Case Information
*1 Before HARTZ , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL , Circuit Judge.
Tonya Borwick appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of her complaint against her former employer, T-Mobile West Corporation (T-Mobile), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil *2 Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a), and interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2615. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court’s order accurately and in great detail recounts the factual and procedural background of this case, and we briefly summarize only the most salient, undisputed facts relevant to the claims Ms. Borwick raises on appeal. Ms. Borwick was employed by T-Mobile, answering billing-related customer telephone calls. In mid-January 2011, T-Mobile manager, Jeff Winkleman noticed as part of his regular review of call reports that a large percentage of Ms. Borwick’s calls were significantly shorter than T-Mobile’s ideal call length, from which he suspected Ms. Borwick could be providing poor customer service or avoiding calls, which is grounds for termination. He discussed his concerns with one of Ms. Borwick’s supervisors, Ms. Cordiner. At about the same time, Ms. Cordiner learned Ms. Borwick was pregnant and intended to take twelve weeks of FMLA leave. Ms. Cordiner listened to audio recordings of some of Ms. Borwick’s short-calls and heard many calls that ended mid-sentence. She put a trace on Ms. Borwick’s future calls, from which she determined Ms. Borwick had manually released several of the calls, suggesting Ms. Borwick had hung up on some customers.
On February 14 and 18, Ms. Cordiner met with Ms. Borwick to discuss these calls. Ms. Borwick denied releasing calls, claiming they were dead-air calls in which the customer was no longer on the line. On February 22, Ms. Borwick complained to *3 T-Mobile’s Human Resources Manager, Janice Lopez, that Ms. Cordiner was targeting her because of her pregnancy. Ms. Lopez testified she immediately removed Ms. Cordiner from the call investigation and investigated Ms. Borwick’s discrimination allegation. Call center Associate Director Melissa Utschinski conducted an independent investigation of Ms. Borwick’s calls by reviewing the call records, listening to audio recordings of calls, and comparing this information with how Ms. Borwick documented the calls. Ms. Utschinski concluded Ms. Borwick had hung up on customers and had falsely recorded them as dead-air calls. She terminated Ms. Borwick’s employment on February 28, 2011. Ms. Borwick, after exhausting her administrative remedies, filed a complaint alleging T-Mobile terminated her based on her pregnancy, in retaliation for her discrimination complaint to Ms. Lopez, and to interfere with her intended FMLA leave.
With respect to the two Title VII claims, the district court assumed that
Ms. Borwick had established prima facie discrimination and retaliation claims, and
ruled that T-Mobile had proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
terminating her, namely Ms. Utschinski’s conclusion that Ms. Borwick had hung up
on at least four customers.
See Tabor v. Hilti, Inc
.,
As to her FMLA interference claim, the district court assumed for the sake of
argument that Ms. Borwick was entitled to FMLA leave and the termination
interfered with her FMLA rights. But it ruled T-Mobile had demonstrated it would
have terminated Ms. Borwick regardless of her intention to take FMLA leave
because it discovered she had hung up on customers.
See Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan
Bank of Topeka
,
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.” Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. , 649 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir. 2011). Ms. Borwick argues on appeal that the district court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party by deciding facts and weighing the credibility of witnesses. We disagree.
Ms. Borwick’s many arguments relating to short calls are not material to T-Mobile’s
*5
asserted reason for terminating her, which was for hanging up on customers. Though
she denies that she hung up on customers, there is no evidence that T-Mobile did not
have a good faith belief that she had.
See Rivera v. City & Cnty. of Denver
, 365 F.3d
912, 924-25 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding the relevant pretext inquiry is whether the
employer honestly believes it proffered reasons and acted in good faith on those
beliefs). No inference of pretext is created by her positive job evaluation for 2010
because T-Mobile first determined she was hanging up on customers in 2011. And
her assertion that the audio recordings could have been manipulated is “mere
conjecture,” which is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
See E.E.O.C. v.
C.R. England, Inc.
,
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in its order of January 22, 2013.
Entered for the Court David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
Notes
[*] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.