Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ameen-v-amphenol-printed-circuits-inc-1st-cir-2015 1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1086

MURAD Y. AMEEN,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

AMPHENOL PRI NTED CI RCUI TS, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. Landya B. McCaf f er t y, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Laur en S. I r wi n, wi t h whom Heat her M. Bur ns and Upt on &Hat f i el d, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

J onat han D. Rosenf el d, wi t h whomJ enni f er C. Br own and Wi l merCut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dor r LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 26, 2015



THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Ei nst ei n i nst r ucts t hat t i me i s

r el at i ve t o t he obser ver . 1 The observer i n t hi s case, def endant

Amphenol Pr i nt ed Ci r cui t s, I nc. ( Amphenol ) l ear ned t hat one of i t s

empl oyees, pl ai nt i f f Mur ad Ameen, was shi f t i ng t i me by cl ocki ng out

f or l unch whi l e st i l l at wor k, and t hen, once back on t he cl ock,

l eavi ng f or a mor e l ei sur el y l unch. A br i ef hi st or y of Ameen' s

t i me reveal ed t hat he had been st eal i ng t i me consi st ent l y f or

year s. Unf or t unat el y f or Ameen, i n Amphenol ' s vi ew, t i me i s money.

Amphenol f i r ed Ameen, and he f i l ed sui t al l egi ng t hat t he basi s f or

hi s t er mi nat i on was not t hef t of t i me, but r et al i at i on f or hi s

havi ng t aken FMLA l eave. The di st r i ct cour t awarded summary

j udgment t o Amphenol , a deci si on Ameen now appeal s. Al t hough he

succeeded i n savi ng t i me i n a bot t l e f or some t hr ee year s, hi s

words won' t make wi shes come t r ue - - we r ej ect hi s argument and

af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment t o Amphenol .

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Time Off

Al t hough i t i s t empt i ng t o begi n wi t h "once upon a t i me, "

we must f i r st not e t hat t he under l yi ng f act s ar e l ar gel y

undi sput ed. Because t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment

bef or e any f act - f i nder coul d eval uat e t he compet i ng evi dence and

1Ei nst ei n, Al ber t ( 1905) , "Zur El ekt r odynami k bewegt erKör per " , Annal en der Physi k 322 (10) : 891- 921.

-2-



i nf er ences, wher e account s di f f er , we r ecount t he f act s i n a l i ght

as f avor abl e t o Ameen as t he r ecor d wi l l r easonabl y al l ow. See

McAr dl e v. Town of Dr acut , 732 F. 3d 29, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

By t he spr i ng of 2012, Murad Ameen had wor ked f or

Amphenol ( a manuf act ur er of pr i nt ed ci r cui t boar ds) and i t s

pr edecessor , Ter adyne, f or near l y a dozen year s. Dur i ng t hat t i me,

he recei ved posi t i ve per f or mance eval uat i ons, sever al r ai ses, and

was pr omoted t o t he posi t i on of Gr oup Leader . As Gr oup Leader , i n

addi t i on t o operat i ng t he company' s dr i l l machi nes, Ameen was

r esponsi bl e f or l eadi ng t he ot her oper at or s on t he second shi f t ,

and ass i st i ng i n pl anni ng over t i me st af f i ng t o meet cust omer

demand.

That spr i ng, Ameen was ant i ci pat i ng t he bi r t h of hi s

second chi l d. He r equest ed and r ecei ved a t wo- week l eave under t he

Fami l y and Medi cal Leave Act [ "FMLA"] , f r omMarch 12 to March 26,

as wel l as a one- week ext ensi on. Dur i ng most of t hat t i me, Ameen

worked a r educed schedul e. Ameen t hen r etur ned t o f ul l - t i me work,

but decl i ned r equest s t o wor k over t i me, ci t i ng hi s wi f e' s poor

post par t um heal t h. Al t hough both Ameen and Amphenol agr ee t hat

over t i me was not "mandatory, " whether i t was expect ed i s a mat t er

of some di sput e.

On Apr i l 4, 2012, Ameen r equest ed a personal l eave of

t hr ee and a hal f weeks, f r omApr i l 26 t o May 21. Thi s was not FMLA

l eave, but r at her , t i me of f t o accommodat e a t r i p t o hi s nat i ve

-3-



I r aq. 2 The next day, Ameen met wi t h hi s super vi sor , J oseph Si l va,

Oper at i ons Manager Raymond Pr at t , and Di r ect or of Human Resources

Val er i e Har t l an t o di scuss hi s r equest , as Amphenol ' s pol i cy

r equi r es management appr oval of personal l eaves gr eat er t han t wo

weeks. At t he meet i ng, Prat t expr essed concer n t hat t he t i mi ng

"wasn' t i deal " because i t was a busy t i me f or t he company. Ameen

r esponded t hat he i nt ended t o go t o I r aq whet her or not t he company

gr ant ed hi s r equest . Prat t warned Ameen t hat even i f t he company

appr oved hi s l eave, t hey coul d not guarant ee t hat he woul d be abl e

t o r etai n hi s Gr oup Leader posi t i on because "we may have t o put

somebody . . . i n t hat posi t i on t o be abl e t o . . . l ead t he

depar t ment . " Accor di ng t o Si l va, on a pr i or occasi on when a Gr oup

Leader t ook a l eave of absence, t he company pl aced anot her empl oyee

i n t hat posi t i on and moved t he demot ed Gr oup Leader t o anot her

shi f t . At some poi nt dur i ng t he meet i ng, Ameen agr eed t hat he

woul d "hel p out " wi t h over t i me af t er hi s r et ur n f r om l eave. Pr at t

and Si l va appr oved Ameen' s l eave, and upon hi s r etur n, he r etai ned

hi s posi t i on, sal ar y, and benef i t s. Amphenol al so spr ead out

Ameen' s accr ued vacat i on t i me over t he weeks of hi s l eave, t o

ensur e he coul d pay f or hi s benef i t s.

2 The pur pose of t he t r i p was t o get a bi r t h cer t i f i cat e f orhi s son, and t o "get hi s wi f e' s mat er ni t y l eave f r omher gover nment j ob i n I r aq. "

-4-



B. Time Away

I n t he meant i me, on Apr i l 12, 2012, whi l e wor ki ng pr i or

t o t he I r aq t r i p, Ameen f ai l ed t o f ol l ow t he pr oper pr ocedur e i n

set t i ng up a j ob on a dr i l l machi ne. Ther eaf t er , dur i ng hi s l unch

break, t he machi ne st opped. When Ameen r et urned, he at t empted t o

r ewor k t he j ob, but he f ai l ed to communi cat e t he mechani cal i ssues

t o hi s super vi sor or anyone f r omt he next shi f t , as was r equi r ed by

company pol i cy. The pr obl em cont i nued dur i ng t he next shi f t ,

r esul t i ng i n l ost pr oduct i on t i me.

The event was i nvest i gat ed and, accor di ng t o Pr at t , when

Ameen was conf r ont ed wi t h t he resul t s of t he i nvest i gat i on, he

"di dn' t hi de t hat he made t he mi st ake. " The engi neer who

i nvest i gat ed t he event br ought t he i ssue t o Oper at i ons Di r ect or

Chr i st i ne Har r i ngt on, who concl uded that Ameen had t r i ed to "cover

up" hi s mi st ake by r ewor ki ng t he j ob wi t hout r epor t i ng i t . On

Apr i l 16, 2012, Ameen was i ssued a wr i t t en warni ng f or not

f ol l owi ng pr oper pr ocedur e. The war ni ng st at ed, " t hi s behavi or i s

unaccept abl e [ and] cannot be t ol er at ed. I f t hi s t ype [ of ] behavi or

cont i nues[ , ] f ur t her act i on may be t aken up t o and i ncl udi ng

t ermi nat i on. " Ameen si gned t he "Empl oyee St atement " sect i on of t he

warni ng, agr eei ng t hat he "concur [ r ed] wi t h t he Company' s

st at ement . " Thi s was t he second warni ng Ameen had r ecei ved. 3

3I n 2009, Ameen had r ecei ved a wr i t t en war ni ng f or f ai l i ng t of ol l ow pr oper pr ocedur e, r esul t i ng i n "4 panel s bei ng scr apped. "

-5-



C. Time Out

Ameen r et ur ned f r om hi s per sonal l eave i n l at e May.

Despi t e hi s ear l i er pr omi se, Ameen cont i nued t o decl i ne over t i me.

Pr at t admi t s expr essi ng di sappoi nt ment over Ameen' s f ai l ur e to si gn

up f or over t i me as pr evi ousl y di scussed. Ameen char act er i zes

Prat t ' s response as mor e t han di sappoi nt ment . He al l eges that

Prat t "got mad" when he decl i ned t he over t i me even t hough Prat t

knew Ameen needed t i me t o be wi t h hi s f ami l y.

On J une 22, 2012, f i r st shi f t Gr oup Leader Paul Conner s

r eport ed t o Pr at t t hat t wo of Ameen' s co- worker s, Donny Moses and

Mi ke Sul l i van, accused Ameen of "cheat i ng on hi s t i mecar d. "

Speci f i cal l y, Conner s t ol d Pr at t t hat Ameen was "out si de t he

depar t ment f or extended per i ods of t i me. " Amphenol ' s pol i cy al l ows

f or a t hi r t y- mi nut e unpai d l unch br eak and a f i f t een- mi nut e pai d

br eak, f or a t ot al of f or t y- f i ve mi nut es of br eak t i me.

Fol l owi ng hi s conver sat i on wi t h Conner s, Pr at t cont act ed

Har t l an i n Human Resour ces and asked her t o gat her Ameen' s ADI

t i mecar d r ecor ds, as wel l as t he data f r omt he company' s CCur e door

secur i t y syst em t hat woul d show when Ameen had ent ered and exi t ed

t he bui l di ng. These r ecor ds r eveal ed t hat Ameen woul d punch out of

t he ADI syst em at some poi nt ever y day f or appr oxi mat el y t hi r t y

mi nut es, but woul d cont i nue wor ki ng; t hen, at anot her t i me, he

woul d l eave t he pr oper t y f or appr oxi mat el y an hour . I n t hi s

-6-



manner , he was compensat ed f or an addi t i onal f i f t een mi nut es of

t i me he di d not work.

Af t er r evi ewi ng t he r ecor ds, Pr at t met wi t h hi s

super vi sor , Har r i ngt on, and she di r ected hi m t o i nvest i gat e

f ur t her . Af t er per sonal l y obser vi ng Ameen dur i ng hi s shi f t whi l e

he cl ocked i n and out and r emai ned at hi s post , Prat t r epor t ed back

t o Har r i ngt on. She t hen r evi ewed Ameen' s ADI and CCur e r ecor ds f or

t he previ ous t wo year s. The r ecor ds showed t hat Ameen had been

mai nt ai ni ng t hi s pr act i ce f or t he ent i r e t wo- year per i od.

Harr i ngt on deci ded Ameen shoul d be f i r ed, and she

di r ected Pr at t t o dr af t a t er mi nat i on not i ce. Pr at t wr ot e a f i r st

dr af t of t he document , whi ch ref erenced t he ADI and CCur e recor ds

and st ated t hat Ameen' s pract i ce of l eavi ng f or an hour a day

amount ed t o "st eal i ng 2. 5hr s a week f r omt he company at a rate of

$17. 19/ hr or $2, 234. 70/ year . " That Ameen was "on hi s cel l phone

t hr oughout t he shi f t " - - anot her vi ol at i on of company pol i cy - - was

al so not ed.

Prat t t hen met wi t h Ameen' s super vi sor , Si l va, and showed

hi m t he dr af t . Si l va t ol d Pr at t t hat a f ew year s ear l i er , Ameen

had asked i f he coul d combi ne hi s pai d f i f t een- mi nut e br eak and hi s

unpai d t hi r t y- mi nut e l unch, so he coul d go home and eat wi t h hi s

wi f e. Si l va gave hi m per mi ssi on, f ul l y knowi ng t hat Ameen woul d

have t o punch i n and out f or t hi r t y mi nut es whi l e st i l l wor ki ng.

-7-



However , a tot al of f or t y- f i ve mi nut es was al l he says he

aut hor i zed.

Pr at t r epor t ed t o Har r i ngt on t hat Si l va admi t t ed gi vi ng

Ameen permi ss i on t o combi ne hi s t wo br eaks; never t hel ess,

Har r i ngt on st i l l det er mi ned Ameen' s t er mi nat i on appr opr i at e f or hi s

ef f ect i vel y steal i ng f r om t he company by consi st ent l y t aki ng

addi t i onal pai d br eak t i me. Har r i ngt on' s deci si on t o t er mi nat e

al so t ook i nt o consi derat i on t he warni ng Ameen recei ved two mont hs

pr i or f or " cover i ng up" hi s pr oduct i on mi st ake. I t i s undi sput ed

t hat , at t he t i me Har r i ngt on deci ded t o f i r e Ameen, she di d not

know he had t aken FMLA l eave. Fur t her , she di d not know he had

been decl i ni ng t o work over t i me.

Af t er hi s meet i ng wi t h Har r i ngt on, Pr at t r evi sed t he

t er mi nat i on document t o not e t hat Ameen' s pract i ce of t aki ng a "1/ 2

hour pai d br eak and 1/ 2 hour unpai d l unch" was "not pol i cy, [ and]

not appr oved by any [ Amphenol ] management . " The f i nal dr af t di d

expr essl y acknowl edge t hat , whi l e t he pol i cy devi at i on was not

approved by seni or management , Ameen had approval at t he supervi sor

l evel t o t ake a f or t y- f i ve mi nut e br eak by combi ni ng hi s f i f t een

mi nut e pai d and t hi r t y mi nut e unpai d br eaks. Fur t her , t he dr af t

st at ed t hat t he ext r a f i f t een mi nut es of unaut hor i zed br eak t i me

cost t he company "1. 25 hour s of l abor per week. " The f i nal ver si on

al so not ed Ameen' s f al si f i ed t i mecar d r out i ne, and t he Apr i l 16,

2012 wr i t t en warni ng he had r ecei ved.

-8-



D. Time's Up

On J une 27, 2012, Prat t met wi t h Ameen t o not i f y hi m of

hi s t er mi nat i on, and t o r evi ew t he t er mi nat i on document wi t h hi m.

Pr at t went over t he ADI and CCure dat a wi t h Ameen and expl ai ned he

was bei ng f i r ed f or st eal i ng t i me f r omt he company. Ameen r ef used

t o r ead or si gn t he t er mi nat i on document . I nst ead, he r et or t ed, " I

know t hi s i s not about t en, [ f i f t een] mi nut es. Thi s i s about you

pi cki ng on me because I haven' t been abl e t o gi ve you much over t i me

because of my wi f e' s si t uat i on. I [ have] been t aki ng FMLA l eave. "

Accor di ng to Ameen, Pr at t r epl i ed, "do you have pr oof of t hat ?"

Ameen f i l ed sui t agai nst Amphenol , al l egi ng t hat Amphenol

vi ol at ed t he FMLA, 29 U. S. C. §§ 2601- 2619, by r et al i at i ng agai nst

hi mf or t aki ng f ami l y l eave. Ameen cl ai med t hat hi s FMLA- pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y was a mot i vat i ng f act or i n Amphenol ' s deci si on t o

t er mi nat e hi s empl oyment . Ameen char act er i zed t hi s act i vi t y as

i ncl udi ng bot h hi s f or mal FMLA l eave, and hi s deci si on not t o wor k

over t i me upon hi s r et ur n, whi ch he terms " i nf or mal FMLA l eave. "

Amphenol moved f or summary j udgment . Af t er ent er t ai ni ng oral

ar gument , t he cour t gr ant ed j udgment t o Amphenol . I n i t s r ul i ng on

Ameen' s r et al i at i on cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t empl oyed a f our - st ep

appr oach. Fi r st i t "assume[ d] t hat Ameen had car r i ed t he l i ght

bur den" of pr ovi ng a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on. The cour t

t hen f ound t hat Amphenol had ar t i cul at ed a l egi t i mate,

nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or i t s deci si on t o t er mi nat e Ameen. The

-9-



cour t next determi ned t hat , because Harr i ngt on di d not know about

Ameen' s FMLA- pr otect ed act i vi t y, Ameen woul d need t o i nvoke t he

cat ' s paw t heor y t o i mput e Conner s' s or Prat t ' s ani mus t o her as

t he deci si onmaker . The "cat ' s paw t heor y" i s empl oyed when one

"seeks t o hol d hi s empl oyer l i abl e f or t he ani mus of a super vi sor

who was not char ged wi t h maki ng t he ul t i mate empl oyment deci si on. " 4

St aub v. Proct or Hospi t al , 131 S. Ct . 1186, 1190 ( 2011) . However ,

t he cour t concl uded t hat Ameen "ha[d] pr oduced no f act s f r omwhi ch

a r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude t hat ei t her Conner s or Pr at t act ed

i n a way that woul d j ust i f y i nvocat i on of t he cat ' s paw t heor y, "

and thus Ameen coul d not est abl i sh t hat Amphenol ' s r eason was a

pr et ext f or r et al i at i on under t he FMLA. The di st r i ct cour t ent er ed

j udgment i n f avor of Amphenol , and t hi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

Standard of Review

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment

t o Amphenol de novo, "assessi ng t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he nonmovant and r esol vi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences

i n t hat par t y' s f avor . " Bar cl ays Bank PLC v. Poynt er , 710 F. 3d 16,

19 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Summar y j udgment

4Wi t h apol ogi es t o our f el l ow ai l ur ophi l es, we can r epor t t hatt he name der i ves f r om a f abl e i n whi ch a cunni ng ( and hungr y)monkey i nduces a cat by f l at t er y t o r each i t s paw i nt o a f i r e t oext r act r oast i ng chest nut s; t he monkey f east s al one on t hechest nut s af t er t he cat scor ches i t s paw. I d. at n. 1.

