WPCd 8M\F~FrE_ss!Ɩz /Kq 3eNώ:0nY/Cu6,uJTGMydj,O8!|ylnBtA+Z*tD]Jα~]axvw,7?2]jflo77if z?9 MZ7+= n#UF % 0: U8K ^ w 4   m  -NpY 0 ~c 0 Ds% 0U 0 0\ 0! 0 0 0L 0 0! 0A" 0# 0# 0$ 07% 0% 0& 0' 0' 0<( 0( 0) 0|* 0&+ 0+ 0h, 0- 0- 0. 0. 0/ 0>J0 00 01 0b2 0D3 0&4 05 05 06 02v7 07 0:8 0Y8 0_79 0 9 0: 0"< B*(> D/R> D+> 0> D/@ 0@ 06A 0A 0:B 0^'C 0<C 0NCU6DU>EDU*D BD DZO,R-VVWX D3EYNxY 0VzY AQY!Z 0VZ 0D=[ D1[ B[UN[\\\\z^U,!dGMdUNdhp psc 1200 seriesT(,,,,T(0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New 2u4 [[4 23|xU  ($USUS.,    2    _ԀTheDistrictutilizesamultilayeredcomplaint,grievance,  andreviewprocesstorespondtovaryingdegreesofemployee  dissatisfaction.AccordingtothedepositionofDr.Brooks, \ Fabelareceivedareviewsessionasopposedtoanarbitration 2 hearingbecauseinsteadoffilinganofficialcomplaint,Fabela X merelyaskedforareviewofhertermination.Dr.Brooksaverred . thatifanemployeerequestsareviewsession, the   superintendentorhisdesigneeshalldeterminewhetherornotthe    dismissalisbasedonreasonsthatarearbitrary,capriciousor  discriminatory,and/orwhetherreinstatingemploymentwillbein  thebestinterestoftheschooldistrict. ##"Xd#  { ($USUS.,    4    _XXXXԀInsupportoftheDistrictsdecisiontoterminate  _Fabela_semployment,_Marcee_Ԁalsoproducedpastperformance  reviewsfromPrincipals_Olivas_Ԁand_Reinhart_._Marcee_Ԁdidnotoffer \ thefivefavorablereviewsFabelareceivedfromPrincipalTucker.#XXXXe# f ($USUS.,    3    _ԀDr.BrooksalsodesignedtheDistrictsreviewand  grievanceprocessandservedastheXXXXԀdistrictarbitratoratthe  timeofFabelastermination.#XXXX#  ($USUS.,    1    _ԀXXXX_Reinhart_sletterpointedtoanumberofdeficienciesin  _Fabela_sperformance,includingalackofleadershipascampus  secretary;poorandineffectiveorganizationalskills;an \ inabilitytomeetdeadlinesandcarrythroughonroutine 2 functions;apoorattitudeandlackofinitiative;andpersistent X insubordination.#XXXXf#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   i ($USUS.,    5    _Forafacttobematerial,itmustbeprobativeastothe  legallyrelevantquestionsathand,andforthedisputetobe  genuine,thedisputingpartymustsubmitevidencewhichcould \ serveasareasonablebasisforfindinginthedisputingpartys 2 favor.Beckv.SomersetTechnologies,882F.2d993(5thCir. X 1989).Thus,tofindthatagenuinetriableissueexists,we 4 mustfindthatafactwhichmayeffectthedispositionofthe   claimsbeforeusisindisputebetweentheparties,andthatthe   evidencepresentedconcerningthatfactissuchthatareasonable f   jurycouldreturnaverdictinfavorofthenon_movant_Ԁastothe  issueincontest.Wyattv.HuntPlywoodCo.,Inc.,297F.3d405,  408(5thCir._2002)._*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /     ($USUS.,    8    _ԀThedistrictcourtdidnotanalyzethesummaryjudgment  evidencewithinthedirectevidenceframework,asthedistrict  courterroneouslyconcludedthatFabelawasnotentitledtoavoid \ theMcDonnellDouglasframework.*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X75+ ` hp x 5  E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d ($USUS.,    9    _ԀWenoteherethatthedistrictcourtappearstohave  affordedconsiderableweighttothepassingoftimebetweenthe  initialfilingofthe_EEOC_Ԁchargeand_Fabela_sultimate \ dismissal.However,whiletimingcansometimesbearelevant 2 factorindeterminingwhetheracausalconnectionexistswhere X thetimingbetweenaprotectedactivityandanadverseemployment . actionis _suspicious[ly_]proximate,the_contrapositive_Ԁinference   doesnotnecessarilyfollow.Seee.g.,_Shackelford_Ԁv.Deloitte&   Touche,LLP,190F.3d398,409(5thCir.1999).Thatis, f  conclusionsdrawnfromalackofsuspicioustimingareless B   compelling,and,ofcourse,atthisstageoflitigationall  h  reasonableinferencesaretobedrawninthefavorofFabela,  >  ratherthanagainsther.Moreover,wethinkitplainthatif   _Fabela_sevidenceregarding_Marcee_sstatementsatthereview   sessionaretobebelieved,when_Marcee_Ԁlistedtheprotected p  activityasamongthefactorsleadingtohisdecision,whatever F  temporaldistancelapsedbetweenthetimethatFabelahadfiled l  thecomplaintandthetimeoftheadverseactionwasrendered B irrelevant.    Similarly,thedistrictcourtdrawsanegativeinference  fromtheabsenceofparticularevidencewhichthedistrictcourt t wouldhavefoundtobemoreindicativeofacausalconnection. J Forexample,thedistrictcourtnotesthatFabelafailsto  p contendthatshewasharassedorintimidatedintheintervening F yearsbetweenthechargeandthedismissal.However,inrulingon  theDistrictsmotionforsummaryjudgment,itisobviouslynot  appropriateforthedistrictcourttodrawagainstFabela,the x _nonmovant_,anegativeinferencepremisedontheabsenceof N specificevidence.  ($USUS.,    7    _ԀWeemphasizealsothattosuccessfullyestablishthe  elementofcausationinthedirectevidencerubric,_Fabela_s  evidencedoesnothavetosupporttheconclusionthatretaliation \ wastheonlymotiveoreventhatitwasthedeterminativemotive, 2 onlythatitwasamongthemotivatingfactorswhichledtothe X adverseaction._Fierros_,274F.3dat192;Seealso,Price . Waterhousev.Hopkins,490U.S.228(1989).  ($USUS.,    6    _ԀUndertheMcDonnellDouglasburdenshiftingframework,a  plaintiffbearstheburdenofestablishingherprimafaciecase  throughcircumstantialevidenceofaretaliatorymotive.Ifthe h plaintiffsucceedsinofferingcircumstantialevidenceinsupport > ofeachelementofherclaim,shecreatesarebuttalpresumption d ofretaliation,andtheburdenshiftstotheemployerto : demonstratealegitimatereasonfortheadverseemployment   action.Iftheemployerproducesevidenceofalegitimatereason   fortheaction,theburdenshiftsagaintotheplaintifftorebut l  theemployersnonretaliatoryrationale.See_Montemayor_,276 B   F.3dat692.  n  ̂Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5TTTT'dxd(.3$ !USUS.,  `a^b\C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  dd)! dxdxP Pd(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularFabela v. Socorro Independent School District, 329 F.3d. 409 (5th Cir. 2003)   ' Wolfgang0Wolfgang .    p a"USUS.,  __ kXHXXXk&XkXH  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  FifthCircuit #Nk&P#mGN#mX XmGo#Ԁ_    #ddd _#ddm :  XmX#   m :#k E  FILED#  k E#m :   #mX X m :##dd_  _#ddd______April24,2003_ NN _________ #XX XmXV#kXHXXXCharlesR._Fulbruge___ԀIII_ && _Clerk#XXXkXHh#mX XXX _,eAZArial  = ^#USUS.,  _(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular !USUS.,  _eX XXX_Fabela_Ԁv._Socorro_Ԁ_Indep_.SchoolDist.,329F.3d409(5thCir.2003)#XX XeX=#  0  0` (#(#NXXmGNLegalterms:TitleVIIretaliation,directevidence,H` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#circumstantialevidence,pretext,retaliationforprior \` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#filingof_EEOC_Ԁcharge,causalconnectionelement.#NmG~##XXN_# ` (#` (# XXXX   zREVISEDAPRIL28,2003  f  INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS    ,,H__jlI95z|u   p @E     _,,H#XXXXj#XXXXFORTHEFIFTHCIRCUIT n  _________________ D  No.0250138 @  򀀀    ALICIA_FABELA_, H    `     h      p PlaintiffAppellant, D versus    _SOCORRO_ԀINDEPENDENTSCHOOLDISTRICT,0  0 (#(#"r (# (#    `       `     h      p DefendantAppellee.    򀀀 z AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt P  fortheWesternDistrictofTexas & v! 򀀀  L"   BeforeDAVIS,_BENAVIDES_,andDENNIS,CircuitJudges. ~#% _BENAVIDES_,CircuitJudge: *%z '     Thisretaliationcasepresentsasufficiencyofevidence &&") question.PlaintiffAppellant_Fabela_Ԁwasdischargedfromher (#+ positionascampussecretaryby DefendantAppellee_Socorro_ .*~%- IndependentSchoolDistrict(theDistrict)._Fabela_Ԁcontendsthat +*'/ theDistrictterminatedheremployment,inpart,becauseshehad -(1  z  8XXdd8    filedachargeofsexualharassmentwiththeEqualEmployment  OpportunityCommission(_EEOC_)in1991.Consequently,shecontends \ thatshewasdischargedinviolationofTitleVIIoftheCivil X RightsActof1964,asamended,42U.S.C.2000e3etseq.(Title   _ VII).Fabelainitiatedthisactionallegingasoleclaimof l  retaliation.TheDistrictmovedforsummaryjudgmentonthe  h  groundsthatAppellantfailedtorebutthenondiscriminatory   reasonofferedbytheDistrictforFabelasdismissal.The p  districtcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheDistrict, l  findingthatFabelahadfailedtopresentsufficientevidence  supportingacausalconnectionbetweenher1991charge,andthe t terminationofheremploymentin1997.Wefindotherwise.  p @tt)I.    AliciaFabelabeganheremploymentwiththeDistrictin x 1986.Initially,FabelaworkedasasecretaryfortheDistrict $t itself,butin1991shebecamethecampussecretaryatVistaDel   SolElementarySchool(Vista).TheprincipalatVistawasMr. |  ArturoOlivas.InFebruary1991,OlivasgaveFabelaapoorwork (!x" evaluationandrecommendedthatshebeterminatedasanemployee "$$ oftheDistrict.Shortlythereafter,Fabelafiledachargeof $& discriminationandsexualharassmentwiththeEEOC.Fabela ,&|!( allegedthatOlivashadmadeunwelcomesexistandsexualremarks, '(#* andthatwhenFabelacomplainedtoOlivasabouthisbehavior,he )$, gaveherapoorworkevaluationinretaliation. 0+&.   InaletterdatedSeptember30,1992,theEEOCinformed  FabelathattheevidencegatheredbytheEEOCinits \ investigationfailedtoestablishaTitleVIIviolation. X Specifically,theletternotedthattheinvestigationconcluded   thatFabelasclaimswereunsubstantiated,thatherassertion `  thatshehadcomplainedtoOlivasabouthisbehaviorwas  \  uncorroboratedbywitnesses,andthatwitnessesinsteadtestified   thatFabelawashavingproblemsatworkbecauseOlivaswas d  displeasedwithherperformance.Inclosing,theEEOCletter `  informedFabelathattheCommissionwasdismissinghercharge,   andthatFabelacouldpursueacivilremedyifshesochose.She h declinedtodoso. d   However,despitetheEEOCsdeterminationthatFabelas  sexualharassmentandretaliationchargesagainstOlivaswere l unsubstantiated,FabelawasnotdischargedasOlivashad h recommended#XXXX@#XXXX.Instead,AssistantSuperintendentTomMarceegranted  FabelasrequestforanimmediatetransfertoanotherDistrict p  school.ThusbeganFabelastenureattheBenitoMartinezSchool. !l"   ThefirstfiveyearsthatFabelaspentatBenitoMartinez "$ wereapparentlyuneventful.Duringthattime,Fabelareceived t$& onlypositiveevaluationsfromtheprincipal,Ms.MaryTucker.  &p!( However,in1996,PrincipalTuckerwasreplacedbyMs.Jo '#* Reinhart.TherecordreflectsthatincontrasttoFabelas x)$, relationshipwithTucker,theworkingrelationshipbetweenFabela $+t&. andReinhartrapidlybecameinharmonious.Reinhartfirst  officiallyreviewedFabelasworkinMarch1997,atwhichtime \ sheofferedseveralcritiquesofFabelasperformanceascampus X secretary,andidentifiedareasinwhichFabelashouldimprove.     OnOctober1,1997asignificantincidentoccurredbetween `  FabelaandReinhart.ReinhartorderedFabelatoleavecampusand  \  drivetoaprintshoptopickupreportcardformswhichReinhart   believedFabelahadfailedtoorderinatimelyfashion.Fabela d  didnotgotoretrievetheformsasinstructed,butinstead `  waitedforthemtobedeliveredthefollowingday.Fabela   contendsthatshetoldReinhartthatshecouldnotdriveto h collecttheformsbecauseshehadamigraineheadache.Reinhart d contendsthatFabelarefusedtogettheformsindeferencetoa  slightheadacheandcrosstowntraffic.Inanyevent,Fabeladid l notpickupthereportcards. h   ThefollowingdayReinhartandFabelamettodiscussthe  reportcardconflictandotherissues.Bothwomenagreethata p  #XXXX{#XXXXseconddisagreementeruptedbetweenthemattheOctober2 !l" meeting,duringwhich#XXXX%"#XXXXԀFabelabecameupsetandlefttheschool "$ campus.Fabelaaversthatfollowingthesecondincidentwith t$& Reinhart,shewenthomeandcalledtheDistrictsDirectorof  &p!( PersonnelServices,LoisOrdaz.FabelasoughtOrdazsadvice '#* aboutsecuringatransfertoanotherDistrictschool.Ordaz x)$, directedFabelatoreporttoOrdazsofficethefollowingMonday, $+t&. andtonotreturntoworkatBenitoMartinez#XXXX"#XXXXuntilafterthat  time. \   OnMondayOctober6,FabelawasinformedbyOrdazthat X Reinharthadrecommendedherimmediatedischargefromthe   Districtsemploy.Reinhartarticulatedherrecommendationina `  letterdirectedtoAssistantSuperintendentMarcee.Intheletter  \  ReinhartdescribedtheeventsofOctober1and2andoutlined   severalareasinwhichshewasdissatisfiedwithFabelas d  preformanceascampussecretary,andultimatelyrecommended `  Fabelasimmediatedismissal. #  1      ׀MarceeconcurredwithReinharts   decisiontoterminateFabela,andFabelasofficalnoticeof h dismissalwasauthoredbyMarcee. d   Fabelaappealedhertermination,andonOctober13,1997,  pursuanttotheDistrictspolicyconcerningatwillemployees, l theDistrictconducteda reviewsessiontoevaluateFabelas h termination.  #  2      ׀ThereviewsessionwasconductedbyDr.Gary  Brooks,whowasappointedbytheDistricttoreviewFabelas  dismissalanddeterminewhetherrehiringFabelawouldbeinthe \ Districtsbestinterest. #  3      ׀Fabelawaspresentatthereview X session,andwasrepresentedbyhercounsel,TonyConners.   AssistantSuperintendentMarcee,LoisOrdaz,#XXXX%#XXXXandPrincipal `  ReinhartallappearedtorepresentthepositionoftheDistrict.  \  Duringthesession,Marcee tooktheleadinaddressingthe   questionswhichDr.BrooksdirectedattheDistrict,andin d  particularitwasMarceewhoproducedforDr.Brooksdocuments `  relatedtoFabelasemploymentwiththeDistrict.Thedocuments   whichMarceeproducedincluded,interalia,theEEOC h determinationletterreceivedbytheDistrictwhichdescribed  p Fabelas1991sexualharassmentchargeas unsubstantiated.\ #  4      ׀  FabelaandherattorneyMr.ConnersbothaverthatwhenDr. x BrooksaskedtheDistrictwhyitwishedtoterminateFabela, $t MarceerespondedthatFabelawasa problememployee,andcited   amongotherinstancesof problembehaviorthefactthatFabela |  hadfiledanunsubstantiatedEEOCclaimin1991.Accordingto  Appellantandherattorney,LoisOrdazwasthendirectedby \ MarceetoreadtheEEOCdeterminationletteraloudduringthe X reviewsession,andthenpresentthelettertoDr.Brooks.     OnOctober17,1997,Dr.Brooksreturnedafindingin `  supportoftheDistrictsdecisiontodismissFabela.In  \  particular,Dr.BrooksconcludedthatReinharthadbeenunhappy   withFabelasjobperformancesinceDecember1996,that d  ReinhartsexpectationsofFabelawerereasonable,andthatit `  wouldnotbeinthebestinterestoftheDistricttoreinstate   Fabela. `  h   InJanuary1998,FabelafiledachargewiththeEEOC d allegingbothagediscriminationandretaliatoryfiringin  connectiontoher1991EEOCcomplaint.TheEEOCfoundherage l discriminationcomplainttobeunsubstantiated,butdidfindthat h theevidenceshowedtherewasreasonablecausetobelievethat  Fabelawasretaliatedagainstbasedonher1991chargeof p  discrimination.UpontheconclusionoftheEEOCsinvestigation !l" Fabelareceivednoticeofherrighttosue,andsheinitiated "$ thisactionagainsttheDistrictassertingthatshewas t$& dischargedinretaliationforfilingthe1991charge,whichisa  &p!( violationofTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,as '#* amended,42U.S.C.2000e3(a)(2000).Thedistrictcourtgranted x)$, summaryjudgmentinfavoroftheDistrict,findingthatFabela $+t&. failedtoprovideevidenceestablishingacausalconnection  betweenthe1991chargeandher1997dismissal.Appellanthere \ appealsthatruling.#XXXXɖ,#XXXXԀ X    @  @`  @  @  @h II. @  @    9  ThisCourtreviewsdenovothedistrictcourtsgrantof `  summaryjudgment,applyingthesamestandardasthedistrict  h  court.Blowv.CityofSanAntonio,236F.3d293,296(5thCir.   2001).#XXXXɔ9#Thus,here,todetermineifsummaryjudgmentwasproperly   enteredinfavoroftheDistrict,wereviewtherecordinthe 4  lightmostfavorabletoFabela,andresolveallreasonable 0 inferencesinherfavor.Andersonv.LibertyLobby,477U.S.242  (1986).XXXXԀMoreover,wewillaffirmthedistrictcourtsjudgment D onlyifwefindthatthosefactswhicharematerialtoFabelas @ claimsareundisputedbytheparties#XXXX<#,asitiswellsettledthat  atthesummaryjudgmentstageoflitigationthefunctionofthe H trialbenchorreviewingcourtisnottostepintothesteadof D thejuryandweightheevidenceinasearchfortruth,butis   insteadtodeterminewhetherthereexistsagenuineissuefor L!" trial. #  5      ׀Caboniv.GeneralMotorsCorp.,278F.3d448,451(5th "H$ Cir.2002)(statingindecidingwhethersummaryjudgmentwas  properlygranted thiscourtwillnotweightheevidenceor \ evaluatethecredibilityofwitnesses.).XXXX     x   X #XXXX@#XXXX  TitleVIIprohibitsretaliationagainstemployeeswhoengage   inprotectedconduct,suchasthefilingofachargeofsexual `  harassment.42U.S.C.2000e-3(a)(2000);Perezv.Region20  \  Educ.ServiceCenter,307F.3d318,325(5thCir.2002).To   establishaclaimofretaliationunderTitleVII,aplaintiff |  mustdemonstratethatshe:(1)sheengagedinaprotectedactivity; (x  (2)thatanadverseemploymentactionoccurred;and(3)thata $ causallinkexistsbetweentheprotectedactivityandtheadverse  employmentaction.Evansv.CityofHouston,246F.3d344(5th ,| Cir.2001). 4   Here,itisundisputedthatFabelaengagedintheprotected  activityoffilingaTitleVIIchargewiththeEEOC,anditis < alsoundisputedthatFabelawassubsequentlyterminatedfromher 8 employment.Therefore,thesoleissueincontestbetweenthe   partiesiswhetherFabelasterminationwascausallylinkedwith @!" thefilingofher1991EEOCcomplaint.#XXXX|A#XXXXThedistrictcourtfound "<$ thatFabelafailedtopresentevidencesupportingacausallink $& betweenthesetwoeventssuchthatareasonablejurycould D&!( believetheywereconnected.#XXXXF#XXXXԀWe,however,disagree,finding '@#* insteadthatAppellantestablishedtheelementsofherclaim  throughtheuseofdirectevidence,andthatsheadequately \ supportedherclaimsuchastocreateagenuineissuefortrial. X    `  A. DirectEvidencethe MixedMotivePath  `  #XXXXG#  AplaintiffallegingTitleVIIretaliationmayestablishher (  caseforcausationinoneoftwoways:shemayeitherpresent   directevidenceofretaliation,whichisalsoknowasthe mixed 0  motivemethodofprovingretalitorymotivation;orshemay , providecircumstantialevidencecreatingarebuttablepresumption  ofretaliation.Fierrosv.TexasDepartmentofHeath,274F.3d 4 187,192(5thCir.2001);seePriceWaterhousev.Hopkins,490 < U.S.228(1988).Usually,inthecontextofaretaliationclaim,  theemployerrefrainsfromexpresslystatingthatan P impermissiblecriterioninfluencedhisdecisiontoexposethe L plaintifftoanadverseemploymentaction,andsodirectevidence   ofanemployersallegedlyretaliatoryintentisrarely T!" available.Asaresult,wehavelongrecognizedthewelltrod #P$ pathbywhichaplaintiffmaydemonstrateretaliatoryintent $& throughtheuseofcircumstantialevidenceandthefamed X&!( McDonnellDouglasburdenshiftingframework.Montemayorv.City (T#* ofSanAntonio,276F.3d687(5thCir.2001);Portisv.First ) %, Nat'lBank,34F.3d325,328(5thCir.1994);XXXXMcDonnellDouglass t+&. Corp.v.Green,411U.S.792(1973).Becauseofthegeneral#XXXXɰO#lack  ofavailabilityofdirectevidenceofretaliatoryintent, h plaintiffsallegingretaliationmostoftenmusttraveltheless d advantageouscircumstantialevidentiarypath.W #  6      ׀Portis,34F.3dat   328. x    However,intheunusualinstancewhereaplaintiffisable $ t  tosupporttheelementsofherclaimwithdirectevidenceofa   retaliatorymotive,theMcDonnellDouglasframeworkdoesnot |  apply.TransWorldAirlines,Inc.v.Thurston,469U.S.111,121 4  (1984)(stating, theMcDonnellDouglastestisinapplicablewhere < theplaintiffpresentsdirectevidenceofdiscrimination.");  Fierrosv.TexasDept.ofHealth,274F.3d187,192(5thCir. P 2001)(findingthatifa plaintiffpresentsdirectevidencethat X theemployer'smotivationfortheadverseactionwasatleastin  partretaliatory,thentheMcDonnellDouglasframeworkdoesnot ` apply.)citingMoorev.U.S.Dep'tofAgric.,55F.3d991,995  \ (5thCir.1995).Instead,insuch"directevidence"cases,once   theplaintiffhassubmittedevidencethatretaliationwasamong  themotiveswhichpromptedtheadverseaction,the burdenof \ proofshiftstotheemployertoestablishbypreponderanceof X evidencethatthesamedecisionwouldhavebeenmaderegardless   oftheforbiddenfactor.Idat192(quoting,Brownv.E.Miss. `  Elec.PowerAss'n,989F.2d858,861(5thCir.1993))(internal  h  quotationmarksomitted).     Thecaseatbarpresentssuchacircumstance.ThisCourthas |  defined directevidenceasevidencewhich, ifbelieved,proves (x  thefact[inquestion]withoutinferenceorpresumption.Portis, $ 34F.3dat32829(quotingBrown,989F.2dat861).InaTitleVII  context,directevidenceincludesanystatementordocumentwhich D showsonitsfacethatanimpropercriterionservedasabasis @ notnecessarilythesolebasis,butabasisfortheadverse  employmentaction.Fierros,274F.3dat192;seealsoPortis,34 T F.3dat32829.  \   Here,thefactinquestioniswhetherMarceesdecisionto   terminateFabelasemploymentwasmotivated,inpart,bythefact p!" thatFabelahadpreviouslyfiledanEEOCcomplaint.Insupportof #l$ hercontentionthatanimpropercriterionservedasabasisfor $ & Marceesdecisiontodismissher,Fabelapresentedevidencethat t&!( MarceestatedasmuchwhenaskedbyDr.Brookstojustifyhis  (p#* decisiontodischargeFabelaattheOctober13reviewsession. )%, Specifically,bothFabelaandherattorney,Mr.Conners,aver x+&. thatduringthereviewsessionMarceedescribedFabelaasa   problememployee,andthatMarceepointedtothefactthat \ Fabelahadfiledan unsubstantiatedEEOCcomplaintin1991as X evidenceofFabelastroublesomeness.FabelaandConnersalso   averthatduringthereviewsession,tofurtherunderscorethe `  Districts problememployeerationalefordischargingFabela,  \  MarceedirectedLoisOrdaztoreadthe1992determinationletter.     Thedistrictcourtcorrectlyidentifiedthisevidenceas d  directevidence,butthedistrictcourtneverthelessconcluded `  thatthisevidence,standingalone,wasinsufficienttoallowa   reasonablejurytofindacausalconnectionbetweentheEEOC h charge,andFabelasdismissal.However,indrawingthis d conclusionthedistrictcourterredbyfailingevaluatethe  evidenceinisolation.Instead,thedistrictcourtevaluated l Fabelasdirectevidenceforpersuasivenessascomparedtothe h recordasawhole.Specifically,thedistrictcourtstated:     The[c]ourtconcludesthatthe p  aforementioned[direct]evidence,standing F ! alone,wouldnotallowareasonablejuryto !l" believethatPlaintiffwasthevictimof !B# unlawfulretaliation.Inparticular,the "$ Courtcannotconsiderthisissuewithoutalso #% takingintoaccounttheundisputedfactsas t$& revealedbythesummaryjudgmentrecord.For J% ' instance,Plaintiffsterminationoccurred  &p!( morethansixandonehalfyearsafter &F") Plaintifffiledthe1991Chargeandmorethan '#* fiveyearsaftertheEEOCsdetermination (#+ pertainingtothatcharge.... x)$,  /c =cKcThus,indecidingwhetherFabelahadpresenteddirectevidence +J'/ thatwassufficienttoallowhertobypasstheMcDonnellDouglas  framework,thedistrictcourtweighedFabelasdirectevidence h againstotherfactsonrecord,andconcludedthatareasonable d jurywouldnotbepersuadedbyFabelasevidenceinlightofthe   recordasawhole. l    However,whetherareasonablejurywouldbepersuadedby  h  Fabelasevidenceinlightoftherecordasawholeisnotthe   correctquestiontoaskwhendeterminingwhetherFabelahas p  succeededinproducingdirectevidencesufficienttoallowherto l  avoidtheMcDonnellDouglasframework.IndecidingwhetherFabela  establishedtheelementofcausationunderthedirectevidence  path,thedistrictcourtmustrefrainfromweighingtheevidence ,| andpreemptivelydeterminingwhetherandwhichinferencesa ( reasonablejuryislikelytodraw.Instead,indecidingwhich  evidentiaryframeworkapplies,thedistrictcourtmustask 0 whetherthedirectevidence,trulystandingalone,issufficient , tosupporttheconclusionthatanexusexistsbetweenthe   protectedactivityandtheadverseemploymentaction.SeeBarrett @!" ComputerServices,Inc.v.PDA,Inc.884F.2d214,218(5thCir. "H$ 1989)(holdingthat, [a]lthoughmoreconcreteevidence $ & [supportinganelementofthenonmovantsclaim]wouldhavebeen \&!( preferable,theevidencepresentedsufficestoestablishthe (X#* existenceofagenuinefactissue...Afterall,insummary )%, judgmentproceedings,[t]hejudge'sfunctionisnothimselfto `+&. weightheevidenceanddeterminethetruthofthe  matter...Rather,heorsheonlyassesseswhetherthereisa \ genuineissueastoanymaterialfact.....)(quoting, X Anderson,477U.S.at249,andFed.R.Civ.P.56(c))(internal   citationsomitted).Thus,ifthedirectevidencealoneis x  sufficienttosupportacausalnexus,thentheplaintiffhas $ t  establishedtheelementofcausation,andtheburdenshiftsto   thedefendanttoprovethathewouldhavearrivedatthesame |  decisionevenhadhenotconsideredtheimpropercriterion. (x    Therefore,thequestionathandiswhetherareasonablejury $ couldbelievethatacausalconnectionexistedbetweentheEEOC  chargeandFabelasdismissal,assumingthejurybelievesas ,| herewemustassumetheywouldthatMarceedescribedFabelaas ( aproblememployeebecauseshefiledtheunsubstantiated  complaint,andthatFabelawasbeingterminatedforbeinga 0 problememployee.Wefindthatareasonablejury,passingonthis , evidencealone,couldindeedconcludethatFabelawasdismissed,   inpart,becauseshefiledtheunsubstantiatedsexualharassment 4!" charge.V #  7      ׀Weconclude,therefore,thatFabelahasproduced "0$ sufficientdirectevidenceofaretaliatorymotivetoestablish $& directlythecausationelementofherclaim.SeePortis,34F.3d  at331.Moreover,becauseFabelahassatisfactorilyallegedand h supportedwithdirectevidencetheelementsofhercase,she d ispermittedtobypasstheMcDonnellDouglasburdenshifting   framework.Id.Consequently,theburdenisshiftedtothe x  defendanttodisproveherclaim. 0      ,     ` B. TheDistrictsBurden      BecauseFabelahasmetherburdenwithdirectevidence,the L onusfallstotheDistricttoprovethatdespiteMarcees  inclusionoftheimpropercriterionamongthereasonsproffered T forterminatingFabela,theDistrictwouldhavereachedthesame P employmentdecisionhadFabelaneverfiledthe1991charge. #  8      ׀To  meetitsburden,theDistrictmustprovethatitwouldhave X terminatedanyemployeewhoperformedorbehavedasFabelahad, T regardlessofwhetherthatemployeehadfiledanEEOCcharge.   Portis,34F.3dat330. \!"   Towardsthatend,weobservethattherecordreflectsample #d$ evidencethattheDistrictwasprimarilymotivatedtoterminate $ & FabelabecauseofReinhartsdissatisfactionwithFabelasjob l&!( performance.U #  9      ׀However,providingunrebuttedevidenceofa  legitimatereasonfortheadverseemploymentdecisionisnot \ sufficienttosecuresummaryjudgmentunderthedirectevidence X calculus.InsofarasMarceeraisedthespecteroftheimproper   criterionasamotivatingfactor,itisuptotheDistricteither `  todisprovethattheimpropercriterionwasafactorinthe  \  employmentdecision,orthatthesameemploymentdecisionwould   havebeenmadenonetheless.Fierros,274F.3dat192.Creatinga d  triableissueastothesequestions,asheretheDistrictclearly l  has,isnotenoughfortheDistricttoprevailonitsdispositive  motion.SeeFierros,274F.3dat195(holdingthat Fierros's \ affidavitbyitselfprecludessummaryjudgmentbecauseit d presentsagenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingwhether   [retaliatory]animusinpartmotivatedorwasasubstantial l  factorinthecontestedemploymentaction;quoting,Brown,989  h  F.2dat861).     Instead,inthemixedmotivecontext,thefactthatthe |  Districthassuppliedandsupportedalegitimatereasonfor (x  dischargingFabelamerelymeansthattheDistrict,too,hasmet $ itsrequirementtoshowthatjudgmentasamatteroflawcannot  berenderedagainstit,andtheissueisripefortrial. ,|      ` C. Rule56(c)     HavingfoundthatFabelahasproduceddirectevidence H sufficienttosustainthethreeelementsofherretaliationclaim   suchthatareasonablejurycouldreturnaverdictinherfavor, P!" thepathofherlitigationisclear:wereviewthepleadings, "L$ depositions,answerstointerrogatoriesandadmissionsonfile, $& togetherwiththeaffidavitstodeterminewhetheragenuineissue T&!( ofmaterialfactremainsindispute.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c);Turner (P#* v.HoumaMun.Fire&PoliceCiv.Serv.Bd.,229F.3d478,482 )%, (5thCir.2000).Here,itisplainthatthepartiesatbararein p+&. disputeregardingtwofacts:first,whetherMarceesdecisionto  dischargeFabelawasmotivated,inpart,becauseshefiledan \ EEOCcharge;andsecond,whethertheDistrictwouldhave X dischargedanyemployeewhopreformedasFabelahad,regardless   ofwhetherthatemployeehadfiledachargewiththeEEOC.The `  resolutionofthesetwoissuesismaterialtotheDistricts  \  liabilityunderTitleVII,andbothFabelaandtheDistricthave   submittedsufficientevidencetorenderthedisputegenuine. d  Consequently,thesequestionsfallsoundlywithintheprovinceof `  thejury,andsowewillleaveittothejurytoanswerthem.      `     h      p      x   III. d     Weconcludethatthedistrictcourterredingranting  summaryjudgmenttotheDistrict.Thejudgmentofthedistrict l courtisherebyREVERSED,andthecaseisREMANDEDfor h proceedingsconsistentwithourholdingherein.