appropriate. Finally, even if we overlook Voltz’s failure to appeal his wage loss claim in his opening brief and his attempt to incorporate arguments by reference, his appeal would still fail because he references arguments that state grounds for affirming, rather then reversing the district court — as would be expected of arguments made by the defendant. Appellee Response Br. at 29-32. Therefore, in this appeal, we consider only the propriety of the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Coca-Cola on Voltz’s disparate treatment and disparate impact claims arising from his failure to be promoted in 1996 and 1998. 2 . The McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework is applicable only in considering summary judgment. Fallis v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 944 F.2d 743, 744 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Coca-Cola submitted a letter under Fed.
holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action holding that once there has been a full trial on the merits the mcdonnell douglas frame work drops out and there remains only a single overarching issue of whether the adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff because of his or her protected status holding that because the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and took the position that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course and scope of hernandezs employment there was no conclusion on the merits holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force holding the third element of the test requires a plaintiff to show that his or her protected activity was a butfor cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer