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

Heading: Animus Claims Against Pratt

Text: Alternatively, Ameen describes a number of ways in which Pratt's behavior demonstrates animus. First, and identical to his Conners argument, he says that because Pratt had never before escalated the issue of extended breaks to Harrington when dealing with allegedly similarly-situated employees, the fact that he elevated the issue of Ameen's break time to Harrington is proof sufficient to infer animus. In rebuttal, Amphenol repeats it had never before encountered a case in which an employee had consistently combined two breaks and then took an additional unauthorized quarter hour on top of that. Nothing in the record contradicts this assertion. -19- Moreover, Pratt did not just pass along the tip after receiving it; he conducted his own investigation by requesting and reviewing Ameen's ADI and CCure records for the previous month; and only when he had satisfied himself that the alleged practice was actually occurring did he bring the matter to Harrington. The mere fact of an investigation -- particularly one spurred by a violation of company policy -- is not proof of animus and nothing else in the record suggests that the investigation was motivated by animus. It bears repeating that [e]ven in employment discrimination cases where elusive concepts such as motive or intent are at issue, summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation. Benoit, 331 F.3d at 173 (internal quotations omitted). The record before us does not support Ameen's allegations. Second, and grasping for straws, Ameen contends in support of his animus claim that Pratt misled Harrington about the warning Ameen had received in April, leading her to believe that a cover up occurred. Specifically, Ameen states that he was not asked about the error on the night in question, and clearly admitted the mistake to Pratt when asked, and therefore Pratt acknowledged that there was no effort to cover up the mistake. The record, however, makes plain that Ameen is playing cat and mouse with the facts. That he was not asked about the error on the -20- night in question is irrelevant if clear company protocol required that he relay that information when tying off with the next shift. Harrington stated that she reached her own independent conclusion that Ameen tried to cover up a scrap event when the investigating engineer was able to show that the panel had been drilled twice, the first time with an incorrect setup, the second time to fix the problem that had been created by the first issue. It was that action, of covering up a work mistake and not following reporting procedure, to which Harrington referred. That Ameen admitted to the mistake once confronted with it by Pratt is beside the point. There is no evidence that Pratt misled Harrington about the nature of the event, and no evidence that his reporting the information was motivated by animus. Third, Ameen next cites as proof of animus that Pratt both withheld from Harrington the fact that he had permission to misuse the timeclock system, and failed to apprise Harrington of Ameen's earlier FMLA leave. Harrington made clear, however, without contradiction, that it was Ameen's taking of an additional fifteen minutes of time each day -- not the use of the time clock system per se -- that she viewed as terminable misconduct. As for not sharing with Harrington Ameen's FMLA schedule, he does not explain why Pratt should have done so, nor does he tell us why not doing so demonstrates animus. -21- Lastly, in support of his Pratt animus argument, Ameen claims that Pratt was angry that he wouldn't work overtime. However, Ameen does not tell us the basis for this impression, and does not recount specific words or any particular behavior that would indicate anger. He offers us only a conclusory allegation. Further, he says that both Pratt and Conners had shown hostility toward [his] FMLA-protected activity, and that Pratt's attitude toward him changed after he returned from FMLA leave. Ameen directs us to only one specific example of so-called hostile conduct -- his inclusion, according to Silva, on Pratt's purported I don't like list.9 However, even assuming the existence of such a list, there is no evidence to tie it to Ameen's FMLA-protected conduct. Similarly, there is nothing to connect Ameen's general and vague allegations of hostility by Pratt to Ameen's FMLAprotected activity, if any, rather than to his unauthorized breaks. [A]lthough an employee who properly takes FMLA leave cannot be discharged for exercising a right provided by the statute, [he] nevertheless can be discharged for independent reasons. Henry v. United Bank, 686 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). Moreover, we note that evidence in the record completely contradicts Ameen's assertion of animus on Pratt's part. During 9 Although Ameen claims that Silva told him about Pratt's supposed list, there is no deposition testimony in the record from either Silva or Pratt about any list. How Ameen's account could be admissible evidence is beyond us. -22- this period of claimed anger and hostility, Pratt agreed to allow Ameen to take over three weeks of personal leave shortly after his FMLA leave, when he had the discretion to refuse; and Pratt allowed it despite Ameen's statement that he would go whether or not the personal leave was approved. If Pratt were looking for a reason to get rid of Ameen for exercising his FMLA rights, he could have simply denied the personal leave and fired Ameen if he went anyway. Instead, Amphenol spread out Ameen's vacation days over the course of the leave, so that his benefits would be covered.