov ers eei ng a reg io n t ha t i nc lu de d a ll of F lo rid a an d apo rti on of s ou th ern Geo rg ia—a r eg io n t ha t, atth e ti m e, ha d c on si st en tl y fai le d t o m eetGSK’ s s al es ex pe ct at io ns . Sch aaf’s s up eri or s en co ur ag edhe r to ad dr es s t he se sh ortfa ll s b y ap pr oa ch in g t he RVP p os it io n wi th crea ti vi ty andin no va ti on , andin di cat edth at th e g oa l o f in crea si ng sal es vo lu m e in th e fal te rin g re gi on was o f cen tra l im po rta nc e. Afte r a few years atth e h el m , th e ear ly sig ns in di cat edth atSch aaf ha d s uc ces sf

ul ly rise n t o t he ch al le ng e; un de r he r di rect io n, t he reg io n’s pe rfo rm an ce i nc reas edm ark ed ly andit s s al es fig ur es returne d t o s at is fact ory le ve ls . 2Alt ho ug h i ni ti al in di cat io ns see m edpo si ti ve , pro bl em s b etweenSch aaf a nd

he r subo rd in at es ev en tu al ly tain te d S ch aaf’s m an ag eri al acco m pl is hm en ts . In Jul y 20 02 , th ree DSM s wo rk in g u nd er Sc ha af— Liz M urray, Ste wartMi ll er, an d J os e Cas tri ll o— lo dg edco m

pl ai nt s wi th th e GSK Hum anRes ou rces (HR) d ep art m en t, be m oa ni ng Sch aaf’s al le ge d u np ro fes si on al m an ag em en t s tyle. HR th en in te rv ie wedeach of t he se th ree DSM s, i n a dd it io n t o a ll of t he ot he r GSK em pl oyees wh o re po rte d d ire ct ly to Sc ha af. The ot he r em pl oyees v eri fie d M urray, Mi ll er, an d C as tri ll o’s i ni ti al co m pl ai nt s re ga rd in g S ch aaf’s m an ag em en t, an d, i n so m e cas es , furth er el ab or at edon he r al le ge d faul ts . The in te rv ie ws re ve al edbo th bro adco m pl ai nt s an d s pe ci fic gri ev an ces ab ou t Sc ha af. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e em

pl oyees c om

pl ai ne d abo utSch aaf’s an ta go ni st ic an d i nf

le xi bl e m an ag em en t s tyle, ch ro ni c in acce ss ib il it y , po or co m m un ic at io n s ki ll s, h ars h a ndde m an di ng de m ean or , andten de nc y to pl ay fav or it es , as wel l as ab ou t h er fa il ur e to pro vi de writ te n fe edba ckon pe rfo rm an ce ap pr ai sa ls , herpra ct ic e o f sh ari ng so m e DSMs ’ co nf id en ti al pe rfo rm an ceev al ua ti onin fo rm at io n wi th ot he r em pl oyees, h er unwi ll in gn es s t o re sp on d t o vo ic e-m ai l m es sa ge s fo r week s ata ti m e, an d h er fa il ur e to ackno wled ge th e co nt rib ut io ns of h er s ub or di na te s. Th e in te rv ie ws l eftno qu es ti on as t o h ow t he DSMs vi ewedSch aaf a s a s up erv is or . For i ns ta nc e, on e em pl oyee lamente d t he 3“ [t]erri bl e” s ta te of t he reg io n’s m or al e, ex pl ai ni ng , “ Mo ral e can ’t be p os it iv e.

Ju stno way . Youdo n’t kno w when sh e is go in g t o s tri ke . Onl y th in g p red ic tabl e is th atit ’s go in g t o b e n as ty . . . .” Ano th er re po rte d tha t Sc ha af was si m pl y “ no t op ento he ari ng di ffer in g v ie wpo in ts ,” an d ath irdst ark ly des cri be d S ch aaf a s

“ ve ry co ldan d u nc ari ng .” Sch aaf’s s ub or di na te s re it erat edth atSch aaf’s m an ag em en t d efec ts co nt rib ut edsi gn ifi can tl y to th e g ro up ’s lo w m or al e. Afte r th es e in it ia l i nt erv ie ws wi th th e subo rd in at es , GSK als o i nt erv ie wed Sch aaf t o o fferhe r a ch an ce t o re sp on d t o t he ir c on cern s. GSK th ende te rm in ed th atth e em

pl oyees’ gri ev an ces were s ev ere a ndpe rv as iv e en ou gh to warran t ta ki ng form al di sc ip li na ry act io n a ga in stSch aaf b y is su in g h er a Ver

ba l Warni ng . Lis a Gon zal ez, Sch aaf’s i m m ed ia te supe rio r, al so in st ru ct edSch aaf t o c om pl et e a so -cal le d P erfo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl an(PIP) with the go al of b ette rin g h er co m m un ic at io n s ki ll s an d m an ag em en t s tyle. Acco rd in g t o GSK, the im pr ov em en t p la n was de si gn edto all ow Sc ha af an op po rtu ni ty to co rrec t h er sh ortc om in gs an d t o fo st er i m pr ov edrel at io ns hi ps with h er s ub or di na te s— fo r in st an ce, the PIP re qu ire d S ch aaf t o i ss ue pre vi ou sl y un co m pl et edwrit te n pe rfo rm an ce re vi ews to he r subo rd in at es , to att en d m an ag em en t-t rai ni ng pr og ram s, an d t o c om

pl et e te am -b ui ld in g e xe rci se s wi th he r subo rd in at es .

4In ci de nt al ly, in Ju ly 200 2, t he same m on th th atMurray, Mil le r, an d C as tri ll o

fir stco m pl ai ne d t o HR, Sc ha af i nf orm edGon zal ez, h er s up eri or , th atSch aaf was pr eg na ntwith h er fo urth ch il d a ndpl an ne d t o t ak e m at ern it y lea ve be gi nn in g i n earl y 20 03 . As a res ul t, Sc ha af ex pr es se d s om e co nc ern reg ard in g h er ab il it y to 1 co m pl et e th e PIP p rio r to th e co m m en cem en t o f he r le av e. Rathe r th anm ak in g a di li ge ntatt em

ptto sat is fy

th e p la n’s re qu ire m en ts an d t o d em on st rat e h er wil li ng ne ss to im

pr ov e h ers el f pr of

es si on al ly, ho wev er, Sch aaf i ns te adig no red se ve ral PIP d ead li ne s, i nc lu di ng de ad li ne s t o re gi st er fo r th e requi redm an ag em en t co ur se s an d t o c om

pl et e th e wri tt enpe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s. Sch aaf e ve n fa il ed to m eetth e d ead li ne forsi m pl y returni ng a si gn edco py of th e p la n t o h er supe rio rs . As a res ul t o f th is de m on st rat edun wil li ng ne ss to co op erat e, Sch aaf d id no t s at is fy

th e PIP’s re qu ire m en ts by the tar ge t d at e o f Decem be r 5, 2 00 2. Gon zal ez the n e xt en de d t hi s t im e fra m e u nt il m id -J anua ry 20 03 , and , whenSch aaf li ke wis e fai le d t o m eetth is ne w dea dl in e, Gon zal ez ex te nd editag ai n u nt il aft er Sch aaf r eturne d fr om

he r m at ern it y

lea ve . Sch aaf b eg anhe r le av e o n J anuary 21 , 20 03 . Duri ng he r ab se nc e, an in te rim RVP t oo k h er p la ce, an d t he subo rd in at es rep orte d t ha t the reg io n Despite the te mporal proximi ty of these e vents, thereis nothing in the re cord indicating 1 that any of Schaa f’s subordinates knew e ither that Schaa f wa s pregnant at the time or that she planned to take leave a fe w months later. 5fu nc ti on edsi gn ifi can tl y be tt er wh il e Sch aaf was go ne . Whi le servi ng as RVP, th e in te rim al so di sc ov eredan d c orrect edsev eral si gn ifi can t adm in is tra ti ve pro bl em s th atha d o ccu rredun de r Sch aaf’s wat ch , in cl ud in g s co res of e xp en se rep orts th at Sch aaf h adig no redan d s ev eral in vo ic es fro m ou ts id e cre di to rs th atSch aaf h ad fai le d t o p ay . The s ub or di na te s re po rte d t ha t, u nd er the in te rim RVP, p ro du ct iv it y ha d i nc reas ed , comm

un ic at io n h adim

pr ov ed , andm or al e was m ark ed ly hig he r. Sh ortl y be fo re Sc ha af’s return, t he DSMs reque st eda m eet in g wi th Gon zal ez, Sch aaf’s s up eri or , to ex pr es s the ir c on cern s t ha t the reg io n’s i nc reas ed m or al e an d p ro du ct iv it y

co ul d d is si pa te imm ed ia te ly if Sch aaf r es um edhe r ro le as RVP. Gon zal ez t oo k t he se res erv at io ns ser io us ly: whenSch aaf r eturne d t o wo rk on Apri l 1 5, 2 00 3, s he was i m m ed ia te ly ins tru ct edto tra ve l t o Go nz al ez’s o ffi ce i n NorthCaro li na . Once t he re, Go nz al ez g av e Sch aaf ach oi ce: sh e co ul d e ithe r acce pta de m ot io n t o Di st ric t Sa le s M an ag er o r le av e th e co m pa ny, butin any

cas e sh e wou ldno t b e rei ns ta ll edas RVP. Sch aaf e ve ntua ll y acce pt edth e d em ot io n t o DSM, an d s ub m it te d areque stfora writ te n s ta te m en t o f th e rea so ns forhe r de m ot io n. GSK pro vi de d t he reque st edwrit te n re sp on se , inwhi ch itin fo rm edSch aaf th athe r subo rd in at es ha d c om pl ai ne d o f he r ov erb eari ng an d h os ti le m an ag em en t st y le an d t ha t h er re gi on fun ct io ne d m ark ed ly bet te r in he r ab se nc e. GSK als o 6in di cat edth atSch aaf’s fa il ur e to co m pl et e th e PIP r equi rem en ts an d h er de m on st rat edun wil li ng ne ss to ch an ge he r m an ag em en t b eh av io r co nt rib ut edto he r de m ot io n. Sc ha af the n s ue d, cl ai m in g tha t GSK i m pe rm is si bl y

de m ot edhe r fo r rea so ns rel at edto he r st atut or il y pro te ct edm at ern it y

lea ve . II. DISCUSS ION Sch aaf r ai se s a n um

be r of is su es on ap pe al , bu t h er p rimary arg um en ts cen te r on whet he r GSK vi ol at edSch aaf’s ri gh ts un de r th e Fam il y an d M ed ic al Leav e Act(FMLA). Sch aaf a ll eg es th atGSK vi ol at edth e st atut e b oth b y (1 ) in te rfer in g wi thhe r FMLA ri gh ts an d (2 ) ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t h er fo r ex erci si ng th os e ri gh ts . The di stric t co urt g ran te d ju dg m en t as a m atte r of law i n GSK’s fa vo r on bo th of t he se cla im s. Onap pe al , th is Co urt re vi ews th atgra ntde no vo , andit dr aws all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof S ch aaf, t he no nm ov in g p arty . Se e Ros sb ac h v . Cit

y o f Mi ami , 37 1 F .3d13 54 , 13 56 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). The s ta nd ard s se t fo rth by Feder al Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0 g ui de th e d e n ov o e va lu at io n; th at ru le pe rm it s a c ou rt t o “ gr an t a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law ag ai ns t [a ] pa rty” if i t “ fin ds th ata reas on ab le jury wou ldno t h av e a l eg al ly suf fic ie nt ev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi ndfor th e p arty on th atis su e.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 50 . Grant in g su ch a m ot io n i s p ro pe r whe n “ th e fac ts an d i nf eren ces po in t o ve rwh el m in gl y in 7fav orof o ne pa rty, suc h tha t re as on ab le pe op le co ul d n otarri ve at aco nt rary

ve rd ic t.” Ca rt er

v. Cit y o f Mi ami , 87 0 F .2d57 8, 5 81 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Whi le Ru le 50 pro vi de s t he leg al st an da rd s fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law was ap pr op ria te inth is cas e, th e FMLA p ro vi de s t he subs ta nt iv e la w un de r whi ch th is Co urt ev al ua te s Sc ha af’s al le ga ti on s. Th e st atut e’s pu rp os e, am on g o th ers , is to pro vi de em pl oyees wi th th e fl ex ib il it y ne ed edto care for

a ne wbo rnch il d. To th is en d, t he st atut e aff or ds eli gi bl e worke rs up to twel ve week s o f un pa idlea ve pe r y ear t o a tt en d t o t he bi rth an d c are of th e n ew ch il d. 2 9 U.S.C. § 26 12 (a)( 1) (A); Mar ti n v . Breva rd Co un tyPub . Sch . , 54 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Then , when anem pl oyee returns fro m le av e, th e FMLA re qu ire s tha t the em pl oyer rei ns ta te th atem

pl oyee to th e p os it io n sh e h el d wh enhe r le av e b eg an , or t o a no th er p os it io n t ha t i s eq ui va le ntin term s o f be ne fit s, p ay , andot he r rel ev an t co nd it io ns of e m pl oym en t. § 26 14 (a)( 1) ; Mar ti n , 54 3 F .3dat 1 26 7. Im po rta nt ly, ho wev er, thi s re in st at em en t ri gh t i s n otab so lu te ; ra th er, “ an em pl oyer cande ny rein st at em en t i f itcande m on st rat e th atitwou ldha ve di sc ha rg edth e em

pl oyee ha d [s ]he n otbe enon FMLA le av e.” Mar ti n , 54 3 F .3dat 12 67 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Bu t, i f anem pl oyee is no t re in st at ed , th e em pl oyer be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t the em pl oyee was d is ch arg edforin de pe nd en t 8reas on s t ha t wer e u nr el at edto th e em pl oyee’s lea ve . Par ris v. Mi ami Hera ld Pub l’g Co . , 21 6 F .3d12 98 , 13 01 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). A. FMLA Int er

fe re nc e Clai m Sch aaf’s t wo FM LA clai m s ar e si m il ar, as bo th in vo lv e GSK’s de ci si on to de m ot e h er upo n h er re tu rnfro m FMLA-p ro te ct edlea ve . In h er fi rs t cl ai m , Sch aaf cas ts he r de m ot io n a s i nt erfe ren ce wi th—t ha t i s, d en ia l o f—h er FM LA rig ht s: th e FMLA en ti tl edSch aaf t o re in st at em en t upo n h er re tu rn , andsh e was no t rei ns ta te d. To s uc ceedun de r th is in te rfer en ce the ory , Sch aaf m us t d em on st rat e o nl y th atsh e was “ de ni eda be ne fitto whi ch[s]he was e nt it le d u nd er the FMLA.” Mar ti n , 54 3 F .3dat 1 26 6– 67 . Sch aaf m ai nt ai ns th atsh e su cces sf ul ly m ad e th is sh owi ng by pro vi ng th atsh e was de m ot edup on he r return fr om m at ern it y

lea ve , th ereb y est ab li sh in g t ha t GSK d en ie d h er the be ne fitof r ei ns ta te m en t t o wh ic h s he was en ti tl ed . GSK, onth e o th er h an d, co nt en ds th atitde m ot edSch aaf f or in de pe nd en t p erfo rm an ce-r el at edreas on s, an d tha t, co ns eque nt ly, itdi d n otvi ol at e th e FMLA. Neit he r pa rty dis pu te s t ha t Sc ha af m ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng of a n F MLA in te rfer en ce cl ai m , inth atsh e d em on st rat edsh e was no t re in st at edto th e sa m e po si ti onsh e h el d p rio r to tak in g h er FM LA leav e. Thu s, the cru x o f th is is su e is 9whe th er GSK p ro ve d t o aleg al cert ai nt y th atSch aaf was de m ot edforreas on s un rel at edto he r FMLA l eav e, su ch th atsh e wou ldha ve be ende m ot edev enif s he ha d n ottak enlea ve . Se e Ma rt in , 54 3 F .3dat 1 26 7. Be cau se GSK off ered ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Sc ha af was de m ot edas ares ul t o f he r in effe ct iv e m an ag em en t s tyle, an d S ch aaf d oe s n otoff er an y ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g GSK’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Ess en ti al ly, Sch aaf’s ar gu m en ts rel y onon e b as ic pre m is e: be cau se GSK le arn edof S ch aaf’s h os ti le tem pe ram en t, i ne ffec ti ve m an ag em en t p ract ic es , and adm in is tra ti ve in ep ti tu de whi le sh e was on lea ve , itfol lo ws tha t GSK wo ul d n ot ha ve di sc ov eredth es e d erel ic ti on s h adSch aaf no t ta ke n m at ern it y lea ve . Thu s, Sch aaf c on cl ud es , her

m at ern it y

lea ve ca us ed

he r de m ot io n b ecau se , bu t fo r th e le av e, GSK wou ldha ve ha d n o re as on to de m ot e h er. 2 Thi s ar gu m en t, h owe ve r, is leg al ly inc orrectan d l og ic al ly uns ou nd . In an FMLA i nt erfe ren ce ca se , cou rts ex am in e n otwhet he r th e FMLA l eav e was th e bu t-f or cau se of a n e m

pl oyee’s di sc ha rg e o r de m ot io n, b utrathe r whe th er i t was th e pr ox ima te cau se . Alth ou gh th is Co urt h as no t yet ha d o ccas io n t o a dd res s t he fam il ia r di st in ct io n b etweenbu t-f oran d p ro xi m at e cau sa ti on in th e FMLA Schaaf uses this very

languag e to make he r argument; for instance , in her Reply Brief, 2 Schaaf asser ts, “[A] jury

could find that but-for

Ms. Schaaf

’s leave , she would not have been demoted.” Scha af r eiterated this positi on at ora l argument. 10co nt ex t, a b rie f ex am in at io n o f th e st atut e’s pu rp os e rea di ly ill us tra te s t he flaw in

Sch aaf’s p os it io n. The pu rp os e o f th e FMLA i s t o a ll ow i nd iv idua ls to tem po rari ly putth ei r care ers onho ldin ord er t o t en d t o c ert ai n p ers on al m at te rs , li ke th e car e o f a ne wbo rnch il d. It s p ur

po se is no t t o a idanem

pl oyee in co ve rin g up h er wo rk rel at edde fic ie nc ie s. If an e m pl oyee were d em ot edor d is ch arg ed fo r the rea so n th at sh e to okanFMLA le av e, in di vi du al s wo ul d t he n b e rel uc ta ntto tak e le av e to care for th ei r ne w chi ld ren . Thu s, b ecau se th e st atut e’s pu rp os e wou ldhave be en fru st rat ed , itfol lo ws tha t the em pl oyee sh ou ldbe ab le to su e fo r FMLA in te rfer en ce an d re co ve r da m ag es ag ai ns t the em pl oyer. Suc h asu itals o wo ul d ha ve th e an ci ll ary be ne fitof h el pi ng to de te r ot he r im pe rm is si bl e d em ot io ns an d di sc ha rg es in th e fu tu re. On t he ot he r ha nd , th e st atut e’s pu rp os e is no t i m pl ic at edin th e le as t i f an em pl oyee’s ab se nc e p erm it s h er em pl oyer to di sc ov er p as t p ro fes si on al tra ns gr es si on s t ha t the n l eadto anadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ag ai ns t the em pl oyee. In s uc h asi tu at io n, t he em pl oyer is m ot iv at edno t b y th e ta ki ng of t he le av e it se lf, b utrathe r by pri orde fic ie nc ie s t ha t, wh en ev er the y were d is co ve red , wou ldha ve pro m

pt edde m ot io n o r di sc ha rg e whe th er o r no t the em pl oyee to ok FMLA l eav e. Mo reo ve r, fu tu re i nd iv idua ls who see k F MLA le av e wou ldhave no 11reas onto fearde m ot io n o r di sc ha rg e upo n t he ir r eturn, u nl es s t he y , to o, h adbe en

pr of es si on al ly defi ci en t. Oth er co urts ha ve li ke wis e rec og ni zedth is di st in ct io n. Fo r in st an ce, i n a Sev en th Cir cu itcas e anem pl oyer di sc ov eredde fic ie nc ie s i n an e m pl oyee’s work wh il e th e em

pl oyee was o n F MLA le av e. Ko hl s v. Bev er lyEnt er

s. Wis., In c. , 25 9 F .3d79 9, 8 06 (7t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Thatco urt ex pl ai ne d, “ The factth atth e le av e pe rm it te d t he em

pl oyer to di sc ov er the pro bl em s ca n n otlo gi cal ly be a b ar t o t he em pl oyer’s abi li ty to fi re the de fic ie ntem pl oyee.” Id. The re, l ik e h ere, t ha t the FMLA l eav e al lo wedth e em pl oyer to un co ve r pr io r de fic ie nc ie s d oe s n otm ean th atth e em

pl oyee was f

ire d be ca us e o

f th e FMLA l eav e. The di stric t co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a h as ap pl ie d s im il ar lo gi c. Se e W

u v . Se.- Atl . Bever ag e Co rp . , 32 1 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 31 7 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 4) . In W u , th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d, “ [T]he fac t tha t p la in ti ff’s le av e is what pe rm it te d [t he em

pl oyer] to di sc ov er the pro bl em s wi th pl ai nt iff’s work pe rfo rm an ce i s o f no co ns eque nc e. Altho ug h o ne co ul d s ay th atpl ai nt iff

m ig ht no t h av e b eende m ot edif h e h adno t t ak enlea ve (atlea stno t atth atti m e), the le av e was no t the pro xi m at e cau se of the de m ot io n.” Id. at 1 34 1. Thi s d is ti nc ti on be twee n b ut -fo r an d p ro xi m at e cau sa ti on m ak es go odsen se in th e FMLA co nt ex t. Ho ld in g t ha t b ut -fo r cau sa ti on is so m eh ow s uf fic ie ntto 12supp ort an FMLA cl ai m wou ldpe rm itwant on ab us e o f th e FMLA wi th pe rv ers e co ns eque nc es . For i ns ta nc e, Sch aaf’s s ug ge st edread in g o f th e st atut e wou ld effe ct iv el y

pro te ctde fic ie ntem

pl oyees fr om

adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s, s uc h th atth os e worke rs co ul d a ctua ll y att ai n jo b s ecu rit y

by seek in g l eav e u nd er the FMLA. Thes e em

pl oyees c ou ldtak e le av e an d a ctua ll y ho pe th ei r em

pl oyers un co ve r ev id en ce o f th ei r tr an sg res si on s wh il e th ey are awa y . If su ch ev id en ce were re ve al ed , th e st atut e wou ldpre ve ntth ei r em pl oyer fro m ever

tak in g a dv ers e act io n a ga in stth em , as t he lea ve wou ld alwa ys be th e b ut -fo r cau se of t he di sc ov ery of

th atev id en ce. Su ch a laug habl e res ul t i s n otsupp orte d b y po li cy , by co m m on sen se , or, m os t i m

po rta nt ly, by the st atut e it se lf. Here, the ev id en ce s ho ws tha t Sc ha af was de m ot edbe cau se of m an ag eri al in effe ct iv en es s t ha t re ve al edit se lf i n fu ll on ly in h er ab se nc e; sh e was no t d em ot ed be cau se (i.e . fo r the rea so n tha t) sh e to okFMLA le av e. It d oe s n otap pe ar tha t Sch aaf p res en te d t he di st ric t co urt wi th an y ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary, andsh e d oe s no t i de nt ify any in he r ap pe ll at e b rie fs . Accor di ng ly, be cau se “ a rea so nabl e jury wou ldno t h av e a l eg al ly suf fic ie ntev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi nd ” th atSch aaf was de m ot edbe cau se sh e to okFMLA le av e, se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 50 , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n oterr i n g ran ti ng jud gm en t as a m atte r of law i n fa vo r of

GSK onSch aaf’s FMLA i nt erfe ren ce cl ai m . 13B. FMLA Reta li at io n Cla im

Sch aaf’s s eco ndcla im

li ke wis e cen te rs onth e d em ot io n t ha t i m m ed ia te ly fo ll owe d h er re tu rnfro m

lea ve . Und er thi s al te rn at e th eo ry , Sch aaf c as ts he r de m ot io n n otas i nt erfe ren ce wi th he r FMLA ri gh ts , bu t ra th er as ret al ia ti on for ex erci si ng th os e st atut ory rig ht s. In ess en ce, Sch aaf a ll eg es th atsh e to ok le av e—a n a ct iv ity

pro te ct edby the st atut e—a ndth atsh e was de m ot edas ares ul t. To s uc ceedun de r th is ret al ia ti on th eo ry , Sch aaf m us t s ho w th atGSK in te nt io na ll y

“ di sc riminat edag ai ns t [h er] bec au se [s]he en ga ge d i n a ct iv it y pr ot ect edby the Act.” Stri cklan d v . W at er W orks &Se wer

Bd. o f Bi rmi ngha m , 23 9 F .3d11 99 , 12 06 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Ess en ti al ly, Sch aaf m us t s ho w th atsh e su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on th atwas “ m ot iv at edby an im pe rm is si bl e ret al ia to ry

or d is cri m in at ory

an im us .” Id. at 1 20 7. InanFMLA ret al ia ti on cas e, un le ss th ere i s d ire ctev id en ce o f th e em pl oyer’s ret al ia to ry

in te nt , th is Co urt em

pl oys th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rk es tabl is he d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt i n McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3) . Mar ti n , 54 3 F .3dat 1 26 8. Un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as fram ewo rk , th e p la in ti ff m us t fi rs t es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e b y de m on st rat in g (1 ) sh e en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edact iv it y , (2) sh e su ffer edan adve rs e em

pl oym en t d eci si on , and(3) th e d eci si on was c au sa ll y rel at edto th e 14pr ot ect edact iv it y . Id . For t he pu rp os es of t hi s an al y si s, thi s C ou rt wi ll ass um e

wit ho utde ci di ng th atSch aaf h as su cces sf ul ly establ is he d apri m a fac ie cas e fo r FMLA ret al ia ti on : s he ha s s ho wn (1 ) sh e to oklea ve to care forhe r ne wbo rnch il d, (2 ) GSK de m ot edhe r, an d (3 ) he r de m ot io n was tem po ral ly pro xi m at e to he r le av e. Se e id. (“ [T]he cl os e te m po ral pro xi m it y

be twee n [t he pl ai nt iff’s lea ve an d he r te rm in at io n] . . . is m or e th ansu ffi ci en t t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factof c au sa l co nn ect io n.” ). Eve n a ss um in g S ch aaf s uc ces sf ul ly establ is he d apri m a fac ie cas e, ho wev er, th is ass um

pt io n s at is fie s o nl y

th e fi rs t s te p o f th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s fram ewo rk . Und er thi s b ur de n- sh ift in g a na lysis , on ce Sc ha af s ho ws a p rima facie ret al ia ti on cl ai m , th e b ur de n the n s hi fts to GSK to art ic ul at e a l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas onforhe r de m ot io n . See id . A revi ew of th e rec or d i nd ic at es GSK has read il y sa ti sf ie d t hi s b ur de n: GSK pro du cedtes ti m on y reg ard in g S ch aaf’s p oo r m an ag em en t p ract ic es , ast rin ge ntlea de rs hi p s tyle, an d i nabi li ty to co m m un ic at e effe ct iv el y

with h er s ub or di na te s. GSK th enex pl ai ne d t ha t i t l earn edof t he se de fic ie nc ie s wh il e Sch aaf was on lea ve , andacco rd in gl y ad dr es se d the is su e whe n Sch aaf r eturne d. Th es e p erfo rm an ce-r el at edfact or s i nd ic at e th atSch aaf’s de m ot io n was forleg it im at e rea so ns un rel at edto he r FMLA l eav e; as ares ul t,

15GSK ha s s at is fie d i ts bu rd enof p ro vi di ng in de pe nd en t, n on di sc riminat ory ba se s fo r th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Und er McDo nn el l Do ug la s , th e b ur de n t he n s hi fts ba ckto Sch aaf t o s ho w th atGSK’ s s up po se dl y

in de pe nd en t re as on s wer e, in real it y , m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Id . To sa ti sf y th is bu rd en , Sch aaf m

us t p res en t ev id en ce

“ su ffi ci en t t o p erm ita reas on ab le fact fin de r to co nc lu de th atth e rea so ns gi ve n b y th e em pl oyer were n otth e rea l re as on s fo r th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on .” Se e id. (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Ulti m at el y , Sch aaf h as fai le d t o s at is fy th is bu rd en . Inall eg in g t ha t GSK’s rea so ns were m erel y pre te xtua l, Sc ha af p rimaril y em ph as iz es (1) GSK dev ia te d fr om it s d is ci pl in ary pr oc edur es by dem ot in g S ch aaf rathe r th anis su in g h er a wri tt enwarn in g a nd(2) a jury cou ldha ve ch os ento di sb el ie ve GSK’ s s ta te d ra ti on al e b ecau se th e co m pa ny kn ew of

so m e o f Sch aaf’s de fic ie nc ie s b utne ve rth el es s i ni ti al ly int en de d t o re in st at e h er as RVP upo n h er return. No ne of t hi s ev id en ce, h owe ve r, de m on st rat es th atGSK’ s re as on s wer e m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Fi rs t, al th ou gh ev id en ce tha t GSK d ev ia te d fr om it s o rd in ary di sc ip li na ry pr oc edur es m ay

ha ve cau se d ajury to en te rta in th e p os si bi li ty of analt ern at e ex pl an at io n fo r Sch aaf’s d em ot io n, Sc ha af o ffer edno ev id en ce tha t wo ul d h av e

16al lo weda jury to fi ndth atth ere wa s su ch analt ern at e ex pl an at io n. Sch aaf d idno t 3 pr es en t an y

ev id en ce s ug ge st in g t ha t GSK was m ot iv at edby a dis cri m in at ory an im us , no r di d s he off

er an y ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t GSK’s rea so ns were b ad on es —tha t i s, s he di d n otarg ue th atsh e was no t anag gr es si ve , in se ns it iv e le ad er wit h p oo r co m

m un ic at io n s ki ll s. Onth e who le , GSK sh owe d t ha t i t d em ot ed Sch aaf f orpu rel y pe rfo rm an ce-r el at edreas on s an d, t o t he ex te ntitde vi at edfro m it s d is ci pl in ary pr oc edur es , itsee m s t o h av e d on e so be cau se of t he na tu re o f th e si tu at io n. Even drawin g a ll in fere nc es in fav orof S ch aaf, t he re i s n ot hi ng on

4 whi cha reas on ab le jury co ul d b as e a fi nd in g t ha t GSK d em ot edSch aaf f or an yth in g o th er than p oo r pe rfo rm an ce. Sch aaf’s s eco ndarg um en t—th atth e jury cou ldhave di sb el ie ve d GSK’s no nd is cri m in at ory

rat io na le be cau se th e co m pa ny kn ew of

so m e o f Sch aaf’s de fic ie nc ie s b utin it ia ll y

in te nd edto rei ns ta te he r as RVP—i s l ik ewis e unpe rs ua si ve . ThatGSK perhaps in te nd edto rei ns ta te Sch aaf b efo re l earn in g o f In applying the McD onnell Douglas burden- shifting a naly sis in the contextof Title VI I 3 employ ment discrimination, this C ourt has explained that “mer ely establishing pr etext, without more, is insufficie nt to support a findingof . . . discrimination. The plaintiff must show he suffe red intentional discrimination because of” a protec ted ground. See H awkins v. Ceco Corp. , 883 F.2d 977, 981 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 1989). Thus, it is i nsufficie nt to show merely that an employer’ s rea sons are prete x tual; rather the plaintiff must show that the re asons ar e a pr etext for discrimination . In this case, then, e ven if Scha af ha s succe ssfully cast some doubt on GSK’s nondiscriminatory

rationale , she did not show that the rationale was a prete x t for discriminati on . GSK notes that the compa ny ’s discipline policy

specific ally

provides the f

lexi bility to 4 deviate f rom the normal pr ocedur es if the c ircumstance s so require . 17th e fu ll ex te ntof h er i ne ffec ti ve an d o pp res si ve m an ag em en t s tyle o nl y bo ls te rs GSK’s exp la na ti on th atth e p ro xi m at e cau se of S ch aaf’s d em ot io n was pr of es si on al in effe ct iv en es s; itin no way in di cat es th atth e d em ot io n c on st itut ed im pe rm is si bl e ret al ia ti on . Even vi ewin g the se ev en ts in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le 5 to Sch aaf, the re i s n o c on tra ry in fere nc e th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d d raw. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gra nt in g GSK’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law o n S ch aaf’s FM LA reta li at io n c la im .

III. CONCLUSI ON Bec au se a reas on ab le jury wou ldno t h av e a l eg al ly suf fic ie ntev id en ti ary ba si s t o fi ndin Sch aaf’s fa vo r on eit he r of he r FMLA cl ai m s, the di stric t co urt d id no t err in gra nt in g GSK’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. 6 AFFIRMED.

Gonzalez, Schaaf’ s superior, testified that she initially intended to bringSchaaf back a s 5 RVP following her

maternity

leave , but that her opinion cha ng ed af ter mee ting with the DSMs on April 1, 2003. Gonzalez ex plained, “[My opinion chang ed] [ b]ecause I conclude d from the fee dback f

rom the mana g ers that Ellen ha d not shown any chang e and I

didn’t think she had any intention of showing a

ny chang e.” T his demonstrates not that Gonzalez discriminated ag ainst Schaaf , but, rather , that she per

missibl y cre dited the fe edbac k of the DSMs reg arding Schaaf ’s profe ssional prac tices. Schaaf raises se vera l other issues on appe al, includingthe disposition of her claims for 6 pregnancy

discrimination and discriminatory discipline, as well as a

number of r

ulings on evidentiar y and sanc tions matters. After revie wingthe brief

s and havinghad the be nefit of or al argument, this Court hol ds that these conte ntions are meritless and it affirms the district cour t’s dispositi on as to ea ch issue. 18