Opinion ID: 613904
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C1 policies

Text: Barber argues that C1 violated its own policies by requiring him to produce a doctor's note after he left work to go to the doctor and terminating Barber for driving students to church. C1's policy states: If you are off work due to an illness for more than two (2) consecutive days, a note from your doctor will be required before returning to work. (App. 169) Barber's interpretation of the policy language is that an employee cannot, under any circumstances, be required to provide a doctor's note until he has been gone for two, full, consecutive days. Barber has produced no evidence that C1's interpretation or application of the policy outside this one instance prevented C1 directors from requesting a doctor's note for shorter absences. Nor is there evidence that Simpson's motivation in requesting a doctor's note, after Barber left work on January 16, 2008, following the interaction with Simpson and Megard, was based on unlawful discrimination. Cf. Haas, 409 F.3d at 1036. Barber has failed to show pretext on this basis. Barber asserts that he was unlawfully singled out for a prohibition against driving students to church, and that Simpson's directive was racially motivated. He maintains that driving students to church was common practice for C1 employees. Presumably this  his disagreement with the prohibition  is why he disregarded the prohibition. But there is no indication that other C1 employees had been the subject of similar complaints about excluded students, or that other employees were violating a supervisor's direct instruction. We agree with the district court that these circumstances do not support a reasonable inference of racial discrimination.