ÿWPC  i­öØ™ÃñËã¶oóæ ÇOQÃïîžÝN¤-q$ã×ÃÌMÔdÞzýzÎ%N6› pSD  ’5€ü1=É|?ĉ4{« i nI2‚¹¢þ—äÎ5|j?æâÛjËc¶cÕâú^FŸs\ͳÖçªóÄcž¦JmSàqÔ˜pÄ+õ‚_3,ê° L„ñíì¶èØYÎ-A%HâܨM£¨¥ ”Èl|î Q,b}}}ç…l{tÉﹸ¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸¸ BqqqUFŽUFÔU@UFZ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0+X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡ æÝ ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€is€clear€that€the€payment€did€not€emanate€from€theÐ ° ÐPolice€Department's€budget€(and,€therefore,€that€the€Department€didÐ †Ö Ðnot€have€to€shrink€overtime€to€defray€this€cost).€€Chief€JoyceÐ \¬ Ðclaims€that€he€became€aware€of€this€circumstance€only€after€he€hadÐ 2‚ Ðcirculated€the€memorandum.€€Kearney€disputes€this€claim.€€BecauseÐ X Ðwe€assume€the€existence€of€a€retaliatory€animus,€òòseeóó€òòinfraóó€PartÐ Þ. ÐIII,€we€need€not€resolve€this€factual€dispute.(d:2÷›$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ì£*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ½Ý ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMurphy€died€on€October€18,€2000.€€There€has€been€noÐ ° Ðsubstitution€of€a€party€defendant,€òòseeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€25(a);€Fed.Ð †Ö ÐR.€App.€P.€43(a),€and€the€plaintiff€no€longer€presses€his€claimsÐ \¬ Ðagainst€the€decedent.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@OŠ-s e‡z-6Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT GÝ ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKearney€cites€the€letter€in€which€Chief€Joyce€announced€theÐ ° Ðtermination€as€an€indication€that€the€adoption€of€Rutherford'sÐ †Ö Ðrecommendation€was€more€than€a€pro€forma€administrative€action.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€letter€will€not€bear€that€weight.€€Although€its€languageÐ 2‚ Ðsuggests€that€Chief€Joyce€had€little€affection€for€Kearney,€we€haveÐ X  Ðalready€assumed€the€existence€of€such€animosity.€€òòSeeóó€text€òòsupraóó.€Ð ° ÐAt€any€rate,€nothing€about€the€letter€impugns€òòMurphy'sóó€actions.Ð †Ö ÐÌà  àKearney€also€asserts€that€this€letter€was€disseminated€beforeÐ 2‚ Ðhe€was€told€of€his€firing,€and€suggests€that€the€timing€somehowÐ X Ðshows€connivance.€€This€assertion€also€fails,€as€the€summaryÐ Þ. Ðjudgment€record€does€not€support€Kearney's€premise.- ù- ÝÝ ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€this€holding€is€found€in€the€opinion€of€a€four„Ð ° Ðmember€plurality,€three€concurring€Justices€would€have€placed€aÐ †Ö Ðòòlesseróó€burden€on€the€employer.€€Thus,€the€plurality'sÐ \¬ Ðreasonableness€requirement€has€the€force€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€685Ð 2‚ Ð(Souter,€J.,€concurring)€("A€majority€of€the€Court€agrees€thatÐ X Ðemployers€whose€conduct€survives€the€plurality's€reasonablenessÐ Þ. Ðtest€cannot€be€held€constitutionally€liable€.€.€.€.").  qÝ ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBazarewskyò òó ó€later€left€the€Wareham€Police€Department.€€TheÐ ° Ðparticulars€of€his€situation€are€not€relevant€here,€and€we€omit€anyÐ †Ö Ðfurther€mention€of€him. ¿Ý ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€focus€on€the€credibility€of€the€defendants'Ð ° Ðjustification€for€the€adverse€employment€action€mitigates€the€forceÐ †Ö Ðof€Chief€Joyce's€statement€to€Kearney€in€the€exit€interview.€€EvenÐ \¬ Ðif€Kearney€accurately€characterizes€both€the€substance€and€theÐ 2‚ Ðmeaning€of€Chief€Joyce's€comment,€quoted€òòsupraóó€at€7,€the€commentÐ X Ðdoes€not€directly€address€(let€alone€impugn)€the€substance€of€theÐ Þ. Ðproffered€justifications. ¯Ý ƒ÷›$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€*ú*X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKearney's€complaint€invoked€an€FLSA€provision€that€providesÐ ° Ðin€pertinent€part:Ð †Ö ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_ÔI]tÔ_Ô€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€person€.€.€.€toÐ 2‚ Ðdischarge€or€in€any€other€manner€discriminateÐ X Ðagainst€any€employee€because€such€employee€hasÐ Þ. Ðfiled€any€complaint€or€instituted€or€caused€toÐ ´  Ðbe€instituted€any€proceeding€under€or€relatedÐ Š Ú Ðto€this€chapter€.€.€.€.Ð` °` x` x ÐÌ29€U.S.C.€ðð€215(a)(3).€€The€individual€defendants€argued€below€thatÐ  \  Ðthey€were€not€Kearney's€employers€for€purposes€of€the€FLSA.€€TheÐ â 2  Ðdistrict€court€found€it€unnecessary€to€rule€on€this€issue.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸  ÐòòKearneyóó€v.€òòTown€of€Warehamóó,€Civ.€No.€00„10115,€2002€WL€229690,€atÐ ŽÞ  Ð*3€(D.€Mass.€Feb.€1,€2002).€€We€emulate€the€district€court'sÐ d´  Ðexample. dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman .Courier New RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡+°!×°X+XÔÔ‡,°¨°°+°!×ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†,XzoX°,°¨Å#ÔÔ‡,„Ú„X,XzoÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†,XzoX„,„ÚY#ÔÔ#†+XúXX,Xzoä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌNo.€02„1264Ð u Å ÐÌà@xx!ìàSTEPHEN€J.€KEARNEY,ˆÐ ! q ÐÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÐ Í   ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ yÉ  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàTOWN€OF€WAREHAM€ET€AL.,ˆÐ %u  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ Ñ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ b² ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ^ ÐÌà@44ìà[Hon.€George€A.€O'Toole,€Jr.,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ º  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<e` AßÐ f¶ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ K› ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð ÷G ÐÌCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð £ó  ÐÌand€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð O Ÿ" ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ú!` AßÐ û!K$ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòRobert€J.€Murphyóó,€with€whom€òòHolbrook€&€Murphyóó€was€on€brief,Ð à"0& Ðfor€appellant.Ð ¶#' Ðà  àòòJoseph€L.€Tehan,€Jr.óó,€with€whom€òòKatharine€Goree€Doyleóó€andÐ Œ$Ü( ÐòòKopelman€and€Paige,€P.C.óó€were€on€brief,€for€appellees.Ð b%² ) ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ä'4#,ä'4# ‹‹ÐÓ—ÓÐ SIH(˜#- à[â@37599„„‰à[â@‰‹‹SÐÌDecember€10,€2002Ð )n$/ ÐÐ RHCô)D%0" à[â@37599 à[â@ ‹‹RÐÐ(H(˜#1  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€-ú-XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Plaintiff„appellant€Stephen€J.Ð ° ÐKearney,€a€police€officer,€repeatedly€took€issue€with€his€employer,Ð xÈ Ðthe€Town€of€Wareham€(the€Town),€over€the€extent€of€the€Town'sÐ $t Ðobligations€under€the€Fair€Labor€Standards€Act,€29€U.S.C.€ðððð€201„Ð Ð  Ð219€(FLSA).€€He€asserts€that€the€Town€and€its€hierarchs,€angeredÐ | Ì Ðbecause€he€had€prevailed€in€those€disputes,€cashiered€him.€Ð ( x  ÐClaiming€illegal€retaliation,€he€sued€the€Town,€its€chief€executiveÐ Ô$  Ð(Town€Administrator€Joseph€Murphy),€and€two€of€his€quondamÐ €Ð  Ðsuperiors€(Police€Chief€Thomas€Joyce€and€Lieutenant€Arthur€J.Ð ,|  ÐBrightman).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€district€court€disposed€of€the€case€on€theÐ Ø( Ðdefendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòKearneyóó€v.€òòTown€ofÐ „Ô ÐWarehamóó,€Civ.€No.€00„10115,€2002€WL€229690,€at€*4€(D.€Mass.€Feb.€1,Ð 0€ Ð2002).€€Kearney€now€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€judgment:€€the€FLSAÐ Ü, Ðâ âdoes€not€constrain€an€employer€who,€despite€harboring€animosityÐ ˆØ Ðtoward€an€FLSA€suitor,€makes€employment€decisions€on€other€groundsÐ ° Ðð"ð€and€does€so€with€due€deliberation€and€objectivity.Ð \¬ Ðâ âò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ X Ðà ` àWe€glean€the€relevant€facts€from€the€summary€judgmentÐ Ð  Ðrecord,€drawing€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€the€partyÐ | Ì Ðopposing€brevis€disposition€(here,€the€plaintiff).€€òòSeeóó€òòGriggs„RyanóóÐ ( x  Ðv.€òòSmithóó,€904€F.2d€112,€115€(1st€Cir.€1990).Ð Ô$  Ðà ` àWareham,€Massachusetts,€is€a€bucolic€community€knownÐ €Ð  Ðlargely€as€a€gateway€to€Cape€Cod.€€Beginning€in€January€of€1988,Ð ,|  ÐKearney€served€as€a€patrol€officer€and€canine€handler€for€theÐ Ø( ÐWareham€Police€Department.€€As€a€canine€handler,€Kearney€broughtÐ „Ô Ðhis€dog€home€each€evening€and€provided€essential€care.€€The€PoliceÐ 0€ ÐDepartment€did€not€count€the€time€spent€ministering€to€the€animalÐ Ü, Ðas€part€of€Kearney's€40„hour€work€week.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àOn€May€17,€1994,€Kearney€and€Todd€Bazarewsky€(a€similarlyÐ 4„ Ðsituated€canine€handler)€demanded€overtime€compensation€of€up€toÐ à0 Ðthree€hours€per€day€for€this€work.€€They€also€sought€additionalÐ ŒÜ  Ðovertime€for€transporting€the€dogs€to€and€from€the€police€station.€Ð 8!ˆ" ÐWhen€the€Town€rejected€these€entreaties,€the€officers€filed€suitÐ ä"4$ Ðunder€the€FLSA.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€trial€ensued,€and€the€jury€found€in€Kearney'sÐ $à& Ðfavor.€€Its€verdict€eventually€translated€into€an€award€of€$683.84Ð <&Œ!( Ðin€damages,€$2,346.81€in€costs,€and€$34,589.00€in€attorneys'€fees.Ð è'8#* Ðà ` àThe€suit€plainly€left€a€bad€taste€in€the€mouths€ofÐ ° ÐKearney's€superiors.€€After€the€verdict€but€before€the€case€wasÐ \¬ Ðfinally€resolved,€Chief€Joyce€circulated€a€memorandum€entitledÐ X Ð"Mandatory€Overtime€Reduction."€€This€document,€dated€April€17,Ð ´  Ð1997,€anticipated€the€final€judgment€and€warned€that€the€policeÐ ` ° Ðforce€"must€prepare€to€absorb€the€settlement€costs€of€[Kearney's]Ð  \  Ðlawsuit€from€the€Department's€budget."ò òó ó€€The€memorandum€thenÐ ¸  Ðdescribed€the€chief's€plans€to€effectuate€reductions€in€overtimeÐ d´  Ðassignments€to€free€up€the€needed€funds.€€Kearney€claims€that€theÐ `  Ðmoney€used€to€pay€the€judgment€was€not€derived€from€the€PoliceÐ ¼  ÐDepartment's€budget׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€Chief€Joyce's€statements€wereÐ h¸ Ðcalculated€to€pit€Kearney€against€his€fellow€officers€(who€countedÐ d Ðon€overtime€to€supplement€their€income).Ð À Ðà ` àKearney€asserts€that,€as€a€result€of€the€memorandum,€hisÐ l¼ Ðcolleagues€acted€cooly€toward€him.€€Moreover,€his€allegation€(inÐ h Ðthe€course€of€the€litigation)€that€the€Town€had€acted€in€bad€faithÐ Ä Ðrankled,€and€Chief€Joyce,€among€others,€voiced€suspicions€thatÐ pÀ  ÐKearney's€victory€had€been€procured€by€untruthful€testimony.Ð !l" Ðà ` àFrom€and€after€that€point,€Kearney's€supervisors€beganÐ È"$ Ðpaying€particularly€close€attention€to€his€job€performance.€€ThisÐ t$Ä& Ðscrutiny€resulted€in€two€reprimands.€€The€first,€issued€on€May€28,Ð ° Ð1997,€was€for€failure€to€discover€a€break„in€at€a€local€restaurantÐ \¬ Ðduring€a€patrol.€€The€second,€issued€shortly€thereafter,€was€forÐ X Ðfailing€to€clean€his€revolver.€€Kearney€admits€to€the€accuracy€ofÐ ´  Ðthe€facts€on€which€these€reprimands€were€based€but€asserts€(withoutÐ ` ° Ðoffering€specific€examples€to€the€contrary)€that€such€infractionsÐ  \  Ðoften€were€overlooked€when€committed€by€others.€€As€an€addedÐ ¸  Ðslight,€he€was€assigned€what€he€described€as€"the€oldest€and€mostÐ d´  Ðdilapidated"€patrol€car€in€the€Police€Department's€fleet.Ð `  Ðà ` àAt€some€point€in€time€ð"ð€the€record€is€silent€as€to€theÐ ¼  Ðexact€date€ð"ð€Kearney€assumed€the€position€of€shop€steward€for€theÐ h¸ Ðunion€that€represented€the€rank€and€file€members€of€the€WarehamÐ d ÐPolice€Department.€€In€that€capacity,€he€helped€to€bring€two€moreÐ À ÐFLSA€claims€against€the€Town.€€The€first€arose€when€the€PoliceÐ l¼ ÐDepartment€asked€officers€to€remain€available€in€case€theirÐ h Ðservices€might€be€required€during€a€predicted€hurricane.€€KearneyÐ Ä Ðargued€that€officers€deserved€compensation€for€the€time€that€theyÐ pÀ  Ðspent€at€home€awaiting€a€call€to€action.ò òó ó€€The€other€claim€comprisedÐ !l" Ðan€effort€to€secure€compensation€for€police€officers€for€trainingÐ È"$ Ðand€roll„call€time.ò òó ó€€In€each€instance,€municipal€officials€foundÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€claim€to€be€meritorious€and€adjusted€officers'€compensationÐ  &p!( Ðaccordingly.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àNot€long€after€the€last€of€these€claims€was€settled,€aÐ x)È$, Ðseries€of€events€unfolded€that€marked€the€beginning€of€the€end.€Ð $+t&. ÐDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€May€31,€1998,€Kearney,€while€onÐ ° Ðpatrol,€found€a€bag€of€expensive€golf€clubs.€€Although€standardÐ \¬ Ðprocedure€required€officers€to€inventory€lost€property€and€eitherÐ X Ðplace€it€inside€the€evidence€shed€or€ask€a€sergeant€to€secure€itÐ ´  Ðtemporarily,€Kearney€eschewed€these€alternatives.€€Instead,€he€leftÐ ` ° Ðthe€clubs€next€to€the€evidence€shed€(at€the€rear€of€the€stationÐ  \  Ðhouse)€without€either€logging€them€in€or€reporting€that€he€hadÐ ¸  Ðfound€them.€€He€did,€however,€mention€his€discovery€to€a€fellowÐ d´  Ðofficer,€Dennis€Damata.Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€clubs€vanished.€€They€mysteriously€reappeared€twelveÐ ¼  Ðdays€later€(after€their€owner€had€reported€them€lost).€€KearneyÐ h¸ Ðsuspected€that€Damata€had€taken€the€clubs€and€said€as€much.€€WhenÐ d ÐDamata€learned€of€this€aspersion,€he€complained€to€LieutenantÐ À ÐBrightman.€€After€conferring€with€Chief€Joyce,€Brightman€mounted€anÐ l¼ Ðinternal€investigation.