ray, iii v. ropes & gray llp, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Ray, III v. Ropes & Gray LLP, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1003

J OHN H. RAY, I I I ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

ROPES & GRAY LLP; DAVI D C. CHAPI N; J OHN D. DONOVAN, J R;KEI TH F. HI GGI NS; J ESSE J . J ENNER; WI LLI AM A. KNOWLTON;

OTHON A. PROUNI S; DAVI D M. MANDEL; ROBERT G. J ONES;RANDALL W. BODNER; BRI EN T. O' CONNOR; J OY U. CURTI S;BRADFORD R. MALT; J OAN MCPHEE; J OHN T. MONTGOMERY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Li pez and Thompson, Ci r cui t J udges.

J ohn H. Ray, I I I , wi t h whom Ray Legal Consul t i ng Gr oup, P. C.was on br i ef , f or appel l ant

Mi chael B. Keat i ng, wi t h whom Chr i st opher E. Har t , Dani el L.

McFadden, Fol ey Hoag LLP, Li sa G. Ar r owood and Ar r owood Peters LLPwer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

August 25, 2015


2/33

HOWARD, Chief Judge. J ohn H. Ray I I I , at t he t i me an

associ at e at t he Bost on l aw f i r m of Ropes & Gr ay ( "Ropes" ) , was

i nf ormed i n December 2008 that Ropes woul d not advance hi m f or

f ur t her consi der at i on as a par t ner . Cont endi ng t hat t he empl oyer ' s

deci si on was t he r esul t of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on, and t hat Ropes

r et al i at ed agai nst Ray i n var i ous ways af t er he f i l ed a compl ai nt

wi t h t he Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ss i on ( "EEOC") , Ray

f i l ed an act i on pur suant t o Ti t l e VI I i n f eder al di str i ct cour t .

Af t er t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment t o Ropes on t he

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, t he r et al i at i on cl ai ms pr oceeded t o t r i al

wher e a j ur y concl uded t hat Ropes had not unl awf ul l y ret al i at ed

agai nst Ray. Ray now appeal s bot h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s summar y

j udgment r ul i ng and several r ul i ngs made dur i ng t r i al . We af f i r m.

I. Background

Because the r et al i at i on cl ai ms went t o t r i al , we pr esent

t he f act s i n t he f i r st i nst ance i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

j ury ver di ct . Smi t h v. J enki ns, 732 F. 3d 51, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

We r ecogni ze t hat Ray has al so chal l enged t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

summar y j udgment deci si on and that t he f act s r el evant t o hi s

di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms over l ap consi der abl y.

Accordi ngl y, when we reach t he summar y j udgment i ssue, we consi der

t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Ray and dr aw al l

r easonabl e i nf er ences i n hi s f avor . Reyes- Pr ez v. St at e I ns. Fund

Cor p. , 755 F. 3d 49, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-2-


3/33

Wi t h l i mi t ed except i ons, dur i ng t he rel evant t i me per i od

Ropes adhered t o an "up or out pol i cy" whereby seni or associ ates

who were not promot ed t o or di d not cont i nue to advance t oward a

par t ner or counsel posi t i on wer e asked t o l eave t he f i r m.

Par t ner shi p deci si ons wer e made by t he f i r m' s ni ne- member Pol i cy

Commi t t ee. I n an associ at e' s si xth t hr ough ni nt h year s t he

Commi t t ee annual l y consi dered eval uat i ons of each associ at e

submi t t ed by t he f i r m' s par t ner s. Sel ect i on was compet i t i ve. To

be consi der ed f or par t ner , Ropes r equi r ed t hat associ at es gar ner

"consi st ent l y super l at i ve" r evi ews. Al t hough t echni cal l egal

ski l l s and anal yt i c acumen wer e i mpor t ant cr i t er i a f or advancement ,

t he Commi t t ee al so consi der ed, among ot her t hi ngs, an associ at e' s

management abi l i t y, col l egi al i t y, and t he needs of par t i cul ar

pr act i ce gr oups or f i r m of f i ces. I n some year s, no new par t ner s

were named f r omamong a pr act i ce gr oup' s seni or associ ates.

Ropes t ypi cal l y pr omot ed i t s associ at es t o par t ner dur i ng

t hei r ni nt h year , al t hough t he f i r m gener al l y endeavor ed t o gi ve

associ at es an i ndi cat i on of t hei r par t ner shi p pr ospect s dur i ng

t hei r ei ght h year . I f i t became cl ear at t he concl usi on of an

associ at e' s ei ght h year t hat he or she woul d not make par t ner ,

Ropes asked t he associ at e to l eave t he f i r m.

I n 2005, Ray j oi ned Ropes as a f i f t h- year associ at e, and

he r ecei ved gener al l y posi t i ve r evi ews dur i ng hi s i ni t i al year at

t he f i r m. But Ray' s r evi ews i n 2007 and 2008 pr oved deci dedl y l ess

-3-


4/33

posi t i ve. I n 2007, at t he end of Ray' s sevent h associ at e year ,

par t ner J ohn Donovan i nf ormed Ray t hat becomi ng a par t ner woul d be

an "uphi l l cl i mb" and hi s chances wer e l i kel y "no bet t er t han

even. " Donovan expr essed speci f i c concer n about Ray' s i nt er act i ons

wi t h t he f i r m' s st af f and ot her associ at es, not i ng t hat Ray' s

f ai l ur e t o i mpr ove hi s r el at i onshi ps and l eader shi p ski l l s woul d be

a "deal br eaker . " Ray' s r evi ews i n 2008 r emai ned pr edomi nant l y

negat i ve. Sever al par t ner s not ed Ray' s cont i nued di f f i cul t i es

wor ki ng wi t h associ at es and st af f , whi l e ot her s i nf or med t he Pol i cy

Commi t t ee that Ray had t r oubl e meet i ng deadl i nes and needed t o

i mpr ove hi s wr i t i ng ski l l s; some i ndi cat ed t hat Ray shoul d be gi ven

an "exi t message. "

Donovan met wi t h Ray i n December 2008, and i nf or med hi m

t hat t he Pol i cy Commi t t ee had concl uded t hat a consensus t o pr omote

Ray t o par t ner had not and woul d not devel op. The f i r mof f er ed hi m

a si x- mont h sever ance package t hr ough J une 2009, dur i ng whi ch Ray

woul d cont i nue t o r ecei ve hi s sal ar y, coul d use hi s Ropes of f i ce,

and coul d hol d hi msel f out as a Ropes associ ate. Donovan t ol d Ray

t hat f i ndi ng new empl oyment shoul d be hi s t op pr i or i t y. Ray

r equest ed sever al ext ensi ons of t hi s sever ance per i od. The f i r st

occur r ed on t he same day as t he meet i ng wi t h Donovan, when Ray

i nqui r ed whet her t he per i od coul d be ext ended t o Sept ember 2009

whi l e he pur sued an academi c posi t i on. I n Febr uar y and Apr i l of

2009, Ray made addi t i onal r equest s i n l i ght of t he pr evai l i ng

-4-


5/33

economi c condi t i ons and t he l i mi t ed number of l aw f i r ms t hat were

t hen hi r i ng. Ropes deni ed each r equest .

As t he sever ance per i od pr ogr essed, and Ray' s ext ensi ons

wer e deni ed, Ray began t o i mpl y t hat he di d not " f eel t he [Pol i cy

Commi t t ee] ' s deci si on was f ai r or appr opr i at e. " I n May 2009,

r oughl y si x weeks bef ore the end of t he sever ance per i od, Ropes

of f er ed Ray a t wo- mont h extensi on, al t hough t he pr oposal r equi r ed

Ray t o r el ease any and al l cl ai ms agai nst Ropes. Ray r ej ect ed t he

of f er on May 14, and sent a dr af t EEOC compl ai nt t o Donovan by e-

mai l . I n t hat e- mai l , Ray st at ed t hat he woul d f i l e t he compl ai nt

unl ess Ropes ei t her of f er ed hi m an i ndef i ni t e ext ensi on of hi s

sever ance per i od or a set t l ement i n t he amount of $8. 5 mi l l i on. I n

r esponse, Donovan i nf ormed Ray t hat he was not t o retur n t o hi s

Ropes of f i ce and that hi s per sonal i t ems woul d be mai l ed to hi m.

Ray f i l ed hi s compl ai nt wi t h the EEOC t he f ol l owi ng day,

al l egi ng t hat Ropes di scr i mi nat ed agai nst hi m i n deci di ng not t o

advance hi m t o par t ner . He al so al l eged t hat Ropes' s deci si on

const i t ut ed r et al i at i on f or compl ai nt s t hat Ray had made t o

management about t he r aci al l y- charged r emarks of t wo part ners. 1

1 We addr ess t hese r emarks, bel ow, as per t i nent t o Ray' schal l enge t o t he summary j udgment r ul i ng. Al t hough Ray' s EEOC

compl ai nt al l eged t hat Ropes deci ded not t o pr omot e hi m i nr et al i at i on f or t hese ear l i er compl ai nt s, as expl ai ned bel ow, Ray' sr et al i at i on cl ai ms as t r i ed bef or e t he j ur y and ar gued on appealonl y i nvol ve act i ons t hat Ropes and i t s empl oyees al l egedl y t ookaf t er Ray f i l ed hi s EEOC compl ai nt . Speci f i cal l y, t hese cl ai msi nvol ve t wo par t ner s' r ef usal t o suppl y Ray wi t h pr omi sed l et t er sof r ecommendat i on and Ropes' s r el ease of t he EEOC' s i ni t i al

-5-


6/33

Despi t e the compl ai nt , Ropes cont i nued t o compensat e Ray t hr ough

t he concl usi on of hi s sever ance per i od.

A f ew weeks af t er f i l i ng hi s EEOC compl ai nt , Ray r enewed

an ear l i er r equest f or l et t er s of r ecommendat i on f r om t wo Ropes

par t ner s - - Br i en O' Connor and Randal l Bodner - - t o suppor t Ray' s

appl i cat i on f or a posi t i on as an Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney.

Al t hough bot h had pr evi ousl y agr eed to wr i t e l et t er s, Bodner

r esponded by e- mai l t hat he coul d no l onger " i n good consci ence"

wr i t e a l et t er i n l i ght of Ray' s EEOC compl ai nt , whi ch Bodner

consi der ed a "gr oundl ess cl ai m" br ought onl y f or Ray' s " own

per sonal benef i t . " Bodner al so r ej ect ed a l at er request t o

r ecommend Ray f or a l aw school pr of essorshi p. O' Connor never

r esponded t o Ray' s r enewed r equest .

The EEOC i ssued an i ni t i al det er mi nat i on l et t er i n

J anuar y 2011, concl udi ng t hat t he evi dence f ai l ed t o i ndi cat e t hat

a vi ol at i on of t he l aw had occur r ed. Ray sought r econsi der at i on of

t hat det er mi nat i on, and t he EEOC i ssued a f i nal det er mi nat i on i n

Febr uar y 2011. I n i t s r econsi der ed deci si on, t he agency r eaf f i r med

i t s det er mi nat i on t hat t he evi dence di d not suppor t a f i ndi ng of

di scr i mi nat i on but concl uded t hat , af t er f ur t her consi der at i on, t he

det er mi nat i on l et t er t o medi a websi t e "Above t he Law. "

-6-


7/33

evi dence di d suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Ropes had r et al i at ed agai nst

Ray f or f i l i ng hi s char ge wi t h t he EEOC. 2

Af t er t he EEOC concl uded t hat conci l i at i on ef f or t s had

f ai l ed, decl i ned t o br i ng a l awsui t agai nst Ropes, and pr ovi ded Ray

wi t h not i ce of hi s r i ght t o sue, Ray made hi s cl ai ms publ i c. On

May 10, 2011 he f axed t he EEOC' s f i nal determi nat i on t o sever al

pol i t i ci ans and t he pr esi dent of t he Nat i onal Associ at i on f or t he

Advancement of Col ored Peopl e. I n addi t i on, on May 12, Ray, an

al umnus of Harvar d Law School , sent a l et t er t o t he l aw school ' s

dean encl osi ng t he EEOC determi nat i on and r equest i ng t hat Ropes be

bar r ed f r om par t i ci pat i ng i n t he uni ver si t y' s on- campus i nt er vi ew

pr ocess and be f or ecl osed f r om usi ng t he uni ver si t y' s f aci l i t i es.

That l et t er was copi ed t o t he Har var d Bl ack Law Student s

Associ at i on and the Harvar d Law Revi ew.

Legal medi a websi t e "Above the Law" obt ai ned a copy of

t he l et t er t o t he dean and deci ded t o publ i sh t he l et t er on i t s

bl og. Bef ore doi ng so, t he websi t e r equest ed comment f r omRopes' s

Di r ect or of Publ i c Rel at i ons, Ti mot hy Lar i mer . I n r esponse,

Lar i mer pr ovi ded t he websi t e wi t h an unr edact ed copy of t he EEOC' s

i ni t i al J anuar y 2011 det er mi nat i on l et t er , whi ch cont ai ned

sensi t i ve and conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on about Ray' s empl oyment at

2 The r ecord does not make cl ear when or why the f ocus ofRay' s EEOC r et al i at i on cl ai m shi f t ed f r om Ropes' s deci si on not t opr omot e hi mt o par t ner t o Ray' s f i l i ng of hi s char ge wi t h t he EEOC.

-7-


8/33

t he f i r m. "Above t he Law" post ed t hat l et t er i n f ul l on i t s

websi t e, r edact i ng onl y t he name of a par t i cul ar Ropes empl oyee.

Throughout t hi s per i od, Ray made several set t l ement

demands. Ar med wi t h t he EEOC' s r econsi dered f i ndi ng i n Febr uary

2011, Ray f i r st demanded by e- mai l a set t l ement of at l east $10

mi l l i on. I n May 2011 he i ncr eased hi s request t o $21. 5 mi l l i on,

and l at er t o $40 mi l l i on.

I n August 2011, Ray f i l ed t hi s l awsui t al l egi ng, among

ot her cl ai ms, di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e

VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964 and anal ogous Massachuset t s

st at ut es. He al l eged t hat Ropes' s deci si on not t o advance hi m t o

par t ner was based on r aci al di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on f or hi s

ear l i er compl ai nt s of di scr i mi nat i on t o management , and t hat t he

f i r mhad al so r et al i at ed agai nst hi m f or f i l i ng hi s EEOC compl ai nt

and sendi ng l et t ers t o Harvar d Law School ' s dean and others. Ray

subsequent l y moved f or summary j udgment on t he r etal i at i on cl ai ms,

whi l e Ropes moved f or summary j udgment on al l cl ai ms. The di st r i ct

cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment f or Ropes on t he di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m, r ul i ng t hat "Ray ha[ d] not come f or war d wi t h pl ausi bl e

evi dence that t he par t ner eval uat i ons or t he Pol i cy Commi t t ee' s

deci si on, consci ousl y or unconsci ousl y, wer e t i nged wi t h or

i nf l uenced by r aci al ani mus. " Ray v. Ropes & Gr ay LLP, 961 F.

Supp. 2d 344, 355 ( D. Mass. 2013) . For si mi l ar r easons, t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Ray had not shown pr et ext and pr ecl uded

-8-


9/33

hi m f r om pur sui ng at t r i al hi s cl ai m t hat Ropes had r et al i at ed

agai nst hi m ( by not maki ng hi m par t ner ) f or r epor t i ng pr i or

i nci dent s of al l eged di scri mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng t he r aci al l y- char ged

r emarks of t wo part ners, t o management . I d. at 358 n. 14. On t wo

of Ray' s other cl ai ms of r et al i at i on, however , t he cour t deni ed

summary j udgment and f ound t hat Ray had est abl i shed a genui ne i ssue

of mat er i al f act about whet her Ropes had r et al i at ed agai nst hi mby

r ef usi ng t o pr ovi de hi m wi t h l et t er s of r ecommendat i on and by

pr ovi di ng t he EEOC' s i ni t i al det er mi nat i on l et t er t o "Above t he

Law. " I d. at 357- 60.

