l from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and Judges BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:
This appeal arises from JoAnne Nastis claims against CIBA SpecialtyChemicals Corporation
for sex discrimination and defamation. Nasti appeals the district courts summary judgment ruling for
CIBA. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Nasti began her employment with Ciba in 1997. In 2002, Nasti accepted the position of Global
Account Executive and became the manager of Cibas Dow Global account, a position Ciba classified
as Grade 11. At that time, Nasti was designated at Grade 10. Ciba management informed Nasti 2
that her personnel ranking would remain at Grade 10 until she demonstrated her ability to fulfill the
requirements of the position and manage a Grade 11 account.
In 2003, Nasti communicated with Stephan Bocken, President of Cibas Paper Division in
Switzerland, who expressed an interest in discussing a possible position for Nasti in his division. In
October 2003, Nasti met with David Almond, a sales director who reported to Bocken, to discuss
a potential sales manager position. Nasti indicates that she was later informed by Bocken and Almond
that they had been told that she was on a performance improvement plan and was untouchable in
the company.
Ciba concedes that Nasti met with Almond to discuss a possible position in Bockens division;
however, Ciba asserts that the position for which Nasti interviewed had not yet been approved for
recruitment and ultimately never developed into an opening. Rather, Almonds segment decided to
assign the duties that would have been performed by the new manager to existing account managers
and then used the opening to replace a different key role in the division that Nasti was not qualified
to hold.
Also in 2003, Nasti agreed to assist with Bostik Findley, one of Cibas smaller clients, after
a Ciba competitor offered the Bostik Findley facility in Milwaukee a low price on a product. In
August 2003, Nasti visited Bostik Findleys Milwaukee facility with Chris Fagouri, the Ciba
representative who was the primary contact for the Bostik Findley account. Nasti combined this trip
to Bostik Findley with a personal trip to see her daughter in South Bend, Indiana, which Nasti had
already scheduled. To accommodate the need for the meeting, Nasti adjusted her return flight so that
she would be able to meet with Bostik Findley representatives on Monday, August 25, 2003. Nasti
used her personal frequent flyer miles for the trip, and Ciba incurred no expense for Nastis airfare, 3
despite the fact that Nasti was entitled to charge the tickets to Ciba under company policy. At the
August 25 meeting, Nasti and Fagouri met with Bostik Findley representatives Barb Brown, Gary
Delzell, and Gary Wilkes, who agreed to consider a Ciba product that could match the pricing offered
by Cibas competitor.
Nasti then scheduled a follow-up visit in Milwaukee with Barb Brown for September 22,
2003. Due to Chicagos close proximity to Milwaukee, Nasti booked a non-refundable ticket for the
trip through Chicago. A week later, Nasti learned that Gary Delzel had replaced Brown in her
purchasing role at Bostik Findley. On September 19, Nasti departed for Chicago and called Gary
Delzel from the airport to confirm the Monday meeting. Nasti discovered that Brown had not
informed Delzel of the meeting; however, because she had booked a non-refundable ticket, she
decided to make the trip and planned to meet with Bostik Findleys technical personnel who would
be evaluating Cibas product. Upon arriving in Chicago, Nasti drove to South Bend, Indiana, to see
her daughter and brother. Nasti testified that it was a routine practice and allowable at Ciba to
combine business and personal matters while traveling, especially over a weekend.
On Saturday, September 20, Nasti learned that she would be able to schedule an urgent
meeting for her major ExxonMobil account on September 25, 2003. Nasti therefore decided to return
to her office in Houston on Monday, September 22 without visiting the Bostik Findley facility, so that
she could begin planning for the ExxonMobil meeting. On September 22, Nasti flew to Houston and
went directly to her office, where she participated in conference calls with Becherer and others
regarding the ExxonMobil account.
Nasti submitted expense reports seeking reimbursement for two trips to Bostik Findley, one
in August and one in September. For the September trip, Nasti sought reimbursement for her rental 4
car, dinner, tolls, and airport parking, for a total of $270.00. In November 2003, Becherer asked
Nasti to explain the expenses and to submit call reports, which are documents detailing client
meetings, as Cibas protocol required. Nasti forwarded to Becherer a call report for the August trip,
which she had previously submitted to him. Nasti also submitted to Becherer a call report detailing
the second trip in September. This call report indicated that Nasti had scheduled this meeting with
Gary Wilkes to discuss and close. The call report then stated that Gary began the meeting . . . . He
asked why we hadnt yet provided a sample and I showed him the shipping documentation. He
excused himself from the table and returned with the sample in his hand. He had found it on Barbs
desk.
Nasti testified in her affidavit that Becherer was familiar with her need to abandon the
September Bostik Findley trip in order to return to Houston to plan for the ExxonMobil meeting, as
Becherer had participated in the conference calls with her on September 22. Nasti assumed that
Becherer needed her to satisfy internal auditing standards for the rental car expense and wrote the call
report with this in mind. Nasti alleges that she had no intention of deceiving anyone and wrote the
call report to memorialize what took place during the telephone calls that had substituted for her
intended visit to the Bostik Findley facility. Nasti also maintains that the charges for which she had
sought reimbursement were legitimate business expenses.
Becherer testified by affidavit that he found Nastis call report for the September trip
troubling. Nasti had submitted the report only after he asked her to document expenses that she had
already turned in for reimbursement. Becherer had also instructed Nasti to make only one visit to the
Bostik Findley facility in Milwaukee and thereafter to handle the account from Houston. Finally, 5
Becherer felt that the report lacked meat and failed to show why another visit to Bostik Findleys
Milwaukee facility was necessary. Becherer wondered whether the trip had actually occurred.
By this time in late 2003, Cibas management had begun discussing whether or not Nasti had
a future at Ciba. Nastis managers felt that while Nasti had strong business skills, she had also
demonstrated sufficient deficiencies in key areas such as team-building, counseling employees,
listening to peers, enlisting support, and providing feedback. Around the Thanksgiving holiday,
Nastis various managers, with input from Cibas Human Resources group, decided to terminate
Nasti for these performance reasons. The group chose not to discharge Nasti prior to the holidays,
but rather to wait until January 2004.
Between the time when Ciba management decided to terminate Nasti in late November
2003 and efforts to arrange a meeting with Nasti in January 2004, Becherer followed up on the call
report Nasti had previously submitted for the September trip to the Bostik Findley facility. After
Becherer contacted Bostik Findley and learned that the September meeting had not taken place,
Becherer discussed Nastis call report with his supervisor, Bill Baker, and Human Resources manager
Gregory Policastro. Becherer, Baker, and Policastro concluded that Nasti had submitted a false call
report. Because they believed that Nastis call report overshadowed the existing issues concerning
her performance, they decided to terminate Nastis employment for the allegedly false call report and
the submission of expenses in connection with the call report.
Because Nasti had taken a disability leave of absence in early January 2004, Policastro and
Becherer informed Nasti of her termination in a telephone call, which took place on January 20, 2004,
and in which her husband, Gary Nasti, participated. Policastro testified that when first asked about
the second Bostik Findley trip in September 2003, Nasti maintained that she had attended this second 6
meeting at the customers location. After Becherer told Nasti that he had contacted Bostik Findley
and learned that the second meeting did not take place, Nasti explained that she had cancelled the trip
in light of the ExxonMobil meeting and that her call report described the telephone calls that took
place in lieu of the meeting.
Nasti subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal district court, contending that Ciba discriminated
against her on the basis of her gender and terminated her in violation of the FMLA. In her Second
Amended Complaint, Nasti added a claim against Ciba for defamation. After a hearing, the district
court granted summary judgment for CIBA. Nasti appeals the district courts rulings on her gender
discrimination and defamation claims.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The applicable standard of review is de novo. See Urbano v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 138
F.3d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is proper if the evidence shows that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206, 210 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). The Court views
all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonab