Opinion ID: 2773338
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Animus Claims Against Conners

Text: To prevail in his claim, Ameen must establish that Amphenol's reason for terminating him was a pretext for retaliatory animus. Ameen contends that the district court overlooked evidence that would establish that the employees who reported the information about his break time to the ultimate decisionmaker were motivated by animus. Beginning with first shift Group Leader Conners, Ameen argues that Conners's very reporting to Pratt (Operations Manager) the information he received from Moses and -17- Sullivan (Ameen's co-workers and subordinates) about Ameen's extended breaks is proof of retaliatory animus because of how differently Conners dealt with his own subordinates on this issue. Ameen argues that when Conners's subordinates took additional break time, he only chastised them for doing so, but never otherwise disciplined them, nor reported them to higher-ups. On this point, Conners's unrebutted deposition testimony established that when a member of his crew was five minutes late returning from break, he spoke to them about it and received the assurance that it won't happen again. Had the behavior been repeated, Conners stated that he would have elevate[d] that to the supervisor. Ameen points to no other similarly-situated employee who consistently took an extra fifteen minutes off every day as he did who received more favorable treatment from Conners. Given these facts, Conners's mere reporting of Ameen up the corporate food chain is insufficient to demonstrate animus.8 Ameen also posits, in support of his animus claim, that Conners was hostile towards him because Conners was frustrated about having to work overtime due to Ameen's no-overtime schedule. 8 After this lawsuit was filed, Amphenol took note of Ameen's allegation that [o]ther employees in [his] department followed the same practice, and conducted an investigation. The ADI and CCure records showed that from January 2012 to June 2012, the co-tipster Donny Moses had been clocking out while remaining at work, then leaving for an hour. Like Ameen, Moses was then terminated. There is no evidence that Amphenol knew of this practice before Sullivan -- and ironically, Moses -- brought Ameen's conduct to Conners's attention. -18- Other than pointing to Conners having reported Ameen's extended breaks to superiors, Ameen gives us no other explanation or evidence of this hostility. Conners denied any display of frustration, and stated that he reported the information to Pratt because, as a twenty-five year employee, I wouldn't cheat on my time, and I don't expect other people to do that. That's stealing. Regardless of Ameen's opinion on what may have motivated Conners to report his extended break times, his subjective belief in retaliation is not enough to show animus on Conners's part, and no objective evidence in the record supports his animus theory. Roman v. Potter, 604 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2010).