# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 25 38

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Glo ria A. Bun ch

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Uni ve rs it y

of Ark an sa s B oa rd of Tru st ees

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 17 Fil ed : J ul y

24 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, LOKEN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Glo ria Bu nc h ap pe al s th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to he r fo rm er em pl oyer in he r la wsu it al le gi ng di sc riminat io n an d ret al ia ti on le ad in g to wro ng fu l te rm in at io n.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t. S e e 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 (ap pe ll at e 2 juri sd ic ti on ).

I. BACKGRO UND
A. Fac tua l H is to ry In earl y Ju ne 20 10
, Glo ria Bu nc h, an Afri can -Am eri can wom an , was hi red by
th e Uni ve rs it y of Ark an sa s fo r Med ic al Sci en ces as a pr og ram el ig ib il it y sp eci al is t fo r STRIVE (an acro nym fo r Seek in g to Rei nf or ce My Id en ti ty an d Valu es Eve ry da y ),

a co m m un i t y o u t r e a ch pr og ram th at pr ov id es ou tp at ie nt th erap y fo r st ud en ts in th e Lit tl e Ro ck
, Ark an sa s, sc ho ol syste m

. All ne w em pl oye e s a r e s u bjec t to a 90 -d ay
pr ob at io n pe rio d. In la te Aug us t, be fo re th e en d of he r 90 -d ay pe rio d, Bu nc h rece iv ed

a p e r f o r mance rev ie w co nd uc te d by he r su pe rv is or

. Bu nc h earn ed sa ti sf act or y

rem ark s in al l cat eg or ie s ex cep t th e cat eg or y of co op erat io n. Bu nc h was in fo rm ed he r
pr ob at io n pe rio d wou ld be ex te nd ed un ti l la te Nov em be r. Bu nc h refu se d to si gn he r
pe rfo rm an ce re vi ew.

Sh or tl y aft er th e rev ie w, Bu nc h m et wit h a hu m an res ou rces ad m in is tra to r an d

as ke d to f

i l e a gr ie va nc e of di sc riminat io n an d ret al ia ti on be cau se sh e was be in g ha ras se d an d ta un te d by h e r c o wor ke rs

. Bu nc h al so m et wit h STRIVE’s di rect or , Pau la McC art he r. Bu nc h co m pl ai ne d to McC art he r ab ou t he r co wor ke rs , su pe rv is or ,
an d p erfo rm an ce re vi ew. B un ch al so to ld McC art he r sh e su ffer ed fro m di sa bi li ti es

an d di s c u s s ed req ue st in g ti m e of f to at te nd a do ct or ’s ap po in tm en t. McC art he r 3

ex pl ai ne d to Bu nc h th e le av e po li cy req ui res em pl oyees req ue st in g le av e to do so two week s in ad va nc e, or , if cal li ng in si ck
, to cal l th ei r su pe rv is or by 7: 00 a.m

. on th e da y of th e ab se nc e.

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

Bu nc h su ffer s fro m de pr es si on , fib ro m yalg ia
, an an xi et y di so rd er, an d 3

os te oa rth rit is of t he kn ee, am on g o th er m ed ic al co nd it io ns

.
-2

-On Aug us t 30
, 20 10
, Bu nc h em ai le d McC art he r st at in g sh e was m ak in g he r

“ fo rm al req ue st fo r th e Re as ona ble A cc om

m oda ti on to at te nd m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts .” The ne xt m or ni ng (fo ur m in ut es be fo r e 7: 00 a.m .) Bu nc h em ai le d McC art he r, he r

su pe rv is or , an d ot he rs , “ to rep or t [s he was ] cal li ng in si ck on [s ic ] to da y .” Late r th at da y , sh e em ai le d t he same gro up :

My Doc to r is req ue st in g f o r me t o be of

f wor k fo r th e ne xt two week s

as a Rea so na bl e Acco m

m od at io n Req ue st an d is co m pl et in g th e FMLA Pap erwo rk

. I wil l su bm it th e fo rm up on hi s co m pl et io n ASAP. Tha nk
y ou in ad va nc e fo r y ou r as si st an ce.

Bu nc h’s do ct or su bm it te d pa pe rwo rk fo r un pa id le av e un de r th e Fam il y an d Med ic al
Leav e Act (FM LA), se e 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 01 -2 65 4, on Sep te m be r 1, 20 10

. Acco rd in g
to th e pa pe rwo rk
, Bu nc h ne ed ed to be ou t of wor k fo r two week s du e to a “ fla re up ”
in he r fi br om y al gi a synd ro m e, whi ch lef t h er u na bl e to work “ in an y cap aci ty.”

On Se pt em

be r 2, 2 01 0, M cCa rth er l eft a vo ic em ai l fo r an d em ai le d B un ch to in fo rm he r sh e d id no t q ua li fy

for FMLA leav e be cau se sh e ha d no t b een em pl oyed fo r on e y ear an d ha d no t wor ke d th e req ui si te nu m be r of ho ur s. See id

. § 26 11 (2 )(A) (d efi ni ng el ig ib il it y ). Bu nc h fil ed a ch arg e wit h th e Uni te d St at es Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty C o mm i s si on (EEOC), al le gi ng di sc riminat io n ba se d on race , s ex , a ge ,
an d di sa bi li ty, an d al so ret al ia ti o n

. O n e week la te r, Bu nc h rece iv ed a le tt er fro m McC art he r no ti fy in g Bu nc h he r em pl oym en t was te rm in at ed

. The le tt er st at ed Bu nc h b e g a n “ m is si ng wor k” on Aug us t 31
, 20 10
, an d “ [d ]ue to th e ne ed s o f t h e de pa rtment,” he r job wou ld be fil le d.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry The EEOC is su ed Bu nc h he r rig ht -to -s ue le t t e r i n S ep te m be r 20 11

. Bu nc h
fil ed a pr o se co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t t h e U ni ve rs it y of Ark an sa s Bo ard of Trus te es (u ni ve rs it y ) in Decem

be r 20 11 an d m ov ed fo r ap po in tm en t o f c o u n s el

. Her in it ia l

r e q u e st fo r co un se l was de ni ed
, an d th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th ere is n o

-3

-co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht t o c o u ns el in a ci vi l cas e. In Feb ru ary 20 12
, th e di st ric t co ur t

is su ed an or de r pu tt in g Bu nc h on no ti ce sh e was req ui red to co m pl y wit h th e Fed eral
Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e an d lo cal co ur t ru le s. A s ho rt t i me l a t e r, an at to rn ey who

was no t ap po in te d by th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e an ap pe a r a n c e o n Bu nc h’s be ha lf.
Bu nc h’s at to rn ey

fil ed a m ot io n to st ay , c it in g in ab il it y to co ns ul t wit h Bu nc h “ du e
to he r m en ta l st at us ,” whi ch th e d i s t r i c t co ur t gr an te d. In Sep te m be r 20 12
, Bu nc h
fil ed an am en de d c om

pl ai nt bri ng in g c la im s u nd er Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Rig ht s Act of 19 64 (Tit le VII), se e 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e, et se q.; th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), se e id

. §§ 12 10 1
, e t s eq .; th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in Em pl oym en t Act (ADEA), se e 29 U.S.C. §§ 62 1- 63 4; 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83 ; Sect io n 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act o f 1 97 3, se e 29 U.S.C. § 79 4; an d th e FMLA. The am en de d

co m pl ai nt al so ad de d two un rel at e d de fen da nt s in th ei r “ in di vi du al [] an d in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ty.” In Octo be r 20 12
, Bu nc h’s at to rn ey m ov ed to wit hd raw, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed

.

B e t w e e n Ja nu ary 20 13 an d Mar ch 20 15
, th e di st ric t co ur t su cces si ve l y
ap po in te d th irt een at to rn ey s to rep res en t Bu nc h. Sev eral of t h e t h irt een at to rn ey s wit hd rew th ei r rep res en ta ti on fo r reas on s un rel at ed to Bu nc h, in cl ud in g co nf li ct s of
in te res t. Bu nc h’s fin al ap po in te d at to rn ey m ov ed to wit hd raw be cau se Bu nc h fai le d

to res po nd to hi s co rre s p o n d en ce req ue st in g in fo rm at io n ne ces sa ry to res po nd to a
pe nd in g m ot io n an d co ur t or de rs

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e at to rn ey ’s m ot io n fo r le av e an d ex pl ai ne d i t h a d “ pr ev io us ly warn ed Ms . B un ch th at sh e m ay no t qu al ify fo r th e ap po in tm en t of an ot he r sh ou ld [cu rren t co un se l] be fo rced to wit hd raw du e to la ck of Ms

. Bu nc h’s co op erat io n.” Co ns id eri ng th e “ pr oc ed ur al hi st or y of th is cas e,” th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t app oi nt an ot he r at to rn ey fo r Bu nc h, an d sh e pr oc eed ed pr o

se

.

In Ju ly 20 15
, th e un iv ers it y m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Fi nd in g “ se ve ral

gr ou nd s on whi c h s u mm ary jud gm en t m us t be gr an te d,” th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t on al l of Bu nc h’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e un iv ers it y

. The di st ric t co ur t

-4

-ga ve Bu nc h 30 da y s to de m on st rat e sh e ha d se rv ed th e in di vi du al ly na m ed

de fen da nt s. Afte r Bu nc h f a i l e d to do so , th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m s
ag ai ns t t he in di vi du al ly nam ed de fen da nt s wi th ou t p reju di ce.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
Bu nc h ap pe al s th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on he r cl ai m s un de r th e ADA, th e ADEA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83
, an d Ti t l e V I I

. Em ph as iz in g sh e was 4
wit ho ut co un se l at th e ti m e th e m ot io n was gr an te d, Bu nc h co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t f a i l e d to ta ke in to acco un t he r st at us as a pr o se li ti ga nt

. W e rev ie w th e d i s t r i c t

co ur t’s gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo , co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce an d m ak in g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Mo od y

v. Voz el
, 77 1 F.3 d 10 93
, 10 96 (8 t h C i r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Su m m ary jud gm en t sh al l be gr an te d “ if th e m ov a n t s h o w s t ha t th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of
la w.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a).

A. Pro Se Sta tus
Bu nc h co m

pl ai ns th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d t o c on si de r he r st at us as a pr o se li ti ga nt an d “ ig no re[d ] th e fact th at [s he ] was wit ho ut co un se l an d HAD NOT b een
pr ov id ed an y op po rtu ni ty fo r di sc ov ery th ro ug h he r nu m ero us ap po in te d at to rn ey s.”
To be gi n, we ag ai n rem in d Bu nc h sh e ha s no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l in a ci vi l

cas e. See St ev en s v. Red win g, 14 6 F.3 d 53 8, 54 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ); se e al so In re Lan e, 80 1 F.2 d 10 40
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (“ The de ci si on to ap po in t co un se l in ci vi l cas es is co m m it te d t o t he di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.”)

.

Bu nc h ha s n o t mad e a n y arg um en t on ap pe al reg ard in g th e di sm is sa l of he r 4 cl ai m s un de r th e FMLA an d Sect io n 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Ac t

. S ee Je nk in s v. W in te r, 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Cl ai m s no t rai se d in an op en in g br ie f are de em ed waiv ed .”).

-5

-The di st ric t c o u r t d i d no t ig no re Bu nc h’s st at us as a pr o se li ti ga nt ; rat he r, it

di li ge nt ly as si st ed Bu nc h th ro ug ho ut he r la wsu it

. The di st ric t co ur t ap po in te d
th irt een at to rn ey s ov er th e co ur se of th is li ti ga ti on

. A l t h o ug h th e m ajor it y of th e
at to rn ey s wit hd rew fo r reas on s no t di rect ly rel at ed to Bu nc h, on e at to rn ey wit hd rew aft er Bu nc h fa il ed to ap pe ar at a de po si ti on , an d ano th er af te r Bu nc h fa il ed to rep ly

to hi s co rres po nd en ce. The di st ric t co ur t warn ed Bu nc h it wou ld no t ap po in t an ot he r
at to rn ey if sh e refu se d to co op erat e wit h cou ns el

. Bu nc h adm it s sh e “ was cl earl y at od ds wit h ap po in te d co un se l” th ro ug ho ut th e de ve lo pm en t of he r cas e, an d we fai l to

se e ho w he r fai lu res to m ai nt ai n rel at io ns hi ps wit h he r co ur t-a pp oi nt ed c o u ns el

am ou nt ed to a de ni al of h er ri gh t t o d is co ve ry

.

To th e ex te nt Bu nc h co m

pl ai ns th e di st ric t co ur t pr ejud ic ed he r by fin di ng fact s i n f a v o r of th e un iv ers it y , we di sa gr ee an d ob se rv e—n o m at eri al fact s ap pe ar to be
in di sp ut e. W e al so po in t ou t th at in he r pr o s e r e sp on se to th e un iv ers it y ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, Bu nc h fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e lo cal ru le req ui rin g li ti ga nt s
to fil e a sh or t st at em en t of fact s be li ev ed to be in ge nu in e di sp ut e. Bu nc h’s st at us as

a pr o se li ti ga nt di d no t ex cu se he r fro m fo ll owi ng th e lo cal ru le s. See Ben ne tt v. Dr Pep pe r/S ev en Up, In c., 29 5 F.3 d 80 5, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). And
, to th e ex te nt Bu nc h di d res po nd to th e un iv ers it y ’s st at em en t of fact s in he r m ot io n in op po s i t i o n , t h e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y

co ns id ered Bu nc h’s re sp on se s.

B. ADA, ADEA, an d 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 98 1, 1 98 3 The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y he ld so ve rei gn i mm u n i ty ba rred Bu nc h’s cl ai m s

u nd er th e ADA, th e ADEA, an d 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83

. St at es are immu n e fro m cl ai m s br ou g h t u nd er th es e la ws, un le ss th e st at e ha s ex pr es sl y waiv ed
im m un it y

. See, e.g ., Bd

. of Trs. of th e Uni v

. o f A l a

. v. Garre tt , 53 1 U.S. 35 6, 36 4 (2 00 1) ; Kim el v. Fl a. Bd

. of Reg en ts , 52 8 U.S. 62
, 91 (2 00 0) ; W il l v. Mi ch

. Dep ’t of
St at e Po li ce, 49 1 U.S. 58
, 67 (1 98 9) ; se e al so Jo ne s v. McNe es e, 67 5 F.3 d 11 58
, 11 60
n.1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ W he n rai se d di rect ly ag ai ns t a st at e act or , a § 19 81 cl ai m m us t be br ou gh t un de r § 19 83 .”); Mo nr oe v. Ark

. St at e Uni v., 49 5 F.3 d 59 1, 59 4 (8 th Ci r.

-6

-2 00 7) (h ol di ng th e do ct rin e of Ex Part e You ng , 2 09 U.S. 1 23 (1 90 8) , b ars su it s f o r bo th m on ey da m ag es an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t a st at e un iv ers it y ). The Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t “ ha s co ns is te nt ly he ld th at a su it ag ai ns t a st at e un iv ers it y or it s bo ard of tru st ees is a su it ag ai ns t th e St at e an d is ba rred by th e do ct rin e of so ve rei gn im m un it y .” Uni v. o f A r k

. fo r Med

. Sci s. v. Ada m s, 11 7 S.W .3d 58 8, 59 0 (Ark

. 20 03 ).

Bu nc h un su cces sf

ul ly at te m pt ed to am en d he r co m

pl ai nt on ce be fo re by, in he r

wor ds
, “ in ad ve rte nt ly li st [in g]” th e (n ow di sm is se d) i n d i v i du al de fen da nt s by “ th e

wro ng na m es .” Bu nc h su gg es ts we rev ie w h er ap pe al as if he r co m pl ai nt ha d be en
pr op erl y am en de d to ad d t h e “ in di vi du al ‘dis cri m in at or s’” sh e sa y s sh e na m ed in a

res po ns e to an in te rro ga to ry

. Tha t, we wil l no t do

. “ [A] pa rty m ay ame n d it s pl ead in g o nl y

wit h t he op po si ng pa rty’ s wri tt en co ns en t or th e co ur t’s le av e.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 15 (a)( 2)

. Bu nc h ha s ne it he r. Co nt ra r y t o B u n c h ’s as se rti on , th e di st ric t

co ur t is no t “ ob li ga te d to co nf or m th e pl ead in gs to th e ev id en ce” by as su m in g cert ai n in di v i d u a l s ha ve be en na m ed as de fen da nt s in he r la wsu it

. Bec au se we ag ree th e cl ai m s un de r th e ADA, th e ADEA, an d 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 an d 19 83 are ba rred un de r th e do ct rin e of so ve rei gn im m un it y , we ne ed no t co ns id er th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e h ol di ng s t ha t t he se cla im s fa il ed on th e m eri ts

.

C. Ti tle VII 5
The di st ric t cou rt con cl ud ed Bu nc h’s am en de d co m pl ai nt “ fai l[e d] to in cl ud e

en ou gh fact s to st at e a cl ai m fo r rel ie f ba se d on al le ge d race or ge nd er di sc riminat io n

Tit le VII cl ai m s br ou gh t ag ai ns t a st at e are no t ba rred by so ve rei gn im m un it y

. 5 See Okr uh li k v. Uni v. of Ark
., 25 5 F.3 d 61 5, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ C o n g r e s s

. . . va li dl y ab ro ga te d th e Elev en th Am en dme n t fo r cl ai m s of di sp arat e tre at m en t an d im pa ct on th e b as is of g en de r an d ra ce.”)

.
-7

-th at is pl au si b l e o n i t s face .” The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at ev en if Bu nc h ha d 6

su ffi ci en tl y st at ed race an d ge nd er di sc riminat io n cl ai m s, th e un iv ers i t y w a s st il l

en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t be cau se Bu nc h “ fai le d to id en ti fy a si m il arl y si tu at ed

em pl oyee who was tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m he r.” Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t, de sp it e it s co nc lu si on ab ou t Bu nc h’s co m pl ai nt , pr oc eed ed to ev al ua te he r cl ai m s as su m in g th ey were s uf fic ie nt ly stat ed , we wil l as well

.

W it ho ut di rect ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n, Bu nc h m us t ad va n c e h e r cl ai m s

un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as fram ewo rk

. See McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Green
, 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 80 2- 03 (1 97 3)

. Und er th is st an da rd , t he pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t es ta bl is h

a pr im a faci e cas e by sh owi ng sh e: “ (1 ) is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) was

mee ti ng th e le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io ns of th e em pl oyer; (3 ) su ffer ed an ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (4 ) [s uf fere d] un de r ci rcu m st an ces pe rm it ti ng an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n.” Mo od y , 77 1 F.3 d at 10 97 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. If
th e pl ai nt iff sa ti sf

ie s th e pr im a faci e cas e, th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e em pl oyer to pr ov id e

a “ le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat or y jus ti fic at io n fo r it s a d v e r s e em pl oym en t act io n.” Id

. If th e em

pl oyer m eet s t h i s bu rd en , th e pl ai nt iff m us t “ pr ov e [th e em

pl oyer’s] jus ti fic at io n i s a m ere p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.” Id.

Ass um in g Bu nc h can m eet he r lo w bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng a pr im a faci e cas e, th e un iv ers it y ha s of

fere d a le g i t i mat e , no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r te rm in at in g Bu nc h— he r fai lu re to co m e to wor k, an d th e un iv ers it y ’s ne ed to f i ll he r po si ti on

. Bu nc h arg ue s th is reas on was pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n be cau se a si m il arl y si tu at ed

y ou ng , whi te , fe m al e em

pl oyee was al lo wed to ta ke un pa id le av e du rin g he r pr ob at io n
pe rio d. In an affi da vi t, McC art he r st at ed th e em pl oyee in qu es ti on , li ke Bu nc h, was

no t al lo wed to ta ke un pa id le av e du rin g he r pr ob at io n pe rio d. In he r de po si t i o n ,

In Bu nc h’s am en de d c om pl ai nt sh e co nc lu si ve ly alle ge d, wi th ou t ad di ti on al 6 de ta il
, sh e was “ di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t be cau se of he r race an d ge nd e r ” a nd

“ [s ]im il arl y si tu at ed whi te s, m al es , or y ou ng er em pl oyees were no t di sc ha rg ed un de r th e sa m e o r si m il ar . . . circ um st an ces .”

-8

-Bu nc h ad m it te d sh e di d no t kn ow if th e em pl oyee ’s l e a v e was pa id or un pa id
, an d
Bu nc h, be fo re he r te rm in at io n, was al lo wed to us e he r al lo tt ed pa id le a v e to at te nd

m ed ic al ap po in tm en ts

. Bu nc h ha s no t sh own sh e was “ tre at ed di ffer en tl y ” th an an y si m il arl y si tu at ed em

pl oyee. Onyiah v. St

. Cl ou d St at e Uni v., 68 4 F.3 d 71 1, 71 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

Bu nc h al so co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t ig no red ot he r ci r c u ms t an ti al ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n. Bu nc h clai m s her job ti tl e was “ fal si fie d.” Alt ho ug h Bun ch was hi red as a p r o g ram el ig ib il it y sp eci al is t, on he r 90 -d ay ev al ua ti on , he r job ti tl e was li st ed as “ So ci al Serv ic e Rep . I I,” whi ch , a cco rd in g to Bu nc h, was he r su pe rv is or ’s ti tl e. One of th e cat eg or ie s un de r whi ch Bu nc h was ev al ua te d du rin g he r pe rfo rm an ce

rev ie w was su pe rv is io n, bu t Bu nc h h a d no su pe rv is or y du ti es

. Her pe rfo rm an ce

rev ie w su bs eq ue nt ly w as am en de d t o re m ov e th at cat eg or y , an d th at am en de d c op y

was gi ve n t o B un ch . Bun ch als o c la im s sh e was co erce d b y a ph y si ci an to pe rfo rm
gr ou p th erap y wit ho ut a li cen se , bu t whe n sh e rep or te d th is in st an ce to he r su pe rv is or , he r su pe rv is or “ im m ed ia te ly sa id
, ‘N o, th at ’s hi s job

. You ’re no t t o do gr ou p.’” Neit he r of th es e si tu at io ns de m on st rat es th e ad ve rs e act io n ta ke n ag ai ns t Bu nc h was ba se d on a di sc riminat or y m ot iv e. Bu nc h’s ot he r “ sk el et al ,” un su pp or te d al le ga ti on s

“ are in su ffi ci en t to crea te a ge nu in e is su e of fact so as to pr ecl ud e gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t.” Th om as v. Co rwin , 48 3 F .3d 51 6, 5 30 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Last ly, Bu nc h al l eg es he r te rm in at io n was ret al ia ti on fo r ta ki ng pr ot ect ed

act io ns

. “ To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on , [Bu nc h] m us t sh ow (1 ) sh e 7

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 ,
an d (3 ) th e ad ve rs e act was cau sa ll y li nk ed to th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t.” Gui m arae s v. S u p e r V a l u , In c., 67 4 F.3 d 96 2, 97 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d t h e

Bu nc h arg ue s sh e en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed co nd uc t by req ue st in g m ed ic al le av e, 7 refu si ng to en g a g e in co nd uc t at wor k sh e pe rcei ve d as ag ai ns t po li cy or as il le ga l, in qu iri ng ab ou t fil in g a gr ie va nc e of di sc riminat io n, fil in g a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC,

an d c om pl ai ni ng ab ou t h er job ti tl e an d wag e d is pa rit ie s.

-9

-“ un di sp ut ed ev id en ce” sh owe d Bu nc h’s em pl oym en t was te rm in at ed “ ap pr ox im at el y

o n e w e e k ” aft er sh e was de ni ed FMLA le av e, an d, ta ki ng th e fact s in he r fav or ,
as su m ed he r su pe rv is or s at STRIVE were aware sh e ha d fil e d a ch arg e wit h th e EEOC. As th e di st r i c t co ur t reas on ed
, te m po ral pr ox im it y al on e is in su ffi ci en t to de mo ns tra te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er co nd uc t was ret al ia to ry

. See Kiel v. Sel ect Arti fic ia ls
, In c., 16 9 F.3 d 11 31
, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ Gen eral ly,

m or e th an a te m

po ral co nn e c t io n be twee n th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t an d th e ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n i s 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 .”). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d “ no su ch ot he r e v i de nc e ha s be en pr es en te d.” W e ag ree. Bu nc h’s cu rs or y refe ren ce in he r ap pe al br ie f to “ ot he r in di ci a of ret al ia ti on fo un d in
th e de po si ti on ” is n o t a d e q u at el y pr es en te d on ap pe al

. See Fed

. R. App

. P.
28 (a)( 8) (A).

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm.

__

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

-1 0-