Ð h Ðà ` àBrightman€interviewed€several€police€officers€and€theÐ Ä Ðowner€of€the€golf€clubs.€€He€reported€to€Chief€Joyce€that€he€couldÐ pÀ  Ðnot€reach€"a€factual€conclusion."€€He€did,€however,€express€theÐ !l" Ðview€that€some€of€those€interviewed€were€"being€less€than€100%Ð È"$ Ðtruthful"€and€that€criminal€conduct€likely€had€occurred.€Ð t$Ä& ÐEmphasizing€the€disruptive€effect€of€the€incident,€BrightmanÐ  &p!( Ðrecommended€that€the€probe€continue€and€that€the€Police€DepartmentÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âarrange€polygraph€tests€for€Kearney€and€Damata.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àBoth€officers€voluntarily€agreed€to€undergo€polygraphÐ ° Ðâ âexaminations,€which€were€administered€by€an€independent€expert.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€test€results€indicated€that€Damata€was€being€truthful€andÐ X ÐKearney€was€not.€€Chief€Joyce€immediately€placed€Kearney€onÐ ´  Ðadministrative€leave.€€He€then€wrote€to€Murphy€on€September€4,Ð ` ° Ð1998,ò òó ó€requesting€the€convening€of€a€suspension€hearing€to€look€intoÐ  \  ÐKearney's€conduct.€€Acceding€to€this€request,€Murphy€appointedÐ ¸  ÐWarren€J.€Rutherford,€the€Barnstable€Town€Administrator,ò òó ó€as€anÐ d´  Ðindependent€hearing€officer.€€Kearney€did€not€object€to€theÐ `  Ðappointment.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àRutherford€took€testimony€for€four€days€over€a€periodÐ h¸ Ðfrom€September€18€through€October€9,€1998.€€Kearney€and€severalÐ d Ðother€police€officers€were€among€the€witnesses.€€On€October€15,Ð À Ð1998,€Rutherford€issued€a€detailed€report€in€which€he€summarizedÐ l¼ Ðthe€evidence,€found€that€Kearney€had€violated€departmental€rules,Ð h Ðand€adjudged€him€guilty€of€"continued€untruthful€statements€andÐ Ä Ðconduct."€€On€this€basis,€Rutherford€recommended€Kearney'sÐ pÀ  Ðimmediate€discharge.€€Four€days€later,€Murphy€adopted€the€hearingÐ !l" Ðofficer's€recommendation€and€terminated€Kearney's€employment.€€TheÐ È"$ Ðfollowing€day,€Chief€Joyce€announced€Kearney's€termination€in€aÐ t$Ä& Ðletter€to€all€police€personnel,€noting€that€"[e]mployees€who€areÐ  &p!( Ðuntruthful€.€.€.€will€not€be€tolerated."€€At€about€the€same€time,Ð Ì'#* Ðin€what€amounted€to€an€exit€interview,€Chief€Joyce€told€Kearney:€Ð x)È$, Ð"you€may€have€won€the€battle,€but€you€didn't€win€the€war."€€NotÐ $+t&. Ðunreasonably,€Kearney€interpreted€this€as€a€reference€to€hisÐ ° Ðsuccessful€prosecution€of€FLSA€claims.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àKearney€appealed€his€termination€to€the€MassachusettsÐ X ÐCivil€Service€Commission€(the€Commission).€€On€November€22,€1999,Ð ´  Ðthe€Commission€found€Kearney€guilty€of€"conduct€unbecoming€anÐ ` ° Ðofficer"€and€noted€that€his€behavior€had€caused€"dissonance€withinÐ  \  Ðthe€department."€€Withal,€the€Commission€thought€dismissal€tooÐ ¸  Ðsevere€a€sanction€and€reduced€the€penalty€to€a€sixty„dayÐ d´  Ðsuspension.€€The€state€superior€court€affirmed€the€Commission'sÐ `  Ðdecision.€€òòSeeóó€òòWareham€Police€Dep'tóó€v.€òòKearneyóó,€No.€00„0224,€slipÐ ¼  Ðop.€at€7€(Mass.€Super.€Ct.€Nov.€27,€2001).€€Judicial€review€endedÐ h¸ Ðat€that€point.€€The€dismissal€never€actually€took€effect€(althoughÐ d Ðthe€sixty„day€suspension€presumably€has€been€served).Ð À Ðà ` àIn€the€meantime,€Kearney€had€commenced€the€instantÐ l¼ Ðaction.€€After€the€close€of€discovery,€the€defendants€moved€forÐ h Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€district€court,€in€a€thoughtful€rescript,Ð Ä Ðgranted€the€motion.€€òòKearneyóó,€2002€WL€229690,€at€*4.€€This€timelyÐ pÀ  Ðappeal€followed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð !l" Ðò òII.€€THE€SUMMARY€JUDGMENT€STANDARDó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àThe€role€of€summary€judgment€is€"to€pierce€the€pleadingsÐ $à& Ðand€to€assess€the€proof€in€order€to€see€whether€there€is€a€genuineÐ <&Œ!( Ðneed€for€trial."€€òòGarsideóó€v.€òòOsco€Drug,€Inc.óó,€895€F.2d€46,€50€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1990)€(quoting€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€advisory€committee's€note).€Ð \¬ ÐThus,€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€as€long€as€"the€pleadings,Ð X Ðdepositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€and€admissions€on€file,Ð ´  Ðtogether€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuineÐ ` ° Ðissue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitledÐ  \  Ðto€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56(c).€€BecauseÐ ¸  Ðappellate€review€of€orders€granting€or€denying€summary€judgment€isÐ d´  Ðplenary,€òòGarsideóó,€895€F.2d€at€48,€this€court,€like€the€districtÐ `  Ðcourt,€"must€view€the€entire€record€in€the€light€most€hospitable€toÐ ¼  Ðthe€party€opposing€summary€judgment,€indulging€all€reasonableÐ h¸ Ðinferences€in€that€party's€favor."€€òòGriggs„Ryanóó,€904€F.2d€at€115.Ð d Ðà ` àDespite€this€generous€perspective,€summary€judgment€isÐ À Ðnot€a€hollow€threat.€€Creating€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÐ l¼ Ðrequires€hard€proof€rather€than€spongy€rhetoric.€€òòSeeóó€òòMesnickóó€v.Ð h ÐòòGen.€Elec.€Co.óó,€950€F.2d€816,€822€(1st€Cir.€1991)€(explaining€thatÐ Ä Ð"[g]enuine€issues€of€material€fact€are€not€the€stuff€of€an€opposingÐ pÀ  Ðparty's€dreams").€€Thus,€though€the€party€opposing€a€summaryÐ !l" Ðjudgment€motion€enjoys€a€favorable€presumption€for€the€evidence€heÐ È"$ Ðadduces,€that€evidence€must€be€such€that€a€reasonable€factfinderÐ t$Ä& Ðcould€resolve€the€point€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party.€€òòUnitedÐ  &p!( ÐStatesóó€v.€òòOne€Parcel€of€Real€Prop.€(Great€Harbor€Neck,€NewÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âShoreham,€R.I.)óó,€960€F.2d€200,€204€(1st€Cir.€1992).Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àOf€course,€not€every€documented€factual€dispute€willÐ ° Ðâ âavert€the€swing€of€the€summary€judgment€axe.€€To€achieve€that€end,Ð \¬ Ðthe€dispute€must€relate€to€a€òòmaterialóó€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€In€thisÐ X Ðcontext,€"material"€means€that€a€fact€has€the€potential€ofÐ ´  Ðaffecting€the€outcome€of€the€case.€€òòId.óó€€And€as€to€issues€on€whichÐ ` ° Ðthe€nonmoving€party€bears€the€burden€of€proof,€"he€must€presentÐ  \  Ðdefinite,€competent€evidence€to€rebut€the€motion."€€òòId.óóÐ ¸  Ðò òIII.€€ANALYSISó óÐ d´  Ðà ` àWe€note,€at€the€outset,€that€Kearney€appears€to€haveÐ ,|  Ðpresented€only€a€retaliatory€termination€claim€to€the€districtÐ Ø( Ðcourt.€€When€queried€on€this€point€at€oral€argument€in€this€court,Ð „Ô ÐKearney's€counsel€had€little€to€say.€€In€a€subsequent€letter,€òòseeóóÐ 0€ Ð1st€Cir.€R.€28(j),€he€identified€those€parts€of€the€record€that€inÐ Ü, Ðhis€view€reflect€the€assertion€of€additional€claims.€€This€endeavorÐ ˆØ Ðoffers€no€redemption.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àKearney's€complaint€makes€only€a€single€claim€under€theÐ à0 ÐFLSA.€€The€other€cited€materials€chronicle€Chief€Joyce's€memorandumÐ ŒÜ  Ðand€instances€in€which€Kearney€allegedly€received€disparateÐ 8!ˆ" Ðtreatment,€but€these€events€are€mentioned€solely€as€part€of€theÐ ä"4$ Ðfactual€background€of€the€case€(presumably€in€an€effort€to€showÐ $à& Ðanimus).€€Because€they€were€not€channeled€into€a€clearlyÐ <&Œ!( Ðarticulated€claim,€they€have€no€standing€here.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcCoyóó€v.€òòMass.Ð è'8#* Ðâ âInst.€of€Tech.óó,€950€F.2d€13,€22€(1st€Cir.€1991)€(explaining€thatÐ ”)ä$, Ð"theories€not€raised€squarely€in€the€district€court€cannot€beÐ ° Ðsurfaced€for€the€first€time€on€appeal")€(collecting€cases).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àTo€cinch€matters,€Kearney€repeats€this€omission€onÐ X Ðappeal:€€he€makes€no€developed€argument€in€support€of€any€claimÐ ´  Ðapart€from€retaliatory€termination.€€That€is€an€independentlyÐ ` ° Ðsufficient€ground€for€forfeiture€of€other€claims€that€may€beÐ  \  Ðlurking€in€the€penumbra€of€his€briefs.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð ¸  ÐòòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990)€(explaining€that€claimsÐ d´  Ðpresented€on€appeal€in€a€perfunctory€manner,€without€developedÐ `  Ðargumentation,€are€deemed€abandoned).€€Consequently,€we€focusÐ ¼  Ðexclusively€on€the€retaliatory€termination€claim.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThe€defendants€suggest€that€we€evaluate€this€case€underÐ d Ða€burden„shifting€framework.€€òòSeeóó€òòSt.€Mary's€Honor€Ctr.óó€v.€òòHicksóó,Ð À Ð509€U.S.€502,€506„07€(1993);€òòTex.€Dep't€of€Cmty.€Affairsóó€v.Ð l¼ ÐòòBurdineóó,€450€U.S.€248,€252„56€(1981);€òòMcDonnell€Douglas€Corp.óó€v.Ð h ÐòòGreenóó,€411€U.S.€792,€802„05€(1973).€€Because€we€assume,€as€did€theÐ Ä Ðdistrict€court,€that€the€defendants€harbored€a€retaliatory€animus,Ð pÀ  Ðòòseeóó€òòKearneyóó,€2002€WL€229690,€at€*3,€the€burden„shifting€frameworkÐ !l" Ðis€inapposite.€€òòSeeóó€òòCardona€Jimenezóó€v.€òòBancomercio€de€P.R.óó,€174Ð È"$ ÐF.3d€36,€40€(1st€Cir.€1999);€òòFennellóó€v.€òòFirst€Step€Designs,€Ltd.óó,Ð t$Ä& Ð83€F.3d€526,€535€(1st€Cir.€1996).€€Given€the€evidence€of€animus,Ð  &p!( Ðthis€must€be€treated€as€a€mixed„motive€case.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àWe€turn,€then,€toòòóó€the€proper€method€of€analysis€for€suchÐ x)È$, Ðcases.€€To€establish€a€prima€facie€claim€of€retaliatoryÐ $+t&. Ðtermination,€Kearney€must€demonstrate€his€engagement€in€statutorilyÐ ° Ðprotected€activity,€the€fact€of€his€dismissal,€and€a€causalÐ \¬ Ðconnection€between€the€former€and€the€latter.€€òòSeeóó€òòHernandez„TorresóóÐ X Ðv.€òòIntercontinental€Trading,€Inc.óó,€158€F.3d€43,€47€(1st€Cir.€1998);Ð ´  ÐòòBlackieóó€v.€òòMaineóó,€75€F.3d€716,€722€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòHoeppneróó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòCrotched€Mtn.€Rehab.€Ctr.óó,€31€F.3d€9,€14€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€Here,Ð  \  Ðthe€first€two€elements€of€the€prima€facie€case€plainly€are€present:€Ð ¸  ÐKearney's€FLSA€claims€were€protected€by€statute,€òòseeóó€29€U.S.C.€ððÐ d´  Ð215(a)(3),€and€there€is€no€doubt€that€he€was€dismissed€from€hisÐ `  Ðemployment.€€The€case€turns,€then,€on€whether€the€record,€read€inÐ ¼  Ðthe€light€most€favorable€to€Kearney,€suffices€to€support€anÐ h¸ Ðinference€as€to€whether€retaliatory€animus€was€the€"true€reason€orÐ d Ðmotive"€for€his€dismissal.€€òòHoeppneróó,€31€F.3d€at€14.Ð À Ðà ` àKearney€has€not€made€such€a€showing.€€While€his€dismissalÐ l¼ Ðfollowed€closely€upon€the€settlement€of€the€final€FLSA€claim,€thatÐ h Ðfact,€standing€alone,€is€not€enough€to€trigger€an€inference€ofÐ Ä Ðcausation.€€òòBlackieóó,€75€F.3d€at€723.€€More€importantly,€the€recordÐ pÀ  Ðis€pellucid€that€the€defendants€acted€only€after€an€evidentiaryÐ !l" Ðhearing€conducted€in€such€a€way€as€to€assure€Kearney€proceduralÐ È"$ Ðfairness.€€The€capstone€of€this€process€was€a€recommendation€by€anÐ t$Ä& Ðindependent€decisionmaker.€€Kearney€has€wholly€failed€either€toÐ  &p!( Ðdiscredit€this€process€or€to€show€that,€but€for€the€defendants'Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âanimus€toward€him,€the€recommendation€would€have€been€rejected.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àWe€take€the€process€step€by€step.€€As€to€the€internalÐ ° Ðâ âinvestigation,€Kearney€has€presented€no€evidence€suggesting€thatÐ \¬ ÐBrightman's€probe€was€slanted€or€predisposed€against€him€ð"ð€and€theÐ X Ðrecord€suggests€precisely€the€opposite.€€For€aught€that€appears,Ð ´  ÐBrightman€approached€the€investigation€with€an€open€mind€andÐ ` ° Ðrecommended€nothing€more€than€polygraph€tests€for€bothÐ  \  Ðprotagonists.€€Although€Kearney€cites€several€alleged€flaws€inÐ ¸  ÐBrightman's€investigative€technique€(e.g.,€his€failure€to€date€aÐ d´  Ðcertain€report,€tape€record€the€statements€of€some€witnesses,€orÐ `  Ðretain€his€personal€notes),€he€adverts€to€nothing€that€calls€intoÐ ¼  Ðquestion€the€impartiality€of€the€inquiry.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThe€polygraph€tests€comprise€the€next€step.€€Kearney'sÐ d Ðsuggestion€that€the€tests€were€both€improvidently€worded€and€poorlyÐ À Ðadministered€does€not€advance€his€cause.€€The€tests€wereÐ l¼ Ðconstructed€and€administered€by€a€fully€accredited€independentÐ h Ðexaminer€who€employed€the€same€methodology€for€both€protagonists.€Ð Ä ÐOn€this€record,€it€is€surpassingly€difficult€to€fault€theÐ pÀ  Ðdefendants€for€taking€the€polygraph€results€at€face€value.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThis€brings€us€to€the€hearing€itself.€€While€KearneyÐ È"$ Ðintimates€that€it€was€a€kangaroo€court,€he€fails€to€support€hisÐ t$Ä& Ðinvective€with€an€evidentiary€predicate.€€Rhetoric€alone€will€notÐ  &p!( Ðsuffice€to€prevent€summary€judgment,€and,€here,€the€facts€areÐ Ì'#* Ðarrayed€against€Kearney.€€After€all,€he€was€represented€by€counselÐ x)È$, Ðat€the€hearing,€and€the€ground€rules€ensured€him€ample€opportunityÐ $+t&. Ðboth€to€introduce€evidence€and€to€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses.€Ð ° ÐEqually€as€important,€he€has€adduced€no€proof€of€bias€or€partialityÐ \¬ Ðon€the€part€of€the€independent€hearing€officer.€€òòSeeóó€òòKearneyóó,€2002Ð X ÐWL€229690,€at€*3€n.3.Ð ´  Ðà ` àKearney€argues€that€neither€the€hearing€officer€nor€theÐ ` ° Ðunderlying€procedure€deserves€deference€because€Murphy€could€haveÐ  \  Ðappointed€an€arbiter€who€was€not€neutral€(or€even€assumed€the€roleÐ ¸  Ðhimself).€€But€Murphy€did€not€follow€such€a€course€here.€€And€inÐ d´  Ðall€events,€this€argument€is€best€directed€to€the€MassachusettsÐ `  Ðlegislature,€which€prescribed€the€procedures€for€dismissing€civilÐ ¼  Ðservants.€€òòSeeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€Ann.€ch.€31,€ðð€41€(West€2001).€€TheÐ h¸ Ðrecord€reflects€that€the€Town€took€measured€efforts€to€comply€withÐ d ÐMassachusetts€law,€and€Kearney€has€offered€no€evidentiary€supportÐ À Ðfor€the€view€that€Rutherford€(the€designated€hearing€officer)€wasÐ l¼ Ðbiased€or€partial.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€last€step€consists€of€Murphy's€decision€to€accept,Ð Ä Ðand€act€upon,€that€hearing€officer's€recommendation.€€In€thatÐ pÀ  Ðregard,€Kearney€has€offered€nothing€of€probative€weight€to€indicateÐ !l" Ðthat€Murphy's€acceptance€of€Rutherford's€recommendation€was€otherÐ È"$ Ðthan€a€routine€decision€made€in€the€ordinary€course€of€Murphy'sÐ t$Ä& Ðduties.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Moreover,€the€absence€of€any€evidence€that€Murphy€hadÐ  &p!( Ðrejected€independent€hearing€officers'€recommendations€in€the€pastÐ ° Ðundermines€Kearney's€position.€€In€a€mixed„motive€case€for€wrongfulÐ \¬ Ðdischarge,€an€employee€cannot€prevail€unless€he€adduces€someÐ X Ðsignificantly€probative€evidence€that€he€would€not€have€been€firedÐ ´  Ðbut€for€the€proscribed€animus.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòRandlettóó€v.€òòShalalaóó,€118Ð ` ° ÐF.3d€857,€862€(1st€Cir.€1997);€òòHoeppneróó,€31€F.3d€at€14.ò òó ó€€Here,Ð  \  ÐKearney's€termination€was€objectively€justified,€and€Kearney€hasÐ ¸  Ðfailed€to€produce€any€evidence€suggesting€that€the€firing€was€basedÐ d´  Ðon€something€other€than€this€objective€justification.€€Thus,€theÐ `  Ðobjective€justification€ð"ð€the€failed€polygraph€test,€the€hearingÐ ¼  Ðofficer's€findings,€and€the€recommendation€for€dismissal€ð"ð€brokeÐ h¸ Ðthe€causal€link€that€Kearney€sought€to€forge€between€theÐ d Ðdefendants'€animus€and€his€ouster.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€protection€afforded€by€the€FLSA's€anti„retaliationÐ l¼ Ðprovision€is€analogous€to€the€protections€that€the€First€AmendmentÐ h Ðoffers€for€employee€speech.€€Accordingly,€the€conclusion€that€theÐ Ä Ðinvestigation€and€hearing€broke€the€causal€link€is€reinforced€byÐ pÀ  Ðthe€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòWatersóó€v.€òòChurchillóó,€511€U.S.€661Ð !l" Ð(1994).€€The€òòWatersóó€Court€addressed€the€practical€problem€of€how€aÐ È"$ Ðpublic€employer€may€determine€whether€employee€speech€(or€speech„Ð t$Ä& Ðrelated€conduct)€may€be€used€as€a€basis€for€an€adverse€employmentÐ ° Ðaction.€€òòId.óó€at€677„78€(plurality€op.).€€The€Court€held€that€theÐ \¬ Ðemployer€may€rest€such€an€action€on€evidence€produced€in€anÐ X Ðinternal€investigation€so€long€as€the€findings€gleaned€from€theÐ ´  Ðinvestigation€are€facially€reasonable€and€drawn€in€good€faith.€€òòId.óóÐ ` ° Ðat€677.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€holding€strongly€suggests€that€although€the€TownÐ  \  Ðmust€justify€Kearney's€dismissal€by€reference€to€non„retaliatoryÐ ¸  Ðreasons,€those€reasons€may€rest€on€evidence€obtained€from€anÐ d´  Ðinternal€investigation€if€(and€to€the€extent€that)€the€Town'sÐ `  Ðfactual€conclusions€are€facially€reasonable€and€arrived€at€in€goodÐ ¼  Ðfaith.€€The€Town€easily€clears€this€hurdle:€€Lieutenant€Brightman'sÐ h¸ Ðinvestigation,€the€subsequent€polygraph€tests,€and€a€procedurallyÐ d Ðfair€hearing€before€an€independent€decisionmaker€generated€faciallyÐ À Ðreasonable€conclusions€supporting€Kearney's€discharge,€and€there€isÐ l¼ Ðno€significantly€probative€evidence€suggesting€that€bad€faithÐ h Ðsullied€the€investigation,€the€hearing,€the€recommendation,€orÐ Ä ÐMurphy's€acceptance€of€the€recommendation.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àKearney€tries€to€repair€this€broken€causal€link€in€twoÐ !l" Ðways.€€First,€he€points€to€the€Commission's€mitigation€of€hisÐ È"$ Ðfiring.€€We€fail€to€grasp€the€relevance€of€the€Commission'sÐ t$Ä& Ðdetermination.€€The€Town€was€entitled€to€rely€on€the€faciallyÐ ° Ðreasonable€decision€of€the€independent€hearing€officer€while€thatÐ \¬ Ðdecision€was€in€force,€and€the€subsequent€modification€of€thatÐ X Ðdecision€by€a€higher€authority€does€not,€in€and€of€itself,€implyÐ ´  Ðbad€faith.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSinghóó€v.€òòBlue€Cross/Blue€Shield€of€Mass.,Ð ` ° ÐInc.óó,€308€F.3d€25,€41€(1st€Cir.€2002)€(holding€that€the€reversal€ofÐ  \  Ða€peer€review€committee's€recommendation€does€not€indicate€that€theÐ ¸  Ðrecommendation€was€made€in€bad€faith).€€In€all€events,€although€theÐ d´  ÐCommission€reduced€Kearney's€dismissal€to€a€sixty„day€suspension,Ð `  Ðit€agreed€with€the€hearing€officer€that€Kearney's€conduct€wasÐ ¼  Ðunbecoming€an€officer€and€warranted€some€meaningful€form€ofÐ h¸ Ðdiscipline.Ð d Ðà ` àKearney's€second€effort€is€equally€unavailing.€€HeÐ À Ðasserts€that€he€was€hailed€as€a€model€police€officer€before€heÐ l¼ Ðbegan€pursuing€FLSA€claims€and€asseverates€that€the€Town'sÐ h Ðwillingness€to€cashier€him€indicates€that€the€adverse€employmentÐ Ä Ðdecision€was€driven€by€retaliatory€animus.€€Even€if€Kearney'sÐ pÀ  Ðcharacterization€of€his€prior€record€is€accurate,€the€conclusionÐ !l" Ðthat€he€seeks€to€draw€does€not€follow.€€Courts€must€act€with€aÐ È"$ Ðcertain€restraint€when€examining€an€employer's€personnel€decisions.€Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSeeóó€òòMesnickóó,€950€F.2d€at€825€("Courts€may€not€sit€as€superÐ  &p!( Ðpersonnel€departments,€assessing€the€merits€ð"ð€or€even€theÐ Ì'#* Ðrationality€ð"ð€of€employers'€nondiscriminatory€businessÐ x)È$, Ðdecisions.");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòFennellóó,€83€F.3d€at€537€(discounting€aÐ $+t&. Ðplaintiff's€argument€that€her€distinguished€past€performanceÐ ° Ðsuggested€that€her€employer's€nondiscriminatory€justifications€wereÐ \¬ Ðpretextual).€€Our€inquiry€is€not€whether€the€Town's€decision€wasÐ X Ðwise,€but,€rather,€whether€it€violated€the€FLSA's€anti„retaliationÐ ´  Ðprovision.€€On€this€record,€the€defendants'€proffered€justificationÐ ` ° Ðfor€Kearney's€termination€negates€any€conclusion€that€retaliatoryÐ  \  Ðanimus€was€a€driving€force.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àWe€summarize€succinctly.€€Kearney€had€to€proffer€evidenceÐ d´  Ðsufficient€to€ground€an€inference€that€the€defendants'€actions€wereÐ `  Ðnot€based€on€legitimate€justifications,€but,€rather,€that€theirÐ ¼  Ðstated€reasons€for€ousting€him€were€invoked€merely€as€a€pretext.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рh¸ ÐòòSeeóó€òòGrayóó€v.€òòNew€Engl.€Tel.€&€Tel.€Co.óó,€792€F.2d€251,€256€(1st€Cir.Ð d Ð1986).€€Given€the€procedural€safeguards€that€attended€theÐ À Ðevidentiary€hearing,€there€is€no€basis€ð"ð€short€of€sheer€speculationÐ l¼ Ðð"ð€for€a€finding€that€the€defendants€believed€that€accepting,€andÐ h Ðacting€upon,€the€hearing€officer's€recommendation€was€unjustified.€Ð Ä ÐEven€if€we€assume,€as€Kearney€urges,€that€the€defendants€wereÐ pÀ  Ðgratified€by€having€an€opportunity€to€rid€themselves€of€a€gadflyÐ !l" Ðwho€had€demonstrated€a€penchant€for€using€the€FLSA€as€a€swordÐ È"$ Ðagainst€them,€that€is€not€enough€to€ground€a€retaliation€claim.€Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSeeóó€òòChampagneóó€v.€òòServistar€Corp.óó,€138€F.3d€7,€13€(1st€Cir.€1998)Ð ° Ð(holding€that€the€existence€of€a€retaliatory€motive€cannot€overcomeÐ \¬ Ða€showing€that€an€employee's€dismissal€resulted€from€a€plainlyÐ X Ðneutral€test,€applied€even„handedly);€òòDeNovellisóó€v.€òòShalalaóó,€135Ð ´  ÐF.3d€58,€66€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(denying€relief€to€an€employee€despiteÐ ` ° Ða€showing€of€personal€animosity€because€the€"animus€did€not€causeÐ  \  Ð[the€employee]€to€be€treated€any€differently€than€her€similarlyÐ ¸  Ðsituated€co„workers");€ò òó óòòcf.óó€òòBlackieóó,€75€F.3d€at€723„24€(explainingÐ d´  Ðthat€an€employee,€"by€engaging€in€a€protected€activity€[under€theÐ `  ÐFLSA],€.€.€.€does€not€acquire€immunity"€from€the€same€discipline€toÐ ¼  Ðwhich€his€co„workers€are€subject).€€In€short,€Kearney€had€to€adduceÐ h¸ Ðsome€significantly€probative€evidence€that€the€defendants'Ð d Ðretaliatory€animus€played€a€materially€causal€role€in€theÐ À Ðtermination€of€his€employment.€€He€did€not€do€so.Ð l¼ Ðò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ h Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€For€the€reasons€discussed€above,Ð à0 Ðwe€conclude€that€the€district€court€did€not€err€in€entering€summaryÐ ŒÜ  Ðjudgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐÌòòò òAffirmedóó.ó ó