## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 33 98

__ __ __ __ __ _

Mar y E. Sis k, *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
Pi ct ur e Peo pl e, In c., *

*
Defen da nt - App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 11
Fi le d: Feb ru ary 28 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MELLOY, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mar y Ell en Si sk su ed he r fo rm er em pl oyer The Pi ct ur e Peo pl e, In c. fo r

ret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n of th e Fam il y an d Med ic al Leav e Act, 29 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a)( 2)

. At th e cl os e of he r cas e-i n- ch ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Pi ct ur e Peo pl e’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t

affi rm s.

In Mar ch 20 00 , S is k be ga n wit h Pi ct ur e Peo pl e as a m an ag er-i n- tra in in g at a ph ot og rap hy st ud io in th e M i d

- R i v e rs Mal l. Mo nt hs la te r sh e be cam e th e St ud ioMan ag er. In May 20 05

, Si sk m ov ed to th e W es t Co un ty Mal l as St ud io Man ag er,

se rv in g u nt il Aug us t 2 3, 2 00 7.

At wor k on Ju ne 3, 20 07

, Si sk ex pe rie nc ed se ve re pa in in he r hi p. Sh e cal le d

in th e as si st an t m an ag er, l eft work , went to th e h os pi ta l, b ut was n ot ad m it te d. The

ne xt da y , sh e sa w an or th op ed ic su rg eo n, Dr. Tho m as M. Hawk, who ad vi se d he r to

ta ke th e week of

f fro m wor k. On Ju ne 7, Dr. Hawk wro te Pi ct ur e Peo pl e au th or iz in g
Si sk to m is s wor k fro m Ju ne 3 to Ju ne 13

. Als o on Ju ne 7, And rea Bu ffk in

, a be ne fit s

co or di na to r fo r Pi ct ur e Peo pl e, se nt Si sk a cert ifi ed le tt er ex pl ai ni ng FMLA, pl aci ng
he r on un pa id FMLA le av e ret ro act iv e to Ju ne 3, and au th or iz in g up to 12 week s of

le av e wit h p ro pe r m ed ic al cert ifi cat io n.

The ne xt Su nd ay , s h e f

e l t so m et hi ng po p in he r hi p. Sh e sp en t th e ne xt ni ne
da y s i n t he ho sp it al wher e Dr. Hawk per fo rm ed su rg ery on bo th hi ps . Her hu sb an d

no ti fie d Pi ct ur e Peo pl e o f h e r w or se ni ng he al th

, co nt in ui ng he r FMLA le av e. Dr.
Hawk p ro vi de d c ert ifi cat io n fo r th e le av e.

On Au gu st 14 , aft er n earl y 11 week s of FMLA le av e, Dr. Hawk cl eare d S is k

t o w o r k. Bu ffk in as ke d Dr. Hawk whe th er sh e ha d an y wor k res tri ct io ns on he r

ret ur n. Bu ffk in li st ed s o me a ct iv it ie s th at Si sk ’s job req ui red (“ cl im bi ng la dd ers ,
sq ua tt in g an d ro ll in g on flo or to ta ke pi ct ur es , et c.”). Dr. Hawk res po nd ed th at Si sk

ha d n o re st ric ti on s.

Si sk ret ur ne d to wor k on Mo nd ay , Aug us t 20

. Thre e da y s la te r, Bec ky W ei le r (h er di st ric t m an ag er) an d Den ni s Jo ne s (h er reg io na l m an ag er) arri ve d at he r st ud io

to co nd uc t p ho to tra in in g.

Afte r th e tra in in g, W ei le r an d Jo ne s m et wit h Si sk in th e m al l’s fo od co ur t

. Fear in g th e pu rp os e of t h e mee t i ng , sh e be ga n crying be fo re it be ga n. Dur in g th e

m eet in g, W ei le r rep eat ed ly ex pr es se d co nc ern ov er Si sk ’s he al th

. W ei le r al so st at ed

-2

-th at se ve ral of he r e m pl oyees, in cl ud in g th e as si st an t m an ag er, sa id sh e was ph y si cal ly un ab le to do he r job an d th at – du rin g th e th ree da y s si nc e ret ur ni ng fro m

l e a ve – Si sk refu se d to cl im b a la dd er or pe rfo rm a ph ot o- si tt in g an d cal le d o n h e r

em pl oyees to pi ck up pa pe r an d p en ci ls fro m th e flo or

. Si sk fel t bad ge red by Jo ne s
who to ld he r se ve ral ti m es th at sh e n eed ed to ret ur n to he r do ct or fo r m or e care an d

sh ou ld co ns id er q ui tt in g a nd reap pl y in g wh en he al th ie r.

The pa rti es di sa gr ee ov er ho w th e m eet in g en de d. Pi ct ur e Peo pl e s a ys Si sk

res ig ne d. Si sk sa y s sh e was te rm in at ed

. Sh e ad m it s t h a t n e i th er Jo ne s no r W ei le r

ex pl ic it ly sa id sh e was fir ed

. Si sk as su m ed sh e was fir ed ba se d on Jo ne s’s co m m en ts

t h a t s h e was a li ab il it y , th at Pi ct ur e Peo pl e di d no t ha ve a po si ti on fo r he r in h e r

cu rren t co nd it io n, an d t ha t s he sh ou ld res ig n. Nob od y at th e m eet in g s ai d a nyth in g
ab ou t he r u s e o f FMLA le av e. The m eet in g en de d whe n Si sk to re up he r na m e ta g

an d t ur ne d i n h er k ey s. Au gu st 23 , 20 07 , was Si sk ’s las t d ay wit h P ic tu re Pe op le

.

Si sk su ed Pi ct ur e Peo pl e fo r FMLA ret al ia ti on

. Afte r two da y s of tri al

, Si sk

cl os ed he r cas e-i n- ch ie f. P i ct ur e Peo pl e or al ly m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

la w, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d. The co ur t no te d th at Si sk ’s ev id en ce “ co ul d be

su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e” of ret al ia ti on

. Howev er, th e co ur t req ui red

Si sk to sh ow “ m or e th an a pr im a faci e cas e of

. . . ret al ia ti on ”
– be cau se th e cas e was

at tri al – an d c on cl ud ed th at Sis k h ad fai le d t o m ak e th at sh owi ng

.

On ap pe al

, Si sk ch al le ng es th e gr an t of jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. A di st ric t

co ur t m ay en te r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law “ [i]f a part y ha s bee n ful ly he ard on an
is su e du rin g a jury tri al an d th e co ur t fin ds th at a reas on ab le jury wou ld no t ha ve a

le ga ll y su ffi ci en t evi de nt ia ry ba si s to fin d for th e pa rty on th at is su e.” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 50 (a )(1 )

. Thi s co ur t re v i e w s d e no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w, ap pl y in g th e s am e st an da rd as th e di st ric t co ur t. Ro be rs on v. AFC

Ent er s., In c. , 60 2 F.3 d 93 1, 93 3 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 10 ). Thi s co ur t m us t “ res ol ve di rect

fact ua l co nf

li ct s in fav or of th e no nm ov an t,” “ as su m e as tru e al l fact s su pp or ti ng th e

-3

-no nm ov an t whi ch th e ev id en ce te nd ed to pr ov e,” an d “ gi ve th e no nm ov an t th e be ne fi t

of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Id

. , qu ot in g Lar

so n ex re l. Lars on v. Mi ll er , 76 F.3 d

14 46 , 14 52 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) (en ba nc ).

I.

“ The FMLA en ti tl es an em pl o ye e to twel ve wor kwe ek s of le av e du rin g an y
twel ve -m on th pe rio d if he or sh e ha s a ‘seri ou s he al th co nd i t i on th at m ak es th e

em pl oyee un ab le to pe rfo rm th e fu nc ti on s of th e po si ti on of s u c h e mp l oyee.’ ”

Wi er m a n v. Ca se

y’s Gen. St

or es , 63 8 F.3 d 98 4, 99 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), qu ot in g 29

U.S.C. § 26 12 (a )(1 )(D)

. The FMLA au th or iz es two types of cl ai m s: in te rfer en ce or

ret al ia ti on

. Se e id

. Si sk as se rts on ly a ret al ia ti on cla im . In a re ta li at io n c la im , “ th e

em pl oyee al le ge s th at th e em pl oyer di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t h e r fo r ex erci si ng he r

FMLA ri gh ts .” Id

. , ci ti ng Phil

li ps v. Ma th ews , 54 7 F.3d 90 5, 9 09 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

A b s e n t di rect ev id en ce, an FMLA ret al ia ti on cl ai m is ev al ua te d un de r th e
bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk of McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Gre en , 41 1 U.S. 79 2
(1 97 3)

. Id

. The em pl oyee m us t fir st es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e, whi ch crea te s a

pr es um pt io n of un la wfu l ret al ia ti on

. Id

. The bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e em pl oyer to

“ art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on fo r it s act io n.” Id

. If th e em

pl oyer

m eet s th is bu rd en of pr od uc ti on , th e em pl oyee “ m

us t th en id en ti fy ev id en ce su ffi ci en t

to crea te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact whe th er [th e em pl oyer’s] pr of

fere d

ex pl an at io n i s m erel y

a pr et ex t fo r un la wfu l re ta li at io n.” Id

.

In th is cas e, Pi ct ur e Peo pl e di d no t of fer a no n- d i s c r i m in at or y reas on fo r th e

al le ge d te rm in at io n. Unt il a de fen da nt art ic ul at es a no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r th e

al le ge d ad ve rs e em

pl oym e n t act io n, th e rel ev an t in qu iry is th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

-4

-pl ai nt iff ’s p rima fac ie cas e. Ass u m i n g a de fen da nt do es no t art ic ul at e a reas on fo r 1

it s al le ge d act

, th ree sc en ari os are po ss ib le : Fi rs t, if th e co ur t de te rm in es th at no

reas on ab le jury can fin d fact s co ns ti tu ti ng a pr im a faci e cas e, th e de fen da nt pr ev ai ls

as a m at te r of la w. Se e, e.g

. , Quin n v

. S t . Lo ui s Cnt y. , 6 53 F.3 d 74 5, 75 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). Seco nd

, if th e co ur t de te rm in es th at a reas o n a bl e jury m us t fin d th at th e pl ai nt iff ha s est ab li sh ed a pr im a faci e cas e, th e pl ai nt iff pr ev ai ls as a m at te r of la w.

Se e St

. Ma ry ’s Ho no r Ct

r. v. Hi ck s , 50 9 U.S. 50 2, 50 9 (1 99 3)

. Thi rd

, if “ reas on ab le

m in ds co ul d di ffer as to whe th er a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce es ta bl is he s th e fact s

of a pr im a faci e cas e, th en a qu es ti on of fact

. . . rem ai n[ s], whi ch th e tri er of fact wil l

be cal le d u po n t o a ns wer.” Id

. at 51 0- 11 (em

ph as is om it te d)

.

The di st ric t c o u r t s ho ul d no t ha ve st at ed th at th e pr im a faci e cas e is no t

rel ev an t o nc e an FMLA ret al ia ti on cas e go es to tri al . The ev id en ce p ro du ced – n ot

th e st ag e o f p r o c e e d i n g – de te rm in es th e bu rd en on th e pl ai nt iff

. Bec au se Pi ct ur e

If th e d e f

e n d a nt carr ie s it s bu rd en of pr od uc ti on (b y art ic ul at in g a no n- 1

di sc riminat or y reas on fo r it s act ), th e pr im a faci e cas e is no lo ng er rel ev an t an d th e fo cu s tu rn s to th e ul ti m at e is su e of ret al ia ti on

. Se e Hi ck s , 50 9 U.S. at 51 0. Fo r cas es th at ex pl ai n a co ur t’s in qu iry af te r th e de fen da nt m eet s it s bu rd en of pr od uc ti on , se e Reeve s v. Sa nd er

so n Plu mbi ng Pro du ct

s , 53 0 U.S. 13 3, 14 2 (2 00 0) (“ Res po ndent m et th is bu rd en by of

feri ng ad m is si bl e ev id en ce su ffi ci en t fo r th e tri er of fact to co nc lu de
th at pe ti ti on er was fir ed b e c a u s e of hi s fai lu re to m ai nt ai n accu rat e at te nd an ce

reco rd s.”)

, Hick

s , 50 9 U.S. at 50 9 (“ By pr od uc in g ev id en ce

. . . of no nd is cri m in at or y

reas on s, pe ti ti on ers su st ai ne d th ei r bu rd en of pr od uc ti on

. . . .”), an d U.S. Pos ta l
Se rv ic e Boa r d o

f G ov er no rs v. Aike ns , 46 0 U.S. 71 1, 71 4- 15 (1 98 3) (“ [W] he n th e de fen da nt

. . . res po nd s to th e pl ai nt iff ’s pr oo f by of feri ng ev id en ce of th e reas on fo r th e pl ai nt iff

's reject io n, th e fact fin de r m us t th en de ci de whe th er th e r e je c t i on was di sc riminat or y wit hi n th e m ean in g of Tit le VII.” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Se e al

so Tex as Dep ’t of Cm ty

. Affa ir s v

. Bur di ne , 45 0 U.S. 24 8, 24 9- 50 (1 98 1) (ad dr es si ng “ th e

na tu re of th e ev id en ti ary bu rd en pl aced up on th e de fen da nt in an em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n su it br ou gh t un de r Tit le VII”). Non e of th e s e c a s e s di st ur b th e
req ui rem en t th at a de fen da nt m eet a va li d p r i ma f a c i e cas e by art ic ul at in g a no ndi sc riminat or y

reas on for it s ac ti on s.

-5

-Peo pl e di d no t of fer a no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r it s al le ge d act

, th e pr op er in qu iry

fo r th e di st ric t co ur t – ev en at tri al
– was whe th er Si sk ’s e vi de nc e was su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h a pri m a fac ie cas e.

II.

On de no vo rev ie w, th is co ur t m us t ex am in e Si sk ’s ev id en c e t o d e t erm in e
whe th er a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at sh e es ta bl is he d a pr im a faci e cas e of FMLA

ret al ia ti on

. To es ta bl is h a pr im a face cas e of FMLA ret al ia ti on , sh e “ m us t sh ow th at : 1) sh e en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed co nd uc t; 2) sh e su ffer ed a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t

act io n; an d 3) th e m at eri al ly ad ve r s e a c t i on was cau sa ll y li nk ed to th e pr ot ect ed

co nd uc t.” Wi er m an , 63 8 F .3d at 9 99

.

The fir st two el em en ts are no t di sp ut ed on ap pe al

. Si s k h a s no t, ho wev er,

es ta bl is he d a cau sa l li nk su ffi ci en t fo r a pr im a faci e cas e. At tri al an d on ap pe al

, Si sk

sa y s th at th e on ly ev id en ce of a cau s a l l i nk is th e te m po ral pr ox im it y be twee n he r

FMLA le av e a n d t he al le ge d te rm in at io n. Pi ct ur e Peo pl e rece iv ed no ti ce of Si sk ’s

pr ot ect ed act iv it y as earl y as Ju ne 7, whe n th e be n e f i t s co or di na to r pl aced he r on

FMLA le av e. Si sk ’s al le ge d te rm in at io n to ok pl ace m or e th an two m on th s la te r. Si sk

arg ue s th at th e rel ev an t da te fo r cau sa ti on is th e da te sh e ret ur ne d to wor k, th ree da y s
be fo re sh e was te rm in at ed

. Howev er, th is co ur t lo ok s to th e da te an em pl oyer kn ew

of an em pl oyee’s us e (o r pl an ne d us e) of FMLA le av e, no t th e da te it en de d. Se e

Sm it h v. Al le n Hea lt h Sys
., In c. , 30 2 F.3 d 82 7, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (m eas ur in g fro m

th e da y th e em

pl oyee be ga n he r le av e, al th ou gh th e em pl oyee was te rm in at ed on th e
da y sh e ret ur ne d)

. 2

To th e ex te nt pa ss in g refe ren ces in la te r op i n i o n s of th is co ur t m ay co nf li ct 2

wit h th e an al y si s in All en Hea lt h Sy st ems , se e, e.g

. , McB ur ney v. St ew Ha ns en’s
Dod ge Ci ty , In c. , 39 8 F. 3 d 9 9 8, 10 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (m eas ur in g th e rel ev an t ti m e la ps e fro m th e em

pl oyee’s ret ur n fro m FMLA le av e), th is pa ne l is bo un d to f ol lo w th e ear li er op in io n. Se e Ma de r v. Unit ed St at es , 6 54 F.3d 79 4, 8 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (en ba nc ) (“ [W] he n faced wit h con fli ct in g pan el op in io ns , th e earl ie st op in io n m us t be fol lo wed

. . . .”).

-6

-“Ge n eral ly, m or e th an a te m po ral co nn ect io n be twee n th e pr ot ect ed co n d u c t

an d th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n is req ui red to pr es en t a ge nu in e fact ua l is su e on

ret al ia ti on .” Ki el v. Sel

ect Ar ti fic ia ls
, In c. , 16 9 F.3 d 11 31

, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (en

ba nc ). In or de r fo r te m

po ral pr ox im it y al on e to be su ffi ci en t, “ th e te m po ral pr ox im it y

m us t be ve ry cl os e.” Hi te v. V er m eer Mfg

. C o. , 44 6 F .3d 85 8, 86 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Cl ar k Cnty

. Sch. Dis t. v. Br eed

en , 53 2

U.S. 26 8, 27 3 (2 0 0 1) (p er cu ria m ). Thi s co ur t ha s no t dr awn a de fin it iv e li ne , an d

th ere is no ne ed to do so he re. Mo re th an two m on th s is to o lo ng to su pp or t a fin di ng

of cau sa ti on wit ho ut so m et hi ng m or e. Se e Sm it h v. Fa ir vi ew Ri dg es Ho sp

. , 62 5 F.3 d

10 76

, 10 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (fi nd in g on e m on th is no t cl os e en ou gh ), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 1

S

. Ct

. 29 04 (2 01 1) ; Wi

sb ey v. Ci ty of Linc ol

n , 61 2 F.3 d 66 7, 67 6 (8 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 0 )
(s am e); cf

. Al le n Hea lt h Sys

. , 30 2 F.3 d at 83 3 (“ [The em pl oyees] fam il y le av e be ga n

on Ja nu ary 1 an d [th e em

pl oyer] di sc ha rg ed [th e em pl oyee] on Ja nu ary 14

. The se two

ev en ts are ex tre m el y

clo se in ti m e an d we c on cl ud e th at un de r ou r pr eced en t t hi s is

su ffi ci en t, bu t ba re ly so , to es ta bl is h cau sa ti on , co m pl et i n g [ th e pl ai nt iff ’s] pr im a

f aci e cas e.” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Bec au se Si sk fai ls to pr ov id e an y ot he r ev id e n c e

li nk in g he r te rm in at io n to he r us e of FMLA le av e, a reas on ab le jury wou ld no t ha ve

a l e g a l l y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary b as is to fin d fo r he r on th at is su e. Pi ct ur e Peo pl e is

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-