Case: 13-11378 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11378
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00208-LGW-JEG
ROBERT D. REEVE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 9, 2013)
Before DUBINA, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-11378 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Robert Reeve appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), in his employment retaliation action
filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-16. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. 1
In his complaint, Reeve alleged that DHS terminated improperly his
temporary duty assignment (“TDY”) as a firearms instructor for Customs and
Border Patrol (“CBP”) in retaliation for his participating in a protected mediation
on behalf of another DHS employee, Kathy Korte. Korte had accused Walter
Koran -- the Firearms Division Chief who ultimately terminated Reeve’s TDY --
of discrimination. During the pertinent mediation session, Koran became visibly
angry with Reeve when Reeve challenged Koran’s conduct as inappropriate.
About three weeks after the mediation session, Reeve received a negative
evaluation from his direct supervisor, John Huggins. Reeve contends that Koran
was responsible for the poor evaluation.
The next day, Reeve was involved in a physical confrontation with a fellow
instructor, Greg Murphy. Reeve alleges that Huggins intentionally incited Murphy
1
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Thomas v. Cooper
Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). And we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
2
Case: 13-11378 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 3 of 5
to become aggressive toward Reeve. A few days after the confrontation with
Murphy, Koran terminated Reeve’s TDY.
Briefly stated, the district court concluded that, although Reeve had
established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to rebut DHS’s legitimate,
non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse employment action. 2
Although the precise language used to articulate DHS’s reasons for Reeve’s
termination differed some between Koran’s 2009 written statement and Koran’s
2012 deposition, the record demonstrates that the reasons given have remained
consistent. DHS proffered six legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating
Reeve’s TDY: (1) Reeve’s receipt of negative student evