*1 problems the dress these final mer torture based on nearly before his activities twen ty years hearing. may required ago. An be alien to it can provide corroboration reason where Serjeedorj questions the denial of his obtained, Holder, Urbina-Mejia be v. ably request voluntary departure, for based 360, (6th 2010), 597 F.3d Cir. and we failure every page BIA’s to reference uphold finding must that corroboration hearing transcript containing discus- required was trier of unless reasonable sion of jurisdiction the issue. lack to We to compelled fact would be conclude that review claim. See Abu-Khaliel v. Gon- corroborating was unavailable. evidence zales, (6th 2006). 436 F.3d Cir. (6th Holder, v. Lin 565 F.3d Cir. Finally, rather than file motion for a 2009). Here, Serjeedorj IJ noted stay review, pending removal Ser- par testified he from his had statement jeedorj requested that the court facilitate corroborated his ents could have his return if during he were removed claims but he have it failed to translated. pendency of the review but was successful He failed to submit records his appeal. his request We DENY this treatment, or arrests of medical instead moot and petitions DENY the for review. fering questionable documents dis argument above. cussed or opportuni

that he was denied notice

ty explain corroborating the lack is without merit.

To establish for eligibility withhold removal,

ing Serjeedorj required that it likely is more than not that he

show persecuted Mongolia

will be based on a ground. Fang protected Huang See v. Mu ADAMOV, Serge Plaintiff-Appellant, (6th kasey, 523 Cir. To CAT, eligible protection be under Serjeedorj required that it is show BANK NATIONAL ASSOCI likely

more than he be tor will ATION, Defendant-Appellee, in Mongolia. Mukasey, Kaba v. tured 546 F.3d We uphold Serjee- the conclusion below that Rick Steven Hartnack and dorj past persecution did not establish Saloutos, Defendants. a presumption be order entitled No. persecution. beating Serjeedorj future perse to the level described rise Appeals, United Court States Ashcroft, cution. Pilica v. Sixth Circuit. found that Filed March beating of an alien that re detention and hospitalization a week was sulted past persecution, sufficient by Serjeedorj incident described no presented

was less extreme. He evi persecution or he

dence would face *2 Basil, Cutler,

Benjamin Priddy, S. Meade, Louisville, KY, for Plain- Naake & tiff-Appellant Canton, Priestle, R. Doreen Evan T. Hollister, Taft, Cincinnati, & Stéttinius OH, Defendant-Appellee for KEITH, MOORE, and Before: ROGERS, Judges. Circuit OPINION MOORE, KAREN Circuit NELSON Judge. Title VII concerns the oft-

This case litigated employee issues of whether an a causal nexus between a has established employ- adverse protected for ment action the reasons and whether pretext. are unlawful The em- that action instance, ployee Plaintiff-Appellant in this Adamov, Serge claims he was termi- na- complaining nated retaliation tional-origin discrimination. Adamov found losing on the side of a motion for himself judgment summary on the issue causa- follow, for the tion. But reasons we tempo- hold that less-than-one-month proximity protected ral activi- between ty employment action cou- adverse pled Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank Bank”) (“U.S. in- National Association’s scrutiny of him create an inference creased pretext. causation and judgment of the district REVERSE proceed- and REMAND further court ings opinion. this consistent with Following prom- I. BACKGROUND conversation, Mockapetris ised relayed summary- is an appeal Because explanation Hartnack’s back Adamov.2 judgment ruling, following are facts ¶ Aff. most light cast favorable *3 (Adamov 47) #319); at Dep. (Page R. Ford nonmoving party. See E.E.O.C. v. #477). Although precise ID Hartnack’s 753, unclear, explanation is considered Adamov 2015) (en banc). years emi- Several (Adamov 47) Dep. R. 50 at “absurd.” grating Azerbaijan, accepted from 477). by contrast, (Page Mockapetris, ID # assistant-manager position at a U.S. came to that Hartnack did not in believe Louisville, R. 50 Kentucky. Bank branch in against fact discriminate Adamov. Id. at (Adamov 17) 13, 16, (Page at ID Dep. 478-79). ID 48-49 # (Page 443, 446, 447). # His experience with initial pro- positive; bank was Adamov was Meanwhile, 2009, 25, on June U.S. district-manager position moted specific “undertook a review Adamov’s perform- received several awards for his personal business or financial transactions 9, 439, (Page ance. See 22-23 # id. at ID security or any purpose[].” other R. (Hartnack 14) 452-53); Dep. (Page R. 48 at (1st 5-6) Interrogs. 108-1 (Page Def. at ID 413). However, ID # our observed 1064-65). # Hits “computer-gen- from this case, previous treatment this Burk, sweep” prompted erated Patti C. rise through the ranks without president corporate compliance vice incident. See Adamov v. U.S. Bank Nat’l the corporate security department 851, 2013). Ass’n, 726 Bank, (Burk investigate further, 41-2 R. C. Adamov came believe Richard ¶ 3) (Page Decl. ID though # Hartnack, the vice-chairman consumer approved U.S. Bank had activity by similar Bank, (Hartnack banking R. at U.S. (Adamov past, in the R. 50 Dep. 8)6, 405, 407), Dep. (Page at ID # failed 50) 480); (1st (Page at ID # 108-1 R. Def. promote origin. of his him because national 6) 1065). at Interrogs. (Page part ID # As (Adamov 46) ID Dep. (Page R. 50 at investigation, this the corporate security 476). # department $10,000 discovered a loan that So, complained. com- college He first to a friend in the Adamov made February plained Arab sometime between United Emirates 2007. ¶ (Burk 5) 278); April (Page re- ID R. 46 Mockapetris, 2009 to Arlene Decl. # (Saloutos 37) 359); gional at at # manager Dep. (Page U.S. Bank. Id. at ID R. 478); (Adamov 52-54) (Page (Mockapetris Dep. (Page ID R. 52 at ID Dep. # 622).1 482-84). A (Page investigators, # team of includ- at # Adamov claims conversation, Burk, 30, Mock- during ing July met their two-hour with Adamov 2009, apetris agreed pro- that Adamov “was not wire discuss and other trans- (Burk 41-2 Hartnack not like fers moted because connected Adamov. R. [his] ¶ 6) 44-2 origin way (Page 278); (July national Decl. ID # R. or talked” and [he] Notes) speak him Hart- Meeting told that she would ¶ (Adamov (Adamov 49-60) (Page ID Aff. R. 50 Dep. nack. R. 46-47) #318); believing “that in- Mockapetris Mockapetris conversation claims that this conversation denies that Deck happened place. (Mockapetris took R. 52 "somewhere 2008.” 631). (Mockapetris Dep. ID # PRUDENT JUDG- 10. EXERCISE really [his] about vestigation was IN FINANCIAL TRANSAC- MENT wires,” prompted hunt but rather witch TIONS Hartnack, investigators that told the Responsibility by his “na- investigation was motivated Financial (Adamov Dep. at origins.” R. 50 personal tional financial employees’ 491-92); 61-62) #481, pru- be handled with matters should Notes) Meeting (July Employees times. and their at all dence borrowing prohibited families are (other in- than financial from customers interview, on Au- weeks after the Two or stitutions), suppliers, other Security U.S. Bank Chief gust contingent workers. *4 an e-mail to John B. Wellborn sent Officer 18) (2006 (Page ID Policy at R. 108-4 R. 50-1 “Smoking Gun.” Burk entitled 1105). #575). Email) The (Smoking Gun a team Ultimately, August excerpt entirely of e-mail consisted which included employees, of U.S. Bank Bank’s Code the 2008 version U.S. from Wellborn, “a document reviewed Burk and of Ethics and Business Conduct: all put together regarding that [Burk] Judgment in Fi- Exercise Prudent 10. R. 96-1 steps completed.” investigative nancial Transactions #992). E-mail) (Aug. Responsibility Financial lengthy [sic] a discussion “After employees’ personal financial U.S. Bank that the recommendation would be agreed pru- with should be handled matters terminate made Steve Saloutos Employee privileges all times. dence at of firm couple of “a ethics Serge” because prudent use carry responsibility partic- Although he did not violations.”3Id. services, products Bank call, of U.S. 20, 2009 Hartnack August in the ipate for such prompt payment includes which supported the de- participated (where addition, applicable). (Salou- services R. 46 to terminate Adamov.4 cision pro- are 385). their families ID # On Au- Dep. tos (or from borrowing money hibited 2009, Saloutos, Mockapetris, and gust to) (other money lending customers Adamov that other individual informed one institutions), suppliers, financial than (Adamov Dep. he was terminated. independent or con- employees, 495). other 65) (Page ID # tractors. termination, Shortly after (2008 alleged Policy complaint, filed a which Id.; see also Rights Civil 286) (The Title of the in the violated VII bolded text e- Kentucky Rights Civil Act of 1964 and the policy.). in the The 2006 is not mail bolded him on it terminated the basis of Ethics and Act because Bank’s Code version U.S. origin and retaliation contained similar national Business Conduct (Am. reporting prohibit lending discrimination. but paragraph, ¶¶ 25-30) Compl. money to customers: effectively claims he "wasn’t "Smoking 4. Hartnack Although Gun” e-mail refers policy, claims that it did in Adamov’s termination. U.S. Bank the decision-maker” to a ' #419). "pursuant (Hartnack a written not terminate some time policy that became effective at 9,May (Request for 2007.” R. 108-2 ¶ (Page ID # Admissions testified, summary judgment charge, assisted, district court awarded participated or in any of U.S. Bank on all counts. Ada in an investigation, proceed- favor manner Ass’n, ing, mov or hearing subchapter.” v. U.S. Nat’l under (W.D. 2000e-3(a) (2012). Ky. § F.Supp.2d 447 Adamov v. U.S.C. “To assess Ass’n, 3:09CV-868-S, claims, U.S. Bank Nat’l No. these usewe the familiar McDon- (W.D. Ky. Aug. 23, nell-Douglas WL 3637677 framework. burden-sjiifting 2012). Although establish, plaintiff we affirmed the district The must first judgment respect preponderance evidence, court’s prima of the her claim, so, judg plaintiff we reversed its facie national-origin case. If the does respect ment with to Adamov’s retaliation defendant production has a burden of claim. 726 F.3d at 852. The articulate nondiscriminatory dis reason for since, time, trict court has and for second its action. If the meets its bur- defendant den, summary judgment awarded plaintiff prove given must Bank’s Adamov v. U.S. Bank favor. Nat’l reason is for retaliation.” Ford Ass’n, 3:09-CV-00868-CRS, (internal quota- No. F.3d at WL citations, (W.D. marks, Ky. Mar. It tion held alterations omit- ted). did not causation part showing prima facie retalia *5 key question this case is whether follow, tion. the that Id. For reasons we found, correctly the district court the claim to remand Adamov’s retaliation the summary-judgment stage, that Adamov more, district court once this time because prima did not his case. Spe- establish facie of causation there is a triable issue cifically, parties because the do contest pretext. the of prima other elements fa- case, cie we has address whether Adamov II. DISCUSSION causally protected activity linked A. of Standard Review employment Although adverse action. district court awarded sum- Because the prima “[t]he burden of a establishing facie mary we review its decision judgment, de onerous, in a case retaliation action is not light novo facts in the met,” and view the most City but one easily Nguyen v. of Adamov, nonmoving par- favorable to Cleveland, 559, (6th 229 F.3d 563 Cir. Co., ty. F.3d at If See Ford 782 2000), plaintiffs must estab- nevertheless genuine dispute is of there a material prima lish but-for causation at both is, plaintiff presents “when the fact—that facie stages of the McDonnell- significant on which probative evidence a Douglas framework. See Ford Motor jury return verdict for 767, reasonable could 782 F.3d at v. 770. But see Foster her”—summary judgment inappropriate. Shore, 243, Univ. Md.—E. 787 F.3d of (internal omitted). quotation (4th See id. marks 250-51 n.10 (observing & Cir. disagree that “circuits Nas- whether B. Facie Prima Case sar any bearing has on causation provision prong holding of of prima The retaliation Title VII facie case” states, employ- “It be an unlawful “that Nassar causation shall does alter the retaliation”). practice employer prong prima ment for an discrimi- of a facie case of against any nate of ... “This requires proof be- the unlawful re- taliation opposed any practice cause he made would have occurred has alleged an employment practice by wrongful absence of the action or unlawful or Texas subchapter, employer.” he has made a actions of the Univ. because 478 Nassar, -, tional-origin to the discrimination team of v.

Sw. Ctr. Med. 2533, 2517, Burk, L.Ed.2d investigators, S.Ct. included which (2013). plaintiff A meet burden can to terminate recommendation employment an action “[w]here adverse (July Burk. which also included employer close time very after occurs Notes) 30, Meeting activity.” v. protected Montell learns of a (Adamov Dep. at Servs., Inc., Clinical Diversified #490); E-mail) (Aug. 2014) (internal (6th quotation Cir. #992). days Eleven after omitted), McNairy Amos marks cited in v. recommendation, individuals, group (6th Cty., Fed.Appx. Cir. Hartnack, including who was aware (“Even Nassar, after ... this court complaint against Adamov’s discrimination temporal proximity held that explicitly has him, to terminate Adamov. See R. decided causation.”). course, can Of alone establish temporal other “combining proximity with 490, 495). Although previously have we retaliatory enough conduct is “discharged four being held months a causal as well. to establish connection” filing claim is insuffi discrimination Nevertheless, some See id. at 506. “where cient to inference retaliation” support an elapses employer time when the between own, Cooper City on see N. and the sub Olm protected learns action, sequent employment sted, adverse couple temporal proximity employee must that a one-month have held of retaliatory with other evidence conduct us to “allow[s] difference alone make an causality.” See id. at 505. causation,” inference of see Herrera v. McGee, LLC, 545 Fed.Appx. Churchill put has forth sufficient ev 2013). Therefore, based proximity and other idence *6 alone, temporal proximity Adamov has es retaliatory of meet his conduct to purposes pri- of tablished prima Three tran causation facie burden. weeks of spired complaint showing.5 na ma facie between Adamov’s (Adamov 50) Dep. (Page correctly point nation. at Bank and the dissent See R. U.S. 480) employer proceeds along (observing "my ID # wire out that transfer "[w]hen approved contemplated, by depart- were of AML previously we must not lines head ment, Selenke, three, temporal proximity for the take of the adverse Pete last Mr. years. him employment causality." specifically four I asked action evidence of several as Montell, Appellee’s (quoting Br. times if I not business at should conduct with (internal my quotation family Bank at on the U.S. account. And he marks omitted)). said, long you, 'As we know and we alterations But there is no evidence as know "previously you nothing worry contemplated” Bank have to about. that U.S. You don’t First, bank.”). Second, terminating go Adamov. Burk not rec- have to to another U.S. did policy pointed to no ommend and Hartnack ter- has that would decide fact, justify In minate Adamov until after com- Adamov’s termination. the eth- plained Compare policy applied at R. 50 ics to Adamov the time discrimination. (Adamov 48, 61) #478, provide Dep. (Page grounds at ID does not termination (Saloutos 47) 491), Dep. (Page provision alleg- R. 369 for his with at termination. (Burk behavior, 8)¶ edly proscribes (Page Appel- ID R. 41-2 Decl. ID Adamov’s see # Br, 279). applies to anti-money "employees # It is true that the lant’s at launder- (2006 ing industry,” Policy department investigation securities 108-4 at launched into R. But, 19) 1106), complained. (Page Adamov before Adamov ID # to retail bankers out, Adamov, (Adamov Resume) investigations 50-1 points these such as R. dissent "routine,” 573). Moreover, (Page policy appear see ID the 2006 to be Dissent # at prohibit lending punishment, let See unrelated did not customers. R. alone termi- Yet, 5; the short of time between period Appellee’s lant’s Br. at Br. at does complaint the termination e prohibit Adamov’s lending mon- causation; (2006 is not mail the sole evidence ey to R. Policy customers. See scrutiny 1105). increased Adamov’s behavior at (Page yet, ID # And who were aware those was ostensibly lending terminated for to a R., complaints supports also an inference of (Saloutos Dep. customer. See at First, retaliatory conduct. similar wire (Page ID previously # We have held years prior had been approved transfers of ... “[t]he increased combination issue, Dep. see without R. temporal scrutiny proximity with the (1st #480); R. Def. [three ... sufficient months] is to establish 1065), ID # Interrogs. but it (Page the causal needed to nexus complained of only after dis was prima case,” Hamilton, facie indirectly Moekapetris crimination to 435-36. The nexus is causal knotted even to Hartnack that Bank conducted a tighter this, like cases where the basis (Ada- deeper Compare investigation. scrutiny spurious. increased so 48, 61) (Page ID mov # ¶ 3) (Burk with R. 41-2 Deck C. Pretext 278). Moreover, af than two weeks less if complained Finally, ter Adamov Burk of dis Bank has iden crimination, Wellborn, legitimate, John B. tified a nonretaliatory Chief reason Bank, Security for terminating parties Officer sent her at U.S. dis pute suggests pretext curious e-mail that reason increased whether such ¶¶ (Burk 6-7) scrutiny. Appellant’s Deel. retaliation. See Br. at 21- #278-79). 35; title, 23-28; place, Appellee’s Reply the first Br. at Br. at 6-8) 13-20; (Def.’s “Smoking Gun,” Mot. suggest itself could R. 103 Summ. J. at (PL’s 1025-27); juror Resp. reasonable that U.S. 14-20) searching for a to terminate J. at Adar Def.’s Mot. Summ. mov, which, (Def.’s prox 1051-57); Reply combined Mem. 7-10) imity, give Support to an inference of Mot. Summ. J. at could rise Although v. Gen. Elec. the district causation. Hamilton Second, court did not because address *7 crucially, mysteriously prima-fa- on summary judgment the cites awarded e-mail grounds, may not in cie court policy a 2008 that was effect address is “[t]his ethics during Compare parties appeal the on by 2007 wire transfer. sues raised the (2008 30) #286), (Page explicitly court has not Policy 41-2 at where the district E-mail) (Smoking 50-1 Gun See and R. ruled the issues.” Williams Duke (2006 Int’l, Inc., Policy Energy with 799 R. 108-4 at 18) #1105). Exercising authority, Unlike the 2008 Cir. policy, genuine the which was hold that there are issues mate policy, effect during transfer, the rial Appel- see fact on U.S. Bank’s asserted whether wire (2006 Policy him. See Bank’s decision terminate Clark to 268, 272, Breeden, Cty. “previously Without evidence U.S. Bank U.S. that Sch. Dist. v. (2001) (hold- contemplated” terminating Adamov when it 121 S.Ct. 149 L.Ed.2d $10,000 loan, ing regarding temporal proximity support him the that did interviewed suspicious prima employer the we cannot the facie case where “was discount complaint contemplating before it learned of

proximity between the transfer Adamov's U.S, suit”). interview the discrimination that loan, prior policy introduced of the no was pretext was terminate bank.”). now by Adamov or We either for retaliation. know, filing of the thanks Adamov’s a retalia- making issue The ultimate policy operative policy, that the ethics “pro- employee’s tion claim is whether termination at the time of Adamov’s cause a but-for tected was R. 108-4 proscribe his See behavior.6 employer.” action alleged adverse (2006 (pro ID # Policy Nassar, Applied at 2534. 133 S.Ct. See from borrowing hibiting “from principle dictates pretext prong, them). lending customers” but not that the show both plaintiff must that “a ma genuine is a issue there not the was proffered reason employer’s prof Bank’s fact on terial whether action, for its real reason terminating for fered reason Adamov—the unlawful.” reason was employer’s real $10,000 college loan to friend—was For Co., 782 F.3d at 767. Motor Ford for Ford Motor real reason action. its summary judgment, purposes 767; Co., Upshaw v. Ford 782 F.3d at A reasonable showing: has made such 576, 590 $10,000 loan that the conclude jury could 2009) (holding that there when pretext terminating for real reason not the proffered reasons “two of Ford’s four that, Rather, it could conclude Adamov. terminating typically ... do Upshaw increasingly scrutinized because U.S. Ford’s discipline at any formal warrant shortly ultimately terminated Adamov termination”). plant, let alone Sharonville discrimination, the complained he com- for such real reason was retaliation Second, jury conclude a reasonable could plaints. for terminat- that U.S. real reason Bank’s As ing retaliation. First, jury could conclude Adamov was unlawful a reasonable section, previous three discussed in the not terminate Adamov Bank did to Burk complained friend. weeks after Adamov loaning $10,000 college to his discrimination, Burk rec- national-origin there previously held Although we his termination. See respect to ommended showing of nowas Notes) claim, (July Meeting see Ada discrimination 312); Dep. at mov, 855, nothing in the record E-mail) (Aug. suggested that the review previous on our 992). Hartnack, (Page ID # who knew any from the policy was different discrimination, de- (“Although complained at 853 policy, see id. ^[2008] policy went into effect after the date cided to terminate Adamov eleven days employer burden is on the repeatedly all belief rule. “[a]t ”[T]he stresses that 6. U.S. times, point specific it had at the time prohibited employ- facts that pertinent U.S. Bank See, justify which would loaning money the decision was made to customers.” ees from *8 Clay United proffered in reason.” e.g., Appellee’s at But as discussed belief Br. 27. Serv., Inc., F.3d 714 pointed has to no Parcel 501 supra note U.S. facts, any so to such Similarly, pointed It support in of this claim. has not evidence re- rule to it cannot invoke the honest-belief argues that because it had the U.S. Bank U.S, error compa- quire that Bank’s Adamov to show "honest belief" Adamov violated that any be unintentional.” At required ny policy, to show that was “too obvious "Adamov is rate, jury its could find that decision-making process a reasonable was an U.S. Bank’s unintentional; be Appel- too obvious to mistake was error too obvious to be unintentional.” (internal policy did not exist applied a quotation U.S. Bank marks lee’s Br. at omitted). alleged infrac- when committed misstates U.S. Bank and alterations tion. production under the honest- the burden of (Adamov 60, 65) Dep. later. See at retaliation. we RE- 490, 495). ID (Page temporal prox- # Such judgment VERSE the district court’s and imity complaints between discrimination REMAND for proceedings further consis- termination suspicious” “seems opinion. and tent with this supports an inference of retaliation. See ROGERS, Judge, dissenting. Circuit

Ford F.3d at 767. Moreover, pointed It to evi- is hard to may Adamov has see what U.S. Bank ramped up wrong dence that have done To comply U.S. Bank its scruti- here. ny complaints. of him after his federal anti-money-laundering U.S. Bank and other laws, opened investigation $10,000 an into the Bank regularly U.S. monitors its cus- complained loan after tomers’ bank discrimi- accounts. the course of nation, though approved monitoring, it had such simi- discovered that one of Adamov, previous years employees, Serge lar wire in transfers with- made a had personal customer, out loan to potentially issue. See R. 50 a 491); (1st #480, creating a In response, R. 108-1 conflict of interest. 1065); U.S. Bank an Interrogs. investigation Def. # carried out ¶ 3). (Burk And, However, Decl. the e-mail then terminated Adamov. Ada- mov “Smoking suggest entitled could claims that Gun” retaliated against him, investigators a remark looking for a based on were reason Adamov, during investigation made even if that he terminate be- unsupported being questioned lieved he was because of policy. ethics cited ¶¶ (Burk 6-7) prior a complaint R. 41-2 Deck See discrimination based (2008 Russian/Azerbaijani on his origin. # national Compare Policy 286), This enough and R. 50-1 was not to avoid (Smoking summary E-mail) judgment. Gun with R. 108- (2006 Policy at We First, enough rely it is previously heightened have that such held only month proximity of one be- scrutiny jury would allow reasonable tween complaint Adamov’s and his termi- find but-for causation. See E.E.O.C. Newv. nation, complaint which takes Adamov’s Logistics, Breed department corporate security as his Hamilton, 436-37. protected activity, thereby only counts case; holding Our no is different period protected between his jury should whether U.S. Bank ter- decide in July August termination opposed minated Adamov “because he has 2009. investigation that resulted any practice employ- made unlawful actually began Adamov’s be- termination practice by ment Title VII.” U.S.C. complaint corporate fore 2000e-3(a). § security department, in June 2009. R. 108- employer’s “pro- PagelD An

III. CONCLUSION ceeding along contemplat- previously lines ed, determined, yet definitively though the facts are light When viewed causality.” most no whatever favorable to reasonable (1) Breeden, jury County could Clark District v. conclude there was a School 268, 272, connection causal between discrimina- S.Ct. (2001) curiam); tion see complaints (per L.Ed.2d 509 and U.S. Bank’s decision to *9 (2) Services, Clinical prof- terminate him Bank’s Montell and Diversified Inc., (6th 497, Cir. terminating fered reason for Adamov was “previously not termination was contem corporate security depart- fact that investigation plated.” into an ment Ada- launched banking personal

mov’s and questioned There little additional evidence of is personal him loan to bank about the a purported on relies causation. Adamov ev- of complained before he customer—both scrutiny, of but rec- idence increased discipline that discrimination—shows was support not ord does contention. contemplated,” and “previously least there is no discovery, Even evidence his span thus one-month that the between any Hartnack, of between communication termination can “no complaint and be evi- Saloutos, Mockapetris—Adamov’s and causality.” dence whatever supervisors knew three who about his complaint first It that the discrimination—and is true recommendation and department. fact, In corporate security oc- to terminate Adamov did not decision complaint, computer-gener- that record that a cur shows until after (including sweep ated nothing policy suggested in the ethics that customers’ Ada- mov’s) foregone prompted bank first was a accounts termination conclusion. corporate department security But Court circuit investi- and this Supreme 108-1, 1067, PagelD gate, that a of ac- R. # explicitly have stated course “previously contemplat- supervisors Adamov’s three were no- only only tion be need ed,” “definitively investigation once the un- not determined.” tified well but 272, 1508; 46, #358; 48, Breeden, way, PagelD der R. 532 U.S. 121 S.Ct. 418; 52, Montell, PagelD PagelD fully F.3d at 507. This 641. Fur- case thermore, language sweeps investigations disposed in Breeden these .the appear common. U.S. and Montell. carries out activity comply such with federal anti- Furthermore, if even Adamov’s termi law, 46, money-laundering PagelD see R. “previously not con nation somehow #357-58, unusual banking and Adamov’s templated,” prior investigation should previous prompted had several in- heavily against one- weigh using still a vestigations, including 2005, in December as period temporal month November and December 2008. R. True, unpub held in proximity. we have 108-1, PagelD 1065. the final one-month a difference lished case investigation resulted Adamov’s make alone us to an inference of “allow[s] routine, “increased,” termination was McGee, causation,” Herrera v. Churchill scrutiny. This weak evidence “increased (6th LLC, Fed.Appx. Cir. scrutiny” the flawed evi- does bolster cautioned, again have also But we of temporal proximity. dence against relying again, See, event, proximity e.g., any Hu we indeed Vereecke v. as reasoned alone. Dist., decision, previous ron 400 our Valley School v. U.S. F.3d (6th (6th Ass’n, 2010); Tuttle Bank Nat. F.3d v. Metro. Gov’t Nashville, Cir.2007); not sufficiently has Servs., pretext. put Bank has forth Dep’t Ohio shown Randolph v. Youth Cir.2006). legitimate, non-discriminatory This is an personal especially case on Adamov’s termination: bad decide based Adamov’s customer, just to a temporal proximity, in loan which has as prior because the bank clear, potential clearly vestigation independent per- much forbidden provides termination, if from a customer to cause for sonal loan “create conflict of interest potential between somehow does Admaov’s *10 interests, interests, your the customer’s 108-4, PagelD R.

and those U.S. Bank.” only possible

# 1106. distin- basis for

guishing prior our decision that there was discrepancies no purported is the America, UNITED STATES poli- in U.S. Bank’s and 2008 ethics Plaintiff-Appellee, policy governed cies: The 2006 Ada- mov’s behavior the time of the loan

technically proscribed only “borrowing Neal, SMITH and Shaun Lowrell customers, 1105; 108-4, from” PagelD Defendants-Appellants. it policy 2008 that until the ethics Nos. 16-3380/3406 specifically money proscribed “borrowing (or to) customers,” lending money from Appeals, Court of States United 108-5, PagelD case in # 1132. This is not a Circuit. Sixth parsing of lan- which the close technical Filed March guage Rather, is appropriate. are merely asking whether Adamov has shown proffered

that U.S. Bank’s was not actions, real reason its and the policies very

difference in weak evidence

of such a U.S. Bank met claim. has also its under honest-belief

burden rule

“pointing] specific facts that had

the time the decision was made which justify proffered

would belief Serv., Clay

reason.” See v. United Parcel

Inc., burden).

(stating specific These facts personal

include Adamov’s loan to cus- demonstrating

tomer policies and the legitimately concerned

about the conflicts interest caused

personal loans to and customers. See

U.S. Bank 23-28. Br. I

Accordingly, judg- affirm would

ment the district court.