Those r et al i at i on cl ai ms proceeded t o t r i al . Dur i ng

cl osi ng ar gument s Ropes suggest ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat Ray

"di d not act ual l y bel i eve i n" hi s EEOC cl ai m and t hat Ray had used

i t "t o t r y t o ext or t money" f r omt he f i r m. The j ur y f ound i n f avor

of Ropes, and t he speci al ver di ct f or m makes cl ear t hat t he j ur y

concl uded t hat Ray had not est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case of

r et al i at i on because he had not engaged i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under

Ti t l e VI I . The par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he j ury so f ound. I n

accor dance wi t h t he ver di ct f or m' s i nst r uct i ons, t he j ur y t hus had

no oppor t uni t y t o consi der whet her Ropes r etal i at ed agai nst Ray f or

t hat act i vi t y ( nei t her do t he par t i es di sput e t hi s consequence of

t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng) . Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

-9-


10/33

II. Analysis

Ray' s appeal f ol l ows pr i nci pal l y al ong t wo pat hs. Fi r st ,

he asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made sever al er r or s of l aw when

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y on t he el ement s of hi s r et al i at i on cl ai ms.

Second, he ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng summar y

j udgment on hi s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m. We consi der each i n t urn.

A. The Retaliation Claims

Sect i on 704( a) of Ti t l e VI I makes i t unl awf ul f or an

empl oyer t o ret al i at e agai nst an empl oyee f or engagi ng i n cer t ai n

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. See 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 3( a) . To est abl i sh a

pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat "( 1)

he or she engaged i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under Ti t l e VI I , ( 2) he or

she suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on, and (3) t he adver se

empl oyment act i on was causal l y connect ed t o t he pr otected

act i vi t y. " Col l azo v. Br i st ol - Myer s Squi bb Mf g. , I nc. , 617 F. 3d

39, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Ti t l e VI I prot ect s f r om r et al i at i on t wo di st i nct

var i et i es of acti vi t y, bot h i mpl i cat ed i n t hi s case. The st at ut e' s

par t i ci pat i on cl ause pr ohi bi t s an empl oyer f r om di scri mi nat i ng

agai nst someone who "made a char ge, t est i f i ed, assi st ed, or

par t i ci pat ed i n any manner i n an i nvest i gat i on, pr oceedi ng, or

hear i ng under " Ti t l e VI I . 41 U. S. C. 2000e- 3( a) . Whi l e t he

par t i ci pat i on cl ause pr ot ects empl oyees f r omret al i at i on f or f i l i ng

a Ti t l e VI I compl ai nt , i t al so "cast s i t s pr ot ect i ve cl oak much

-10-


11/33

mor e br oadl y. " Rodr guez- Vi ves v. P. R. Fi r ef i ght er s Cor ps of P. R. ,

743 F. 3d 278, 283- 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . The cl ause al so pr ot ect s,

f or exampl e, an empl oyee who i nf or mal l y f i l es or def ends a char ge

of di scr i mi nat i on, i nvol unt ar i l y t est i f i es as a wi t ness i n a

pr oceedi ng, or ai ds a co- wor ker i n assert i ng her r i ght s. See,

e. g. , Mar i ani - Col n v. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. ex r el . Cher t of f , 511

F. 3d 216, 223 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( compl ai ni ng to human r esour ce

depart ment and EEOC) ; Deravi n v. Ker i k, 335 F. 3d 195, 204 ( 2d Ci r .

2003) ( par t i ci pat i ng as wi t ness) ; Ei chman v. I nd. St at e Uni v. Bd.

of Tr s. , 597 F. 2d 1104, 1107 ( 7t h Ci r . 1979) ( assi st i ng co- wor ker

i n exer ci si ng r i ght s) .

The st at ut e al so prot ect s "opposi t i on act i vi t y, " di st i nct

f r omt he "par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y" descr i bed above. The opposi t i on

cl ause pr ohi bi t s empl oyer s f r om r et al i at i ng agai nst a per son who

"has opposed any pr act i ce made an unl awf ul empl oyment pract i ce by

[ Ti t l e VI I ] . " 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 3( a) . Pr ot ected opposi t i on

act i vi t y i ncl udes r espondi ng t o an empl oyer ' s i nqui r i es about

i nappr opr i at e behavi or , wr i t i ng l et t er s pr ot est i ng an empl oyer ' s

al l egedl y unl awf ul act i ons, or pi cket i ng and boycot t i ng an

empl oyer . See, e. g. , Cr awf or d v. Met r o. Gov' t of Nashvi l l e &

Davi dson Cnt y. , Tenn. , 555 U. S. 271, 276 ( 2009) ( r espondi ng t o

empl oyer ' s i nqui r i es) ; Robi nson v. S. E. Penn. Tr ansp. Aut h. , Red

Ar r ow Di v. , 982 F. 2d 892, 896 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) ( l et t er t o

congr essman) ; Payne v. McLemore' s Whol esal e & Retai l St ores, 654

-11-


12/33

F. 2d 1130, 1141 ( 5t h Ci r . Uni t A Sept . 1981) ( pi cket i ng and boycot t

act i vi t y) . Unl i ke t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause, whi ch pr ot ect s an

empl oyee f r om r et al i at i on f or di r ect engagement wi t h Ti t l e VI I

pr oceedi ngs, t he opposi t i on cl ause sweeps even more br oadl y and

pr otect s an empl oyee f or more i nf ormal l y opposi ng an empl oyment

act i vi t y t hat mi ght vi ol at e Ti t l e VI I .

As pr esent ed at t r i al , Ray' s r et al i at i on cl ai ms wer e

pr emi sed on t wo al l eged i nst ances of r et al i at i on, each i mpl i cat i ng

a di f f er ent t ype of pr ot ected act i vi t y. Fi r st , Ray sought t o

demonst r at e t hat Ropes r et al i at ed agai nst hi m f or f i l i ng hi s EEOC

compl ai nt ( par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y) when Bodner and O' Br i en ref used

t o suppl y hi mwi t h l et t er s of r ecommendat i on. Second, Ray al l eged

t hat Ropes r et al i at ed agai nst hi m f or sendi ng l et t er s t o Har var d

Law School ' s dean and sever al ot her hi gh- pr of i l e i ndi vi dual s

( opposi t i on act i vi t y) by suppl yi ng t he EEOC' s i ni t i al det er mi nat i on

l et t er t o "Above t he Law. "

At t r i al , t he di str i ct cour t i nstr uct ed t he j ur y t hat

Ray' s EEOC compl ai nt was pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under t he par t i ci pat i on

cl ause, as a mat t er of l aw, "i f i t i s done i n good f ai t h. " The

cour t f ur t her i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat , t o pr ove good f ai t h, Ray

must show " t hat he was act i ng under t he si ncer el y hel d bel i ef t hat

hi s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om di scr i mi nat i on had been vi ol at ed. " By

cont r ast , t he cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat Ray' s opposi t i on

act i vi t y ( hi s l et t er s) was pr ot ect ed i f Ray had shown t hat i t was

-12-


13/33

bot h under t aken "i n good f ai t h" and "based on a r easonabl e bel i ef

t hat [ hi s] empl oyer has engaged i n an unl awf ul empl oyment

pr act i ce. " I n bot h i nst ances, t he j ur y concl uded t hat Ray' s

act i vi t y was not pr ot ected by Ti t l e VI I , t hus r esol vi ng hi s

r et al i at i on cl ai ms on t he f i r st pr ong of t he pr i ma f aci e case. Ray

ar gues t hat bot h i nst r uct i ons wer e er r oneous.

1. Participation Clause: Ray's EEOC Complaint

i. Preservation

Ray f i r st cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n hol di ng

t hat a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng pr ot ect i on f or par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y must

show - - as an el ement of hi s pr i ma f aci e case - - t hat he f i l ed hi s

EEOC compl ai nt i n "good f ai t h. " Ray descr i bes hi s chal l enge as an

at t ack on t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons, an ar gument t hat Ropes cont ends he

wai ved bel ow by request i ng an al t er at i on t o the j ur y i nst r uct i ons

t o af f i r mat i vel y endor se t he good f ai t h el ement t hat he now

cont est s. Ther ef or e, we must f i r st det er mi ne whet her Ray pr oper l y

pr eserved t hi s chal l enge.

Ropes' s f ocus on t he f i nal r ound of i nst r uct i onal

ski r mi shes obscur es t he cour t ' s ear l i er , def i ni t i ve r esol ut i on of

t he speci f i c l egal quest i on t hat Ray now chal l enges on appeal . I t

i s t r ue t hat Rul e 51 r equi r es a par t y to obj ect t o t he l anguage of

an i nst r uct i on at t he cl ose of t r i al t o pr eser ve any ar gument f or

di r ect appeal . See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 51( c) ( 2) ; Sur pr enant v. Ri vas,

424 F. 3d 5, 15 & n. 3 ( 1st . Ci r . 2005) . But not al l l egal r ul i ngs

-13-


14/33

ar e made dur i ng wr angl i ng over j ur y i nst r uct i ons. For i nst ance,

wher e mot i ons i n l i mi ne pr ovi de a " f i nal and uncondi t i onal "

r esol ut i on of an i ssue, a par t y i s not r equi r ed t o t ake f ur t her

st eps t o pr eserve t hat i ssue f or appeal . Cr owe v. Bol duc, 334 F. 3d

124, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Her e, al t hough Ray' s descr i pt i on of hi s

chal l enge as one t o t he "j ur y i nst r uct i on, r at her t han [ t o] t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s under l yi ng concl usi on, i s per pl exi ng, " Seahor se

Mar i ne Suppl i es, I nc. v. P. R. Sun Oi l Co. , 295 F. 3d 68, 76 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) , we need not be di st r act ed by i nar t f ul l abel s. A f ai r

vi ew of t he recor d i ndi cat es t hat Ray adequat el y obj ect ed t o t he

cour t ' s l egal r ul i ng t o pr eser ve t he i ssue f or appeal .

Ray' s ar gument bef or e us makes cl ear t hat hi s t r ue

concer n i s wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal r ul i ng t hat good f ai t h

i s an el ement of t he pr i ma f aci e case. That quest i on was f ul l y

l i t i gat ed at t he summar y j udgment st age and def i ni t i vel y deci ded

dur i ng t he openi ng days of t r i al . By t he f our t h day of t r i al t he

cour t had hel d t hat , under i t s r eadi ng of t he l aw, good f ai t h was

a r equi r ed el ement . I t had f ur t her r ul ed t hat i t woul d "gi ve

i nst r uct i ons whi ch ar e based l ar gel y on t he Thi r d Ci r cui t ' s Pat t er n

I nst r uct i ons" regar di ng good f ai t h. As Ray' s r epl y br i ef poi nt s

out , hi s r equest ed al t er at i on t o t he cour t ' s subsequent dr af t j ur y

i nst r uct i ons ( whi ch i ncl uded t he good f ai t h el ement ) - - t he one

t hat Ropes cont ends i ndi cat es a wai ver - - came onl y af t er t he

cour t ' s def i ni t i ve r ul i ng. Gi ven t he cour t ' s f i r m r esol ut i on i n

-14-


15/33

t he ear l y days of t r i al , Ray was j ust i f i ed i n assumi ng t hat t he

t r i al had cr ossed t he Rubi con and t hat hi s par t i ci pat i on cl ause

cl ai m woul d unquest i onabl y be t r i ed wi t h a good f ai t h el ement . We

concl ude t hat i n t hese ci r cumst ances, Ray was not r equi r ed t o

usel essl y rai se an obj ect i on yet agai n when comment i ng on t he

cour t ' s dr af t j ur y i nst r uct i ons sever al days l at er . And we ar e not

al one i n our assessment ; i n si mi l ar l y unusual ci r cumst ances bot h

t hi s ci r cui t and t he Supr eme Cour t have concl uded t he same. Cf .

Kr ock v. El ec. Mot or & Repai r Co. , 327 F. 2d 213, 215- 16 ( 1st Ci r .

1964) ( r ej ect i ng ar gument t hat def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o r easser t

obj ect i ons dur i ng j ur y i nst r uct i ons wai ved obj ect i ons pr oper l y

r ai sed dur i ng t r i al ) ; Ci t y of St . Loui s v. Pr apr ot ni k, 485 U. S.

112, 120 ( 1988) ( pl ur al i t y op. ) ( r eachi ng j ur y i nst r uct i on, despi t e

f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h Rul e 51, wher e " t he f ocus of pet i t i oner ' s

chal l enge i s not on t he j ur y i nst r uct i on i t sel f , but on t he deni al

of i t s mot i ons f or summar y j udgment and a di r ect ed ver di ct " r ai si ng

t he same l egal i ssue) .

Gi ven t he consi der abl e at t ent i on pai d t o t he "good f ai t h"

quest i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t , i t shoul d come as no sur pr i se t o

anyone t hat t he i ssue i s now f r ont and cent er on appeal . The

r eal i t i es of t hi s r ecor d pl ai nl y show t hat t he cour t ' s "good f ai t h"

r ul i ng was f i r ml y i n pl ace by t he f i r st f ew days of t r i al , wi t h

counsel ' s obj ect i ons def i ni t i vel y not ed. Ther ef or e, t her e i s no

obst acl e to our di r ect r evi ew of t hat r ul i ng, not wi t hst andi ng Ray' s

-15-


16/33

descri pt i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or as an er r oneous "j ur y

i nstr uct i on. " 3

ii. Good Faith and Protected Participation Activity

We must t hen r esol ve whet her a pl ai nt i f f cl ai mi ng

r et al i at i on must act i n good f ai t h when engagi ng i n act i vi t y

pr ot ect ed by t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause.

Our pr ecedent makes cl ear t hat , unl i ke opposi t i on

act i vi t y, a pl ai nt i f f who engages i n par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y need

3

I n denyi ng a mot i on i n l i mi ne on t he eve of t r i al , t hedi str i ct cour t wr ot e i n an el ect r oni c or der t hat "Pl ai nt i f f i scor r ect t hat good f ai t h i s not an el ement of a r et al i at i on cl ai mpr emi sed on par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y. " On appeal , Ray ar gues t hatt he cour t ' s subsequent hol di ng t hat good f ai t h i s an el ementvi ol at ed t he l aw of t he case doct r i ne. We di sagr ee. Even assumi ngt hat t he l aw of t he case doct r i ne appl i ed t o t he cour t ' si nt er l ocut or y or der , we woul d " r evi ew t he deci si on t o r econsi deronl y f or a par t i cul ar l y egr egi ous abuse of di scret i on. " Har l ow v.Chi l dr en' s Hosp. , 432 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . As t he par t i es'dr af t j ur y i nst r uct i ons i ndi cat ed, t her e was consi der abl e conf usi onbef or e t r i al bet ween t he par t i es and t he cour t as t o t he cour t ' s

posi t i on on t he "good f ai t h" el ement . I n t he f ace of t hi sconf usi on - - and pr i or t o any f i nal j udgment on t he r et al i at i oncl ai ms Ray pr esent ed at t r i al - - i t was not an abuse of di scr et i onf or t he cour t t o cl ar i f y i t s posi t i on dur i ng t he f i r st f ew days oft r i al . See Uni t ed St at es v. Tej eda, 481 F. 3d 44, 57 ( 1st Ci r .2007) . Of cour se, we st i l l assess whet her any change i n posi t i onpr ej udi ced Ray. See i d. ; Fi or i v. Tr uck Dr i ver s, Local 170, 354F. 3d 84, 90 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . But we di scer n no pr ej udi ce her e. Atno poi nt di d Ray cl ai m bel ow t hat hi s t r i al pr epar at i on had beenpr ej udi ced nor , as f ar as we can t el l , di d he ever r ef er ence t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s el ect r oni c or der when di scussi ng t he good f ai t hi ssue dur i ng t he f i r st f ew days of t r i al . Mor eover , t he or der was

publ i shed a mer e f our days bef or e t r i al and l ong af t er di scover yhad concl uded. On appeal Ray has not i ndi cat ed how he waspr ej udi ced dur i ng the br i ef per i od he may have assumed t hat hewoul d not need t o make any showi ng of good f ai t h. Fi nal l y, t hecour t cl ar i f i ed i t s posi t i on bef or e t he j ur y was even swor n, andRay was t hus pr ovi ded wi t h a f ul l oppor t uni t y t o pr esent evi denceon t he i ssue - - evi dence whi ch i ncl uded hi s own t est i mony.

-16-


17/33

not hol d a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat hi s empl oyer ' s act i ons act ual l y

vi ol at ed Ti t l e VI I . I n Wyat t v. Ci t y of Bost on, we di st i ngui shed

between t he necessary showi ngs under t he part i ci pat i on and

opposi t i on cl auses and expl ai ned t hat i t was "wel l set t l ed" t hat

t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause "pr ot ect s an empl oyee regar dl ess of t he

mer i t of hi s or her EEOC char ge. " 35 F. 3d 13, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1994)

( ci t i ng Si as v. Ci t y Demonst r at i on Agency, 588 F. 2d 692, 695 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1978) ) . We expl ai ned t hat sect i on 704( a) cont ai ns no l anguage

i ndi cat i ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f ' s char ges must be val i d or even

r easonabl e i n or der t o be pr ot ect ed as par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y.

I d. ; accor d Gl over v. S. C. Law Enf ' t Di v. , 170 F. 3d 411, 414 ( 4t h

Ci r . 1999) ( hol di ng t hat "[ r ] eadi ng a r easonabl eness t est i nt o

sect i on 704( a) ' s par t i ci pat i on cl ause woul d do vi ol ence t o t he t ext

of t hat pr ovi si on and woul d under mi ne t he obj ect i ves of Ti t l e

VI I " ) .

To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of prot ect ed opposi t i on

act i vi t y, by cont r ast , we noted t hat an empl oyee who engages i n

opposi t i on act i vi t y must hol d a " r easonabl e bel i ef t hat t he

pr act i ce t he empl oyee i s opposi ng vi ol at es Ti t l e VI I . "4 Wyat t , 35

F. 3d at 15. We have si nce r ei t er at ed t hat , t o show pr ot ect ed

4 Thi s di st i ncti on ar guabl y f l ows f r om t he st at ut e' s t ext .The opposi t i on cl ause prot ect s t he opposi t i on of "any pract i ce madean unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce, " whi l e t he par t i ci pat i on cl ausedoes not si mi l ar l y "connect t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y t o t heunl awf ul ness of any empl oyment pr act i ce. " Gi l ool y v. Mo. Dep' t ofHeal t h & Seni or Ser vs. , 421 F. 3d 734, 742 ( 8t h Ci r . 2005)( Col l ot on, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) .

-17-


18/33

opposi t i on act i vi t y, a pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e t hat he hel d a

"good f ai t h, r easonabl e bel i ef t hat t he under l yi ng chal l enged

act i ons of t he empl oyer vi ol at ed t he l aw. " 5 Fant i ni v. Sal emSt at e

Col l . , 557 F. 3d 22, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Consi st ent wi t h t he di st i nct i on set f or t h i n Wyat t , f or

pur poses of hi s par t i ci pat i on cl ause cl ai m t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not r equi r e Ray to demonst r at e t hat hi s bel i ef t hat Ropes had

di scr i mi nat ed agai nst hi mwas r easonabl e. The di st r i ct cour t di d,

however , r equi r e Ray to show t hat he made hi s EEOC compl ai nt i n

good f ai t h out of a "si ncer el y hel d bel i ef t hat hi s r i ght t o be

f r ee f r om di scr i mi nat i on had been vi ol at ed. "

Ray' s sol e ar gument f or why the di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

t hat good f ai t h r ul i ng i s hi s cur sor y st at ement t hat Wyat t st ands

f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "a showi ng of good f ai t h f or pr ot ect ed

par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y i s not r equi r ed. " Yet , Wyat t di d not

expl i ci t l y r esol ve t he good f ai t h i ssue one way or anot her . To be

sur e, Wyat t r ej ect ed any requi r ement t hat t he Ti t l e VI I cl ai m

under l yi ng a pl ai nt i f f ' s par t i ci pat i on acti vi t y - - l i ke Ray' s EEOC

char ge here - - pr ove val i d or r easonabl e. 35 F. 3d at 15. And we

5 Al t hough our l anguage was general and coul d be const r ued as

appl yi ng equal l y t o t he par t i ci pat i on and opposi t i on cl auses,Fant i ni i nvol ved a cl ai m under t he opposi t i on cl ause, and we havesi nce ci t ed Fant i ni as est abl i shi ng t he t est speci f i c t o t hatcl ause. See Col l azo, 617 F. 3d at 48. Nor coul d we have over r ul edWyat t ' s hol di ng t hat r easonabl eness i s not r equi r ed f orpar t i ci pat i on act i vi t y absent an en banc deci si on by thi s cour t .See Muskat v. Uni t ed St at es, 554 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

-18-


19/33

have si nce descr i bed t he showi ng t hat i s r equi r ed under t he

opposi t i on cl ause ( whi ch does r equi r e r easonabl eness) as a "good

f ai t h, r easonabl e bel i ef " st andar d. See, e. g. , Col l azo, 617 F. 3d

at 48.

But t he f act t hat Wyat t r ej ect ed a r easonabl eness

r equi r ement f or pur poses of t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause does not

necessar i l y, or aut omat i cal l y, i ndi cat e t hat a pl ai nt i f f need not

engage i n par t i ci pat i on act i vi t y i n good f ai t h, ei t her . Unl i ke t he

r easonabl eness r equi r ement , when assessi ng a pl ai nt i f f ' s good f ai t h

a f act f i nder need onl y ask whet her a pl ai nt i f f had a subj ect i ve,

honest l y hel d bel i ef t hat her cl ai m was val i d. I ndeed, we have

pr evi ousl y di st i ngui shed bet ween a "good f ai t h" bel i ef and a

"r easonabl e bel i ef " i n t he cont ext of Ti t l e VI I ' s ant i - r et al i at i on

pr ovi si ons. See Mont ei r o v. Pool e Si l ver Co. , 615 F. 2d 4, 8 ( 1st

Ci r . 1980) ( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween whet her a pl ai nt i f f "honest l y

hel d" hi s bel i ef t hat t he empl oyer had engaged i n unl awf ul act i vi t y

and whet her t hat bel i ef was r easonabl e) . And ot her ci r cui t s

si mi l ar l y vi ew t he t wo as di st i nct el ement s, even t hough t hey ar e

of t en coupl ed t oget her . See, e. g. , Reed v. A. W. Lawr ence & Co. ,

I nc. , 95 F. 3d 1170, 1178 ( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ( not i ng t hat t he

def endant s had "not di sput ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f bel i eved i n good

f ai t h t hat [ her co- wor ker ' s] comment subj ect ed her t o an unl awf ul

empl oyment pr act i ce" and addr essi ng onl y "whether t he recor d

suppor t s t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat t hi s bel i ef was r easonabl e") ;

-19-


20/33

Ki ssel l v. Am. Fed' n of St at e, Cnt y. and Mun. Emps. , 90 F. App' x

620, 622 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ( si mi l ar ) . Accor di ngl y, we f ai l t o see how

Wyat t ' s r ej ect i on of a r easonabl e bel i ef st andar d f or par t i ci pat i on

act i vi t y necessar i l y resol ves whet her a pl ai nt i f f must engage i n

t hat act i vi t y i n good f ai t h. Cf . Hochst adt v. Wor cest er Found. f or

Exper i ment al Bi ol ogy, 545 F. 2d 222, 230- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) ( not i ng

t hat "sect i on 704( a) cl ear l y does pr ot ect an empl oyee agai nst

di schar ge f or f i l i ng compl ai nt s i n good f ai t h bef or e f eder al and

st at e agenci es" ) .

Ul t i mat el y, i n t hi s case we need not def i ni t i vel y deci de

whet her a pl ai nt i f f must engage i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y i n good f ai t h

i n or der t o i nvoke t he pr ot ect i ons of Ti t l e VI I . Wyat t does not

expr essl y addr ess t hi s quest i on, and Ray ci t es no ot her cases - -

bi ndi ng or ot her wi se - - t o suppor t hi s r eadi ng of Wyat t . Nor does

he pr ovi de any f ur t her expl anat i on or argument as t o why we shoul d

assume t hat Wyat t i nt ended t o hol d t hat good f ai t h i s not a

necessar y el ement f or a par t i ci pat i on cl ause cl ai m, or t hat

Congr ess i nt ended t o pr ot ect f r om r et al i at i on cl ai ms of

di scr i mi nat i on made i n bad f ai t h. Si mpl y put , Ray has not set

f or t h a coherent ar gument on appeal f or why the di st r i ct cour t

er r ed as a l egal mat t er i n r equi r i ng hi m t o show good f ai t h f or

pur poses of t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause. Thus, we deem hi s ar gument

wai ved f or l ack of devel opment . See Home Or t hopedi cs Corp. v.

Rodr guez, 781 F. 3d 521, 532 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ; see al so Medi na-

-20-


21/33

Ri ver a v. MVM, I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 140 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( f i ndi ng

undevel oped an argument t hat l acked "even a persuasi ve expl anat i on

of what t he l aw shoul d be, assumi ng [ t he part y] f ound no

aut hor i t y") . And because Ray r ai ses no argument t hat t he evi dence

was i nsuf f i ci ent f or t he j ur y t o concl ude he di d not act i n good

f ai t h, we need go no f ur t her .

2. Opposition Clause: Ray's letters

Ray al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i on

r egar di ng hi s opposi t i on act i vi t y er r oneousl y shi f t ed t he j ur y' s

f ocus f r omRay' s own subj ect i ve bel i ef s about hi s under l yi ng cl ai m

t o whet her hi s conduct was r easonabl e. Thi s def t ef f or t at

semant i cs need not detai n us l ong, however , because Ray

af f i r mat i vel y wai ved t hi s ar gument bel ow. See Uni t ed St at es v.

J or dan, 112 F. 3d 14, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . He r equest ed a

modi f i cat i on t o t he j ur y i nst r ucti ons t hat st at ed: "wr i t i ng l et t er s

of pr ot est i n good f ai t h t o anyone, i ncl udi ng a newspaper r epor t er

or a Congr essper son, const i t ut es ' pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. ' " The

di st r i ct cour t gave an i nst r ucti on si mi l ar i n al l r el evant

r espect s, st at i ng: "I i nst r uct you as a mat t er of l aw t hat wr i t i ng

such a pr ot est l et t er i s a pr ot ected act i vi t y i f i t i s done i n good

f ai t h and based on a reasonabl e bel i ef t hat an empl oyer has engaged

i n an unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce such as r et al i at i on. " And Ray' s

counsel r ai sed no obj ect i on t o t hat i nst r uct i on af t er t he j ur y was

-21-


22/33

charged. 6 Thus, havi ng af f i r mat i vel y r equest ed t he al t er at i on and

havi ng "di r ect l y bypassed" t he "oppor t uni t y to chal l enge and

per haps modi f y the i nst r uct i on[ ] " as st at ed by the cour t , Ray has

"wai ved any r i ght t o obj ect t o [ i t ] on appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Wal l , 349 F. 3d 18, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Because Ray has not demonst r ated t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s par t i ci pat i on cl ause and opposi t i on cl ause i nst r uct i ons

wer e er r oneous i n t hi s case, t he j ur y' s ver di ct on t he r et al i at i on

cl ai ms i s af f i r med. 7

6 Unl i ke t he par t i ci pat i on cl ause quest i on, t he cour t nei t herdi scussed t hi s mat t er nor def i ni t el y rul ed upon i t bef or e t hechar ge conf erence.

7 To t he ext ent i t i s necessary t o reach Ray' s passi ng

ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n excl udi ng t he test i monyof hi s damages expert , Dr . Moor e, t he argument l acks mer i t . Raycont ends t hat Dr . Moor e' s t est i mony woul d have cor r oborated Ray' sgood f ai t h "conduct " by demonst r at i ng t hat hi s set t l ement demandswer e r easonabl e. But Ray di d not pr of f er Dr . Moor e' s t est i mony ont hi s gr ound bel ow and, t her ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t had nooccasi on t o consi der t he ar gument . "The f ai l ur e of counsel t o havei nf or med t he t r i al cour t of t he cor r ect evi dent i ar y t heor y underwhi ch evi dence i s sought t o be admi t t ed i s ordi nar i l y a wai ver oft he r i ght t o ar gue t hat t heor y on appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v.DeSi mone, 488 F. 3d 561, 570 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Ray al so ar gues - - i na si ngl e sent ence - - t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made no f act ual

f i ndi ngs r egar di ng t he exper t r epor t ' s r el evance. But our ownr evi ew of t he record shows t hat t he cour t di d make such f i ndi ngsand concl uded t hat Dr . Moor e had not used appr opr i ate comparatorst o reach hi s prof f er ed damages f i gur e and t hat hi s r epor t di d notadequat el y di scuss any causal r el at i onshi p bet ween Ropes' s conductand Ray' s pur port ed i nj ur i es. Ray has made no ef f ort t o argue whyt hose concl usi ons wer e i n er r or .

-22-


23/33

B. The Discrimination Claim

Ray al so pr ot est s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y

j udgment t o Ropes on hi s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m. We r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on de novo, vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e to Ray and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences

i n hi s f avor . See Espi nal v. Nat ' l Gr i d NE Hol di ngs 2, LLC, 693

F. 3d 31, 32, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

To successf ul l y est abl i sh a Ti t l e VI I di spar at e t r eatment

cl ai m, Ray must show t hat he suf f er ed i nt ent i onal di scr i mi nat i on.

See i d. ; see al so 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2( a) ( 1) . Because Ray has not

of f er ed "di r ect pr oof " of Ropes' s al l eged di scr i mi nat or y ani mus,

"we al l ocat e the bur den of pr oduci ng evi dence accordi ng t o the now-

f ami l i ar t hr ee- st ep f r amewor k set f or t h i n McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p.

v. Gr een. " Udo v. Tomes, 54 F. 3d 9, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ; see al so

McDonnel l Dougl as, 411 U. S. 792, 802- 05 ( 1973) . Under t hat

f r amewor k, Ray must f i r st est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case by showi ng

t hat : " ' ( 1) he i s a member of a pr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 2) he was

qual i f i ed f or t he j ob; ( 3) t he empl oyer t ook an adver se empl oyment

act i on agai nst hi m; and ( 4) t he posi t i on remai ned open or was

f i l l ed by a per son wi t h si mi l ar qual i f i cat i ons. ' " Cham v. St at i on

Oper at or s, I nc. , 685 F. 3d 87, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Koser ei s

v. Rhode I sl and, 331 F. 3d 207, 212- 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . I f t hat

showi ng i s made, t he bur den of pr oduct i on t hen shi f t s t o Ropes, who

must est abl i sh a l egi t i mat e, nondi scri mi nat or y j ust i f i cat i on f or

-23-


24/33

t he adver se empl oyment act i on ( here, t he ref usal t o advance Ray

t owar d par t ner ) . I d. at 94. I f Ropes does so, " t he McDonnel l

Dougl as f r amewor k ' di sappear s' and t he sol e r emai ni ng i ssue i s

' di scr i mi nat i on vel non. ' " I d. ( al t er at i on omi t t ed) (quot i ng

Reeves v. Sander son Pl umbi ng Prods. , I nc. , 530 U. S. 133, 142- 43

( 2000) ) . Despi t e t he shi f t i ng bur dens of pr oduct i on, Ray r et ai ns

t he "ul t i mate bur den of persuasi on, " and t o avoi d summary j udgment

he must r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act t hat " t he r easons

of f er ed by [ Ropes] wer e a pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on. "8 I d.

The di st r i ct cour t concl uded, and t he par t i es do not

cont est , t hat Ray successf ul l y est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on and t hat Ropes provi ded a l egi t i mat e, non-

di scri mi nat or y j ust i f i cat i on f or i t s ref usal t o advance Ray - -

namel y, Ray' s negat i ve r evi ews. Thus, our sol e i nqui r y i s whet her

Ray est abl i shed a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act t hat Ropes' s

j ust i f i cat i on i s pret ext ual and t he f i r m' s act i on was, i n f act ,

" i mpr oper l y mot i vat ed by di scr i mi nat i on. " Koserei s, 331 F. 3d at

213. To do so, i t i s not suf f i ci ent f or Ray "mer el y t o i mpugn t he

ver aci t y of t he empl oyer ' s j ust i f i cat i on. " Azi mi v. J or dan' s

Meat s, I nc. , 456 F. 3d 228, 246 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I nst ead, Ray "must produce

8 Massachuset t s l aw al so makes use of t he McDonnel l Dougl asbur den- shi f t i ng f r amewor k. See, e. g. , Kni ght v. Avon Pr ods. , I nc. ,780 N. E. 2d 1255, 1261 ( Mass. 2003) . Li ke t he di st r i ct cour t , wedi scuss Ray' s Ti t l e VI I and Massachuset t s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms i na si ngl e anal ysi s.

-24-


25/33

suf f i ci ent evi dence t o cr eat e a genui ne i ssue of f act as t o t wo

poi nt s: 1) t he empl oyer ' s ar t i cul at ed r easons f or i t s adver se

act i ons wer e pr et extual , and 2) t he r eal r eason f or t he empl oyer ' s

act i ons was di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. " Mar i ani - Col n, 511 F. 3d at

223. I n ot her wor ds, Ray must "el uci dat e speci f i c f act s whi ch

woul d enabl e a j ur y to f i nd t hat t he r eason gi ven i s not onl y a

sham, but a sham i nt ended to cover up t he empl oyer ' s r eal and

unl awf ul mot i ve of di scr i mi nat i on. " Azi mi , 456 F. 3d at 246

( al t er at i on, ci t at i on, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Wi t h t hi s l egal f r amewor k i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he

speci f i c evi dence adduced by Ray bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t and t he

argument s made bef ore us on appeal . Ray poi nt s l argel y t o f our

t ypes of evi dence: ( 1) compar at or evi dence of ot her Ropes

associ at es who wer e pr omoted t o par t ner or counsel ; ( 2) t he al l eged

pr omot i on of ot her associ at es on t he basi s of " r aci al "

char act er i st i cs; ( 3) t he subj ect i ve nat ur e of Ropes' s r evi ew

pr ocess; and ( 4) Ropes' s poor r ecor d of advanci ng bl ack associ at es

t o par t ner t hr oughout t he f i r m' s hi st or y. None of t he evi dence,

however , r ai ses a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act t hat t he act ual

r eason f or Ray' s di smi ssal was r aci al ani mus. 9

9 To be cl ear , al t hough we separatel y di scuss each t ype ofevi dence i n t ur n so t hat we can set f or t h our r at i onal e, af t erconsi der i ng al l of t hi s evi dence as an "aggr egat e package ofpr oof , " i ncl udi ng t he evi dence Ray pr of f er ed t o est abl i sh hi s pr i maf aci e case, we concl ude t hat t he "t ot al i t y of t he evi dence, " i si nsuf f i ci ent t o r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . Fer nandesv. Cost a Br os. Masonr y, I nc. , 199 F. 3d 572, 581 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

-25-


26/33

Fi r st , as compar at or evi dence Ray poi nt s t o t he

eval uat i ons of sever al ot her associ at es who, unl i ke Ray, wer e

advanced t o ei t her a par t ner or counsel posi t i on. Ropes responds

t hat t he i dent i f i ed i ndi vi dual s are not adequat e compar at or s and,

r egar dl ess, t hat Ray mer el y "cher r y- pi cks" sever al negat i ve

comment s wi t hout consi der i ng t he eval uat i ons i n t hei r ent i r et y.

Af t er a car ef ul r evi ew of t he eval uat i ons f or each put at i ve

compar at or , we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat compar i son t o

t hese i ndi vi dual s i s i napt .

A pl ai nt i f f i n a di spar at e t r eat ment case may at t empt t o

show t hat "' ot her s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o hi m i n al l r el evant

r espect s wer e t r eat ed di f f er ent l y by t he empl oyer . ' " Koser ei s, 331

F. 3d at 214 ( quot i ng Conward v. Cambr i dge Sch. Comm. , 171 F. 3d 12,

20 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) . "Reasonabl eness i s the t ouchst one" when

consi der i ng compar at or s i n a di spar at e t r eat ment case; t hat i s,

"whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f ' s case and t he compar i son cases t hat he

advances need not be per f ect r epl i cas, t hey must cl osel y resembl e

one anot her i n r espect t o r el evant f act s and ci r cumst ances. "

Conward, 171 F. 3d at 20. We ask whether "a pr udent per son, l ooki ng

obj ect i vel y at t he i nci dent s, woul d t hi nk t hem r oughl y equi val ent

and t he pr ot agoni st s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed. " Dar t mout h Revi ew v.

Dar t mout h Col l . , 889 F. 2d 13, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) , over r ul ed on

We r ej ect Ray' s char act er i zat i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s separ at econsi der at i on and r ej ect i on of each t ype of evi dence of pr et ext asi ndi cat i ng i t di d not , al so, consi der t he evi dence i n i t s t ot al i t y.

-26-


27/33

other gr ounds by Educadores Puert orr i queos en Acci n v. Hernndez,

367 F. 3d 61, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

The di st r i ct cour t r easoned t hat t he associ at es whomRay

ci t ed ar e not r el evant compar at or s, i n par t , because t hey wor ked i n

di f f er ent pract i ce gr oups t han Ray. We t hi nk t hat concl usi on

i nappr opr i at el y ci r cumscr i bed t he uni ver se of associ at es f r omwhi ch

compar i son cases coul d be dr awn, however . To t he ext ent t hat Ray

chal l enges t he appl i cat i on of Ropes' s consi st ent super l at i ves

st andar d, he can l ook beyond a speci f i c pr act i ce gr oup.

But havi ng cl osel y r evi ewed those eval uat i ons, 10 we

never t hel ess f i nd t hat t hey pr esent "di f f er ent i at i ng or mi t i gat i ng

ci r cumst ances t hat woul d di st i ngui sh" Ropes' s t r eat ment as t o each

associ at e. Per ki ns v. Br i gham & Women' s Hosp. , 78 F. 3d 747, 751

( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The eval uat i ons of t he non- bl ack associ at es Ray i dent i f i es by and

l arge cont ai n a mi x of both posi t i ve and negat i ve comment ary on

t hose associ at es' wor k pr oduct and abi l i t y t o wor k wi t h ot her s.

Yet even i f we assume, as Ray ar gues, t hat t hose eval uat i ons

demonst r ate t hat Ray' s work was equi val ent t o t he work of t he

compar ator associ at es, Ray does not di sput e t hat Ropes' s

part nershi p deci si ons ar e based on a number of f act ors beyond t he

qual i t y of an associ at e' s wor k. Ray al so does not di sput e t hat t he

10 The eval uat i ons of compar at or associ at es ar e seal ed. Toavoi d r eveal i ng i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on, our descri pt i on i snecessar i l y gener al .

-27-


28/33

negat i ve comment s part ners made i n hi s own eval uat i ons ext end f ar

beyond hi s wor k pr oduct . For exampl e, Ray' s eval uat i ons i ncl ude

r epeat ed r ef r ai ns t hat he had i nsul t ed hi s co- wor ker s, demeaned

j uni or associ at es he wor ked wi t h, and passed of f wor k t o ot her s.

Suf f i ce i t t o say t hat t hese comment s wer e di st i nct i vel y mor e

ext r eme, and more numerous, t han t hose cont ai ned i n t he eval uat i ons

of any of t he compar at or s he of f er ed. Thus, t hose ot her

associ at es' eval uat i ons bear "t oo l i t t l e si mi l ar i t y" t o Ray' s "t o

f ur ni sh a basi s f or suspect i ng r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. " Conwar d,

171 F. 3d at 22.

Second, i n addi t i on t o compar at or evi dence, Ray poi nt s t o

some of t he same associ ates t o ar gue that Ropes has a pat t ern of

" r egul ar l y us[ i ng] r ace i n maki ng empl oyment deci si ons. " He

al l eges t hat , despi t e t hei r poor eval uat i ons, sever al Asi an

associ at es ( so descr i bed by the par t i es) wer e pr omot ed t o par t ner

because t hey accept ed assi gnment s t o t he f i r m' s Asi an of f i ces. As

an i ni t i al mat t er , Ray' s asser t i on t hat t her e exi st ed a quid pro

quo r el at i onshi p bet ween t hose associ at es' r el ocat i on t o over seas

of f i ces and t he i mpr ovement of t hei r par t ner shi p pr ospect s i s not

suppor t ed by t he r ecor d. The eval uat i ons of t hose associ at es he

i dent i f i es i ndi cat e t hat t hey made t r ansi t i ons pr i or t o

consi der at i on as par t ner , and not - - as f ar as t he r ecor d r eveal s

- - under t he di r ect i on of par t ner s who i nsi st ed t hat t he onl y pat h

t o par t ner shi p i nvol ved r el ocat i on. Mor eover , Ray does not di sput e

-28-


29/33

t hat t hose associ at es had l anguage ski l l s t hat wer e val uabl e asset s

t o t he speci f i c over seas of f i ces i n whi ch t hose associ at es wor ked.

Nor does Ray di sput e t hat an associ at e' s l anguage ski l l s woul d be

a l egi t i mat e f act or f or t he f i r m t o consi der when pl aci ng an

at t or ney i n one of i t s over seas of f i ces or when consi der i ng an

at t or ney f or par t ner . Yet , Ray st i l l asser t s - - wi t h no f actual

suppor t or r easoned expl anat i on - - t hat t hese "pur por t ed obj ect i ve

qual i t i es wer e used as mer e pr oxi es f or r ace. " Based on t he

evi dence Ray has pr of f er ed, we si mpl y t o f ai l t o see how a

f actf i nder coul d so i nf er f r om t hi s r ecor d.

Thi r d, Ray cont ends t hat Ropes' s subj ect i ve r evi ew

pr ocess l ends cr edence t o hi s cl ai m of di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. To

be sure, subj ect i ve eval uat i ons may i n some ci r cumst ances "easi l y

mask cover t or unconsci ous r ace di scr i mi nat i on. " Robi nson v.

Pol ar oi d Cor p. , 732 F. 2d 1010, 1015 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) . But Ray' s

ar gument ul t i mat el y f ounder s because i t i s suppor t ed onl y by

specul at i on. He suppl i es no evi dence t hat cr eat es a cr edi bl e

i nf erence t hat hi s own r evi ew pr ocess was based on any raci al

ani mus. He cl ai ms that r evi ews wer e sol i ci t ed f r om par t ner s wi t h

whomhe had wor ked r ar el y, i f at al l . Our r evi ew of t he compar at or

evi dence, however , r eveal s t hat t hi s pract i ce was not unusual ;

t her e exi st s an est abl i shed pat t er n of Ropes par t ner s suppl yi ng

r evi ews f or associ at es wi t h whomt hey had r ar el y wor ked, opi ni ng on

t he associ at e' s f i t i nt o t he cul t ur e of t he f i r mor t he associ at e' s

-29-


30/33

abi l i t y t o sol i ci t busi ness and wor k col l egi al l y wi t h ot her st af f .

Such r emar ks coul d mask r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. But i n Ray' s case

t hey wer e l i mi t ed t o r epeat ed r ef r ai ns about hi s t r eat ment of ot her

associ at es and f i r m st af f - - r ef r ai ns cor r obor at ed by t hose

par t ners who di d work wi t h Ray. There i s nothi ng about t hese

comment s t hat i mpl i es r aci al ani mus t oward Ray.

Ray al so poi nt s t o t wo r aci al l y- char ged r emar ks,

al l egedl y made by t wo part ners i n 2008, whi ch we accept as t r ue f or

pur poses of r evi ewi ng a summary j udgment r ul i ng. I n Febr uary 2008

par t ner Rober t Ski nner pur por t edl y asked Ray t o ser ve as t he "t oken

bl ack associ at e" or " bl ack f ace" on a mat t er . I n Apr i l 2008,

Randal l Bodner - whom Ray l at er asked f or a l et t er of

r ecommendat i on - - al l egedl y rel at ed a war st or y dur i ng a medi at i on,

t he punch- l i ne of whi ch was t hat a Maf i a i nf or mant "beat a ni gger

t o deat h. " Ray says t hat he compl ai ned about t hese comment s t o t he

heads of t he l i t i gat i on depar t ment ( Roscoe Tr i mmi er and Li sa

Roppl e) , and t o t he head of t he f i r m' s Di ver si t y Commi t t ee ( Di ane

Pat r i ck) and t hat he r ecei ved negat i ve eval uat i ons f r om Ski nner ,

Roppl e, and Tr i mmi er af t er maki ng t hose compl ai nt s.

Raci al l y der ogat or y r emar ks ar e cer t ai nl y "mat er i al t o

t he pr et ext i nqui r y. " Bonef ont - I gar avi dez v. I nt ' l Shi ppi ng Cor p. ,

659 F. 3d 120, 125 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thei r pr obat i ve val ue, however ,

i s " ' ci r cumscr i bed i f t hey wer e made i n a si t uat i on t empor al l y

r emote f r omt he dat e of t he empl oyment deci si on i n quest i on, or i f

-30-


31/33

t hey . . . wer e made by nondeci si onmaker s. ' " I d. ( quot i ng McMi l l an

v. Mass. Soc' y f or Pr event i on of Cr uel t y t o Ani mal s, 140 F. 3d 288,

301 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) . Thus, even cr edi t i ng hi s account , Ray has

not i dent i f i ed any connect i on between t he comment s and t he Pol i cy

Commi t t ee' s deci si on t hat suppor t s an i nf er ence of r aci al ani mus.

Ski nner and Bodner were not on t he Pol i cy Commi t t ee, nor were

Roppl e, Tr i mmi er , or Pat r i ck. Ther e i s al so no evi dence t hat t he

Pol i cy Commi t t ee was aware of t he of f ensi ve comment s or of Ray' s

compl ai nt s.

Fi nal l y, Ray r el i es on t he st at i st i c t hat onl y one bl ack

associ ate had been pr omoted t o part ner at Ropes i n t he hi st ory of

t he f i r m. I f accur at e, i t i s unf or t unat e - - even t r oubl i ng - - t hat

as of t he t i me of t r i al Ropes had pr omot ed onl y a si ngl e bl ack

l awyer f r om i t s associ at e r anks t o par t ner i n t he 150- year hi st or y

of t he f i r m. 11 But t he st at i st i c never t hel ess f ai l s t o i mpl y

pr et ext her e.

I n a di spar at e t r eat ment case "t he cent r al f ocus i s ' l ess

whether a pat t ern of di scr i mi nat i on exi st ed and more how a

par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual was t r eat ed, and why. ' " LeBl anc v. Gr eat Am.

I ns. Co. , 6 F. 3d 836, 848 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( al t er at i on omi t t ed)

( quot i ng Cumpi ano v. Banco Sant ander P. R. , 902 F. 2d 148, 156 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) ) . Ther ef or e, " st at i st i cal evi dence of a company' s

11 Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t quest i oned t he ver aci t y of t hest at i st i c, Ray, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 356 n. 10, Ropes has notchal l enged i t s accur acy.

-31-


32/33

gener al hi r i ng pat t er ns, al t hough r el evant , car r i es l ess pr obat i ve

wei ght , " and "i n and of i t sel f , r ar el y suf f i ces t o r ebut an

empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y r at i onal e f or i t s

deci s i on. " I d. A stat i st i c i s onl y hel pf ul " i f i t t ends t o pr ove

t he di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent of t he deci si on maker s i nvol ved, " whi ch

"of t en wi l l be di f f i cul t . " Hi l l str om v. Best W. TLC Hot el , 354

F. 3d 27, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Ul t i mat el y, Ray ci t es onl y t hi s bal d

st at i st i c wi t hout maki ng any meani ngf ul connect i on bet ween t he l ack

of bl ack par t ner s and t he Pol i cy Commi t t ee' s deci si onmaki ng pr ocess

speci f i c t o hi s pr omot i on. Thus, t he bar e st at i st i c al one f ai l s t o

suppor t an i nf er ence t hat Ropes di scr i mi nat ed agai nst Ray.

We ar e mi ndf ul t hat pr obi ng an empl oyer ' s r at i onal e can

be di f f i cul t . We exer ci se "par t i cul ar caut i on" when consi der i ng an

empl oyer ' s mot i on f or summary j udgment r ai si ng i ssues of "pr et ext ,

mot i ve, and i nt ent . " St r aughn v. Del t a Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 250 F. 3d

23, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . But , ul t i mat el y, " [ e] ven 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,

summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate 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. Tech. Mf g. Cor p. , 331 F. 3d

166, 173 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Her e, despi t e Ray' s ef f or t s t o t he cont r ar y, he poi nt s

us t o de mi ni mi s evi dence, i nsuf f i ci ent f or a r at i onal f act f i nder

-32-


33/33

t o i nf er t hat Ropes' s " act i ons wer e based not on [ Ray' s] per cei ved

f ai l i ngs, but on di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. " Mar i ani - Col n, 511 F. 3d

at 223. Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t proper l y gr ant ed summar y

j udgment t o Ropes on Ray' s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct

cour t i saffirmed.

33

ray, iii v. ropes & gray llp, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents