Delise Adams v. Memorial Hermann, 973 F.3d 343

Memorial Hermann closed its Southwest Neighborhood Clinic in July 2014, eliminating seven positions.
Three employees (Adams, Flores‑Olvera, Perez) were on or about to take FMLA leave or were recently postpartum when the closure decision was made and were terminated when no reassignment occurred.
Memorial Hermann identified three open positions at other neighborhood clinics; defendants selected other employees for those roles and plaintiffs were not rehired.
Plaintiffs sued for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and FMLA retaliation; a jury found for defendants.
At trial the district court barred testimony from HR rep Jacqueline Patterson about communications with defense counsel (citing privilege/work‑product), but allowed former HR director Lisa Haneberg to testify that Patterson was fired for falsifying her résumé.
The court instructed the jury using a but‑for causation standard (no motivating‑factor instruction); plaintiffs appealed, challenging the evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Patterson's testimony about lawyer‑directed searches	Patterson should be allowed to tell jury she was asked by lawyers to search for evaluations and couldn’t find originals	Testimony about communications with counsel or work done at counsel’s direction is privileged/work‑product	Any error harmless; plaintiffs already elicited testimony undermining evaluations and jury had other evidence to reject plaintiffs’ theory
Admission of Haneberg's testimony about Patterson's falsified résumé	Haneberg’s testimony about specific incidents impermissibly introduced extrinsic evidence attacking Patterson’s character for truthfulness (Rule 608(b))	Evidence was admissible to show Patterson’s bias against her employer and explain motive to testify untruthfully	Properly admitted as extrinsic evidence to show bias; district court did not abuse discretion
Jury instructions — refusal to give motivating‑factor (mixed‑motive) instruction	Plaintiffs sought a motivating‑factor instruction for Title VII and FMLA claims	Court used but‑for standard, arguing no substantial evidence of mixed motives existed	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably found no substantial evidence of mixed motives and gave appropriate instruction

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (establishes corporate attorney‑client privilege principles)
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (origin of the work‑product doctrine)
Nassar v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 570 U.S. 338 (but‑for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (but‑for causation required under ADEA)
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (courts give deference to district court evidentiary rulings; context for admitting evidence)
Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327 (discusses mixed‑motive framework for FMLA retaliation claims)