-10-



i s proper l y gr ant ed "wher e ' t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any

mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of

l aw. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) . "A di sput e i s

' genui ne' i f a r easonabl e j ur y, dr awi ng f avor abl e i nf er ences, coul d

r esol ve i t i n f avor of t he nonmovi ng par t y. " Vel ázquez- Pér ez v.

Devel oper s Di ver si f i ed Real t y Cor p. , 753 F. 3d 265, 270 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . "Even i n empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on cases wher e el usi ve concept s such as mot i ve or

i nt ent ar e at i ssue, summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e i f t he non-

movi ng part y rest s mer el y upon concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e

i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Benoi t v. Techni cal Mf g.

Cor p. , 331 F. 3d 166, 173 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons

omi t t ed) .

III.

Discussion

Ameen makes sever al argument s on appeal , t he maj or t hrust

of whi ch i s t hat genui ne i ssues of di sput ed f act s exi st , and

summary j udgment was i nappr opr i ate because t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y wei ghed evi dence and f ai l ed t o dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n hi s f avor . Ameen f ur t her chal l enges t he st andar d t he

cour t empl oyed f or cat ' s paw l i abi l i t y, but ar gues t hat even

assumi ng t he st andar d used was cor r ect , t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have deni ed summary j udgment . We wi l l di scuss t he f i ner poi nt s of

hi s ar gument s i n cont ext .

-11-



Under t he FMLA, empl oyer s ar e "prohi bi t ed f r om

di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst empl oyees . . . who have used FMLA l eave. "

Hodgens v. General Dynami cs Corp. , 144 F. 3d 151, 160 (1st Ci r .

1998) ( ci t i ng 29 C. F. R. § 825. 220( c) ) . Nor may an empl oyer "use

t he t aki ng of FMLA l eave as a negat i ve f actor i n empl oyment

act i ons, such as hi r i ng, pr omot i ons or di sci pl i nar y act i ons. " I d.

( quot i ng 29 C. F. R. § 825. 220( c) ) . Ameen cl ai ms hi s FMLA- pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y was "a mot i vat i ng f act or " i n hi s t er mi nat i on, and al t hough

he ar gues t hat t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y i ncl uded bot h hi s f or mal

l eave and hi s r ef usi ng t o work over t i me, nowhere does he f ocus on

t he f or mal FMLA l eave. I nst ead, he cont ends t hat at t i t udes t owar d

hi mchanged as a r esul t of hi s r ef usi ng t o wor k over t i me f or "FMLA-

pr ot ect ed r easons, " and t hat hi s t er mi nat i on was mot i vat ed by

r et al i at i on f or t hat conduct . Because t he quest i on of whet her t he

empl oyer t ook t he adver se act i on f or a l egi t i mat e or r et al i at or y

r eason i s anal ogous t o t he quest i on of i nt ent r ai sed i n Ti t l e VI I

empl oyment - di scr i mi nat i on act i ons, we empl oy the f r amework set

f or t h i n McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. v. Gr een t o anal yze " t he t r i cky

i ssue of mot i vat i on. " I d. ( ci t i ng McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. v.

Gr een, 411 U. S. 792, 800- 06 ( 1973) ) .

The McDonnel l Dougl as f r amewor k i s a t hree- st ep

pr ocedur e. Fi r st , a pl ai nt i f f empl oyee must car r y t he i ni t i al

bur den of comi ng f or war d wi t h suf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh a

pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on or ret al i at i on. McDonnel l

-12-



Dougl as, 411 U. S. at 802. To meet t hi s burden, Ameen must show

t hat " ( 1) he avai l ed hi msel f of a pr ot ect ed r i ght under t he FMLA;

( 2) he was adver sel y af f ect ed by an empl oyment deci si on; ( 3) t her e

i s a causal connect i on" bet ween hi s pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and

Amphenol ' s deci si on t o t ermi nate hi m. Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 161.

I f t he pl ai nt i f f est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case, t he bur den shi f t s

t o t he empl oyer " t o ar t i cul at e some l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y

r eason" f or t he t er mi nat i on. I d. at 160. I f t he empl oyer can

pr of f er evi dence "suf f i ci ent t o r ai se a genui ne i ssue of f act as t o

whet her i t di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t he empl oyee . . . t he pr esumpt i on

of di scri mi nat i on dr ops f r om t he case, and t he pl ai nt i f f r et ai ns

t he ul t i mat e bur den of showi ng t hat t he empl oyer ' s st at ed r eason

f or t er mi nat i ng hi m was i n f act a pr et ext f or r et al i at i ng agai nst

hi m f or havi ng t aken pr ot ect ed FMLA l eave. " Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at

160- 61 ( ci t i ng McDonnel l Dougl as, 411 U. S. at 802, 804) .

A. Prima Facie Case

The di st r i ct cour t assumed t hat Ameen est abl i shed a pr i ma

f aci e case of r et al i at i on, and f ur t her assumed wi t hout deci di ng

t hat hi s prot ect ed conduct i ncl uded bot h hi s FMLA l eave and hi s

deci si on not t o wor k over t i me af t er r et ur ni ng f r om hi s ( non- FMLA)

per sonal l eave. As Ameen' s cl ai m f ai l s f or t he r easons we expl ai n

bel ow, we wi l l t ake a si mi l ar t ack. See Col l azo- Rosado v.

Uni ver si t y of Puer t o Ri co, 765 F. 3d 86, 92- 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( not i ng " [ t ] he si mpl est way to deci de a case i s of t en t he best , "

-13-



and assumi ng wi t hout deci di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f had est abl i shed a

pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on, bef or e hol di ng t hat she f ai l ed t o

pr esent a t r i abl e i ssue of f act as t o pr et ext ) .

B. Legitimate Reason

Havi ng gi ven Ameen t he benef i t of a pr i ma f aci e

assumpt i on, t he bur den shi f t s t o Amphenol t o pr ovi de a l egi t i mat e,

nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or i t s deci si on t o ter mi nat e Ameen.

Amphenol asser t s t hat Ameen was f i r ed f or st eal i ng f r omt he company

by consi st ent l y t aki ng unaut hor i zed pai d br eak t i me. The company

al so says i t r i ght l y consi der ed Ameen' s pr evi ous war ni ng f or

f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow pr ocedur e. 5

Ameen chal l enges Amphenol ' s pr of f ered r eason f or t he

t ermi nat i on, but does not di sput e t he evi dence whi ch demonst r ates

t hat he t ook an addi t i onal f i f t een mi nut es or so of pai d br eak t i me

consi st ent l y over a t wo- year per i od. I n f act , i n hi s br i ef , Ameen

admi t s t o mai nt ai ni ng t hi s pr act i ce f or t hr ee year s, but i nsi st s he

had permi ss i on t o do so. Nonethel ess, Ameen concedes t hat i t was

condi t i oned upon hi s maki ng up f or t he ext r a t i me. 6 I t i s

5Ameen does not chal l enge the warni ng he recei ved i n Apr i l ,al t hough he now char act er i zes i t as " exagger at ed" and "unusual l ydetai l ed. " However , he acknowl edges he si gned t he warni ng andchecked of f t he box i ndi cat i ng he concur r ed wi t h i t .

6On appeal , Ameen put s a spi n on t he not i on of maki ng up t het i me. He cl ai ms t hat he was ent i t l ed t o t he ext r a t i me as l ong ashe "got hi s work done, " i r r espect i ve of how l ong he remai ned atwor k. I t was suf f i ci ent , he ar gues, i f he made up " f i f t een mi nut esof wor k ( not t i me) dur i ng t he day. " Yet t he r ecor d does notsuppor t hi s f act ual asser t i on. Dur i ng hi s deposi t i on, Ameen

-14-



undi sput ed t hat Ameen di d not put i n addi t i onal t i me to make up f or

t he ext r a f i f t een mi nut es a day.

Ther e i s no quest i on t hen, t hat as t he di st r i ct cour t

f ound, Amphenol had a l egi t i mate basi s t o t ermi nate Ameen; t he

par amount quest i on, however , i s whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

when i t f ound Ameen had f ai l ed t o r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mater i al

f act as t o pr et ext , and t hat Amphenol was ent i t l ed t o j udgment as

a mat t er of l aw.

C. Pretext

Under t he McDonnel l Dougl as f r amework, t he bur den t hus

shi f t s back t o Ameen to pr ove t hat Amphenol ' s st ated r eason was a

pr et ext i nt ended t o di sgui se i t s r et al i at i on f or hi s engagi ng i n

FMLA- pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. 7 To demonst r at e t hat he was f i r ed i n

r et al i at i on f or engagi ng i n FMLA- pr ot ect ed conduct , Ameen "must

show t hat t he r et al i at or knew about [ hi s] pr ot ect ed act i vi t y - -

af t er al l , one cannot have been mot i vat ed to ret al i at e by somet hi ng

he was unaware of . " Medi na- Ri ver a v. MVM, I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 139

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Thi s i s wher e Ameen' s case f ai l s to l and on i t s

admi t t ed Si l va condi t i oned t he ext r a f i f t een mi nut es upon Ameen' scomi ng i n ear l y or st ayi ng l at e t o make up t he t i me. I t i sundi sput ed t hat Ameen never made up the t i me by ei t her comi ng i near l y or st ayi ng l at e of f t he cl ock. We not e t hat t he ADI system

t r acked t i me t o t he mi nut e, r at her t han t he quar t er hour .Amphenol ' s empl oyees were pai d f or t he t i me t hey worked, not f ort he amount of work t hey pr oduced. Nothi ng i n t he r ecor d permi t s ust o concl ude t hat Ameen was t he one except i on.

7Agai n, l i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , we assume wi t hout deci di ngt hat Ameen' s r ef usal t o work overt i me was FMLA- pr otected conduct .

-15-



f eet . I t i s undi sput ed t hat Har r i ngt on, who made t he ul t i mat e

deci si on t o t ermi nate Ameen, di d not know t hat he had t aken FMLA

l eave, and di d not know t hat he was decl i ni ng overt i me. Ameen' s

onl y hope, t hen, l i es i n t he cat ' s paw t heor y.

1. Cat's Paws

I n i nvoki ng t he cat ' s paw t heor y, Ameen at t empt s t o pr ove

t hat ei t her Conners or Prat t were mot i vat ed by ani mus when t hey

r epor t ed hi s t i mecar d act i vi t i es t o Har r i ngt on. I n Car i gl i a v.

Her t z Equi p. Rent al Cor p. , we hel d t hat cor por at e l i abi l i t y can

at t ach when a neut r al deci si onmaker " r el [ i es] on i nf or mat i on t hat

i s mani pul at ed by anot her empl oyee who harbor s i l l egi t i mat e

ani mus. " 363 F. 3d 77, 86- 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat an

empl oyee' s supervi sor ' s ani mus coul d be i mput ed t o t he

deci si onmaker) . Subsequent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t , i n St aub v.

Pr oct or Hospi t al , det er mi ned t hat cat ' s paw l i abi l i t y can at t ach i f

an empl oyee per f orms an act mot i vated by ani mus t hat i s i nt ended t o

cause an adver se empl oyment act i on, and i f t hat act i s a pr oxi mate

cause of an adver se empl oyment act i on. 131 S. Ct . 1186, 1190, 1194

( 2011) ( appl yi ng t he Uni f ormed Servi ces Empl oyment and Reempl oyment

Ri ght s Act t o a case i nvol vi ng ant i mi l i t ar y ani mus) . Bot h cases

i nvol ved super vi sors who pr ovi ded f al se or mi sl eadi ng i nf or mat i on

t o a deci si onmaker .

Ameen ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y appl i ed

a "hei ght ened st andar d" by r eadi ng Car i gl i a t o r equi r e t hat t he

-16-



i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded t o a deci si onmaker must be "i naccur at e,

mi sl eadi ng or i ncompl ete. " Rather , Ameen cont ends that t he St aub

st andar d shoul d appl y, whi ch he suggest s i s mor e l i ber al t han

Car i gl i a' s. Accor di ng t o Ameen, St aub does not r equi r e t he

r epor t i ng of i naccur at e or mi sl eadi ng i nf or mat i on; i nst ead, al l

t hat i s needed i s an act by an empl oyee ( i . e. t he r epor t i ng of even

accur at e i nf or mat i on) mot i vat ed by ani mus t hat i s i nt ended t o

cause, and i ndeed does cause, an adver se empl oyment act i on.

However , we have no need t o parse t hese two i nt erpr etat i ons as

Ameen mi sses t he cr i t i cal poi nt i n bot h cases; bot h st andar ds

absol ut el y requi r e a f i ndi ng t hat t he per son who pr ovi ded t he

i nf or mat i on was mot i vat ed by r et al i at or y ani mus. Accor di ngl y, on

t hat f r ont , t hey ar e but t wo pat hs t o the same end, t aki ng as t hei r

f i r st st ep a f i ndi ng of r et al i at or y ani mus. I t i s upon t hat st ep

t hat Ameen' s cl ai m t r i ps.

2. Animus Claims Against Conners

To prevai l i n hi s cl ai m, Ameen must est abl i sh t hat

Amphenol ' s r eason f or t er mi nat i ng hi mwas a pr et ext f or r et al i at or y

ani mus. Ameen cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t over l ooked evi dence

t hat woul d est abl i sh that t he empl oyees who r eport ed t he

i nf or mat i on about hi s break t i me to t he ul t i mat e deci si onmaker wer e

mot i vat ed by ani mus. Begi nni ng wi t h f i r st shi f t Gr oup Leader

Conner s, Ameen ar gues t hat Conner s' s ver y r epor t i ng to Pr at t

( Oper at i ons Manager ) t he i nf or mat i on he recei ved f r om Moses and

-17-



Sul l i van ( Ameen' s co- worker s and subordi nates) about Ameen' s

extended br eaks i s pr oof of r et al i ator y ani mus because of how

di f f er ent l y Conner s deal t wi t h hi s own subor di nat es on t hi s i ssue.

Ameen ar gues t hat when Conners' s subordi nates t ook addi t i onal br eak

t i me, he onl y chast i sed t hem f or doi ng so, but never ot her wi se

di sci pl i ned t hem, nor r epor t ed t hemt o hi gher - ups. On t hi s poi nt ,

Conner s' s unr ebut t ed deposi t i on t est i mony est abl i shed t hat when a

member of hi s cr ew was " f i ve mi nut es l at e" r et ur ni ng f r ombr eak, he

spoke t o t hem about i t and r ecei ved t he assurance t hat " i t won' t

happen agai n. " Had t he behavi or been r epeat ed, Conners st at ed t hat

he woul d have "el evat e[ d] t hat t o t he super vi sor . " Ameen poi nt s t o

no ot her si mi l ar l y- si t uat ed empl oyee who consi st ent l y took an ext r a

f i f t een mi nut es of f ever y day as he di d who recei ved mor e f avor abl e

t r eat ment f r om Conner s. Gi ven t hese f act s, Conner s' s mer e

r epor t i ng of Ameen up t he cor por at e f ood chai n i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o

demonst r at e ani mus. 8

Ameen al so posi t s, i n suppor t of hi s ani mus cl ai m, t hat

Conner s was " host i l e" t owar ds hi mbecause Conner s was " f r ust r at ed"

about havi ng t o work over t i me due t o Ameen' s no- over t i me schedul e.

8Af t er t hi s l awsui t was f i l ed, Amphenol t ook not e of Ameen' sal l egat i on t hat " [ o] t her empl oyees i n [ hi s] depar t ment f ol l owed t he

same pr act i ce, " and conduct ed an i nvest i gat i on. The ADI and CCur er ecor ds showed t hat f r om J anuar y 2012 t o J une 2012, t he co- t i pst erDonny Moses had been cl ocki ng out whi l e remai ni ng at work, t henl eavi ng f or an hour . Li ke Ameen, Moses was t hen t ermi nated. Ther e i s no evi dence t hat Amphenol knew of t hi s pract i ce bef or eSul l i van - - and i r oni cal l y, Moses - - br ought Ameen' s conduct t oConner s' s at t ent i on.

-18-



Ot her t han poi nt i ng t o Conners havi ng r eport ed Ameen' s ext ended

br eaks t o super i or s, Ameen gi ves us no ot her expl anat i on or

evi dence of t hi s host i l i t y. Conner s deni ed any di spl ay of

f r ust r at i on, and st at ed t hat he r epor t ed t he i nf or mat i on t o Pr at t

because, as a t went y- f i ve year empl oyee, " I woul dn' t cheat on my

t i me, and I don' t expect other peopl e t o do t hat . That ' s

st eal i ng. " Regardl ess of Ameen' s opi ni on on what may have

mot i vat ed Conner s t o report hi s ext ended br eak t i mes, hi s

"subj ect i ve bel i ef i n r et al i at i on i s not enough" t o show ani mus on

Conner s' s par t , and no obj ect i ve evi dence i n t he recor d suppor t s

hi s ani mus theor y. Roman v. Pot t er , 604 F. 3d 34, 41 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) .

3. Animus Claims Against Pratt

Al t ernat i vel y, Ameen descr i bes a number of ways i n whi ch

Pr at t ' s behavi or demonst r at es ani mus. Fi r st , and i dent i cal t o hi s

Conners ar gument , he says t hat because Prat t had never bef ore

escal at ed the i ssue of extended br eaks t o Har r i ngt on when deal i ng

wi t h al l egedl y si mi l ar l y- si t uat ed empl oyees, t he f act t hat he

el evat ed t he i ssue of Ameen' s break t i me t o Har r i ngt on i s proof

suf f i ci ent t o i nf er ani mus. I n r ebut t al , Amphenol r epeat s i t had

never bef ore encountered a case i n whi ch an empl oyee had

consi st ent l y combi ned t wo br eaks and t hen t ook an addi t i onal

unaut hor i zed quar t er hour on t op of t hat . Not hi ng i n t he r ecor d

cont r adi ct s t hi s asser t i on.

-19-



Mor eover , Pr at t di d not j ust pass al ong t he t i p af t er

r ecei vi ng i t ; he conduct ed hi s own i nvest i gat i on by request i ng and

r evi ewi ng Ameen' s ADI and CCur e recor ds f or t he pr evi ous mont h; and

onl y when he had sat i sf i ed hi msel f t hat t he al l eged pr act i ce was

act ual l y occur r i ng di d he br i ng t he mat t er t o Har r i ngt on. The mer e

f act of an i nvest i gat i on - - par t i cul ar l y one spur r ed by a vi ol at i on

of company pol i cy - - i s not pr oof of ani mus and not hi ng el se i n t he

r ecor d suggest s t hat t he i nvest i gat i on was mot i vat ed by ani mus. I t

bear s r epeat i ng t hat " [ e] ven i n empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on cases

where el usi ve concept s such as mot i ve or i nt ent ar e at i ssue,

summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate i f t he nonmovi ng part y rest s

mer el y upon concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and

unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Benoi t , 331 F. 3d at 173 ( i nt er nal

quotat i ons omi t t ed) . The r ecor d bef ore us does not support Ameen' s

al l egat i ons.

Second, and gr aspi ng f or st r aws, Ameen cont ends i n

suppor t of hi s ani mus cl ai mt hat Pr at t mi sl ed Har r i ngt on about t he

war ni ng Ameen had r ecei ved i n Apr i l , l eadi ng her t o bel i eve t hat a

"cover up" occur r ed. Speci f i cal l y, Ameen st at es t hat he "was not

asked about t he er r or on t he ni ght i n quest i on, and cl ear l y

admi t t ed t he mi st ake t o Pr at t when asked, and t her ef or e Pr at t

acknowl edged t hat t her e was no ef f or t t o cover up the mi st ake. "

The r ecor d, however , makes pl ai n t hat Ameen i s pl ayi ng cat and

mouse wi t h t he f act s. That he was not asked about t he err or on t he

-20-



ni ght i n quest i on i s i r r el evant i f cl ear company pr ot ocol r equi r ed

t hat he r el ay t hat i nf or mat i on when " t yi ng of f " wi t h t he next

shi f t . Har r i ngt on st at ed t hat she r eached her own i ndependent

concl usi on t hat Ameen " t r i ed t o cover up a scr ap event " when t he

i nvest i gat i ng engi neer "was abl e t o show t hat t he panel had been

dr i l l ed t wi ce, t he f i r st t i me wi t h an i ncor r ect set up, t he second

t i me t o f i x t he pr obl emt hat had been cr eat ed by t he f i r st i ssue. "

I t was t hat act i on, of cover i ng up a wor k mi st ake and not f ol l owi ng

r epor t i ng pr ocedur e, t o whi ch Har r i ngt on r ef er r ed. That Ameen

admi t t ed t o t he mi st ake once conf r ont ed wi t h i t by Pr at t i s besi de

t he poi nt . Ther e i s no evi dence t hat Pr at t mi sl ed Har r i ngt on about

t he nat ur e of t he event , and no evi dence t hat hi s r epor t i ng t he

i nf ormat i on was mot i vat ed by ani mus.

Thi r d, Ameen next ci t es as proof of ani mus t hat Pr at t

bot h "wi t hhel d" f r omHar r i ngt on t he f act t hat he "had per mi ssi on t o

mi suse t he t i mecl ock syst em, " and f ai l ed t o appr i se Har r i ngt on of

Ameen' s ear l i er FMLA l eave. Harr i ngt on made cl ear , however ,

wi t hout cont r adi ct i on, t hat i t was Ameen' s t aki ng of an addi t i onal

f i f t een mi nut es of t i me each day - - not t he use of t he t i me cl ock

syst em per se - - t hat she vi ewed as t er mi nabl e mi sconduct . As f or

not shar i ng wi t h Har r i ngt on Ameen' s FMLA schedul e, he does not

expl ai n why Pr at t shoul d have done so, nor does he t el l us why not

doi ng so demonst r at es ani mus.

-21-



Last l y, i n suppor t of hi s Pr at t ani mus argument , Ameen

cl ai ms t hat Prat t was angr y that he woul dn' t wor k over t i me.

However , Ameen does not t el l us t he basi s f or t hi s i mpr essi on, and

does not r ecount speci f i c wor ds or any par t i cul ar behavi or t hat

woul d i ndi cat e anger . He of f er s us onl y a concl usor y al l egat i on.

Fur t her , he says t hat bot h Pr at t and Conner s " had shown host i l i t y

t owar d [ hi s] FMLA- pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, " and t hat Pr at t ' s at t i t ude

t owar d hi m changed af t er he r et ur ned f r om FMLA l eave. Ameen

di r ect s us t o onl y one speci f i c exampl e of so- cal l ed host i l e

conduct - - hi s i ncl usi on, accor di ng t o Si l va, on Pr at t ' s pur por t ed

" I don' t l i ke" l i st . 9 However , even assumi ng t he exi st ence of such

a l i st , t her e i s no evi dence t o t i e i t t o Ameen' s FMLA- pr ot ect ed

conduct . Si mi l ar l y, t her e i s not hi ng t o connect Ameen' s gener al

and vague al l egat i ons of host i l i t y by Pr at t t o Ameen' s FMLA-

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, i f any, r at her t han t o hi s unaut hor i zed br eaks.

" [ A] l t hough an empl oyee who pr oper l y t akes FMLA l eave cannot be

di schar ged f or exer ci si ng a r i ght pr ovi ded by t he st at ut e, [ he]

nevert hel ess can be di scharged f or i ndependent r easons. " Henr y v.

Uni t ed Bank, 686 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

Moreover , we note t hat evi dence i n t he r ecor d compl etel y

cont r adi ct s Ameen' s asser t i on of ani mus on Pr at t ' s par t . Dur i ng

9Al t hough Ameen cl ai ms t hat Si l va t ol d hi m about Pr at t ' ssupposed l i st , t her e i s no deposi t i on t est i mony i n t he r ecor d f r omei t her Si l va or Pr at t about any l i st . How Ameen' s account coul d beadmi ss i bl e evi dence i s beyond us.

-22-



t hi s per i od of cl ai med anger and host i l i t y, Pr at t agr eed t o al l ow

Ameen t o t ake over t hr ee weeks of per sonal l eave shor t l y af t er hi s

FMLA l eave, when he had t he di scr et i on t o r ef use; and Prat t al l owed

i t despi t e Ameen' s s t atement t hat he woul d go whether or not t he

per sonal l eave was appr oved. I f Pr at t wer e l ooki ng f or a r eason t o

get r i d of Ameen f or exer ci si ng hi s FMLA r i ght s, he coul d have

si mpl y deni ed t he personal l eave and f i r ed Ameen i f he went anyway.

I nst ead, Amphenol "spread out " Ameen' s vacat i on days over t he

cour se of t he l eave, so t hat hi s benef i t s woul d be cover ed.

CONCLUSION

As s t at ed ear l i er , Ameen has t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat

Amphenol ' s st at ed r eason f or hi s t er mi nat i on was a pr etext , and

because Amphenol pr of f er ed a l egi t i mat e basi s f or t er mi nat i ng

Ameen, he must do so "wi t hout t he benef i t of t he ani mus

pr esumpt i on. " 10 I d. at 56. To pr ove pr et ext , he had t o est abl i sh

t he exi st ence of r et al i at or y ani mus on t he par t of ei t her t he

deci si onmaker , or t he empl oyee who pur port edl y mani pul ated t he

deci si onmaker i nt o act i ng as hi s "cat ' s paw. " Once t he pr esumpt i on

of ani mus cr eeps out , Ameen cannot cl ear t hi s i ni t i al st ep. Ameen

has not of f er ed evi dence of r et al i atory ani mus on anyone' s par t

10Never t hel ess, Ameen cl ai ms t hat because he "sat i sf i ed t hecausat i on r equi r ement f or [ hi s] pr i ma f aci e case, " hi s pr of f er edevi dence of pr et ext shoul d be suf f i ci ent t o def eat summar y j udgment . I t i s not . Al t hough we assumed Ameen est abl i shed apr i ma f aci e case, once Amphenol ar t i cul at ed a l egi t i mat e,nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he t er mi nat i on, t her e was no basi s t ocar r y t hat assumpt i on f or war d i nt o t he pr et ext anal ysi s.

-23-



suf f i ci ent t o r ai se a di sput ed quest i on of f act , or t o def eat

Amphenol ' s r i ght t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Absent

r et al i at or y ani mus, t her e can be no pr et ext . Our de novo r evi ew

r eveal s t hat Ameen' s cat ' s paw t heor y i s ef f ect i vel y decl awed.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of summar y

j udgment . Each si de shal l bear i t s own cost s i n t hi s appeal .

- Concurring Opinion Follows -

-24-



KAYATTA, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur i n af f i r mi ng t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t

di smi ssi ng t he compl ai nt , al bei t f or a r eason t he maj or i t y does not

r each. No par t y di sput es t hat Oper at i ons Di r ect or Chr i st i ne

Harr i ngt on was t he person who i n both f ormand subst ance deci ded t o

f i r e t he pl ai nt i f f . Ameen does not poi nt t o any evi dence

suggest i ng t hat , havi ng i ndependent l y conf i r med t hat Ameen di d

commi t t he ser i ous mi sconduct wi t h whi ch he was char ged, Harr i ngt on

ei t her her sel f had any i mpr oper mot i ve, or t hat she knew or

r easonabl y shoul d have known t hat Prat t had an i mpr oper mot i ve.

Ther ef or e, even i f we accept t hat Ameen has enough evi dence t o

suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Prat t was mot i vat ed t o seek hi s di schar ge

f or r easons other t han t he conduct r evi ewed by Har r i ngt on, t her e

woul d st i l l be no basi s f or hol di ng hi s empl oyer vi car i ousl y

l i abl e. Cf . Vél azquez- Pér ez v. Devel oper s Di ver si f i ed Real t y

Cor p. , 753 F. 3d 265, 274 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( hol di ng t hat an empl oyer

can be hel d l i abl e f or a co- wor ker ' s di scr i mi nat i on under Ti t l e VI I

i f , among ot her t hi ngs, t he empl oyer "knows or r easonabl y shoul d

know" of t he di scr i mi nat i on) ( par ent heses omi t t ed) .

-25-

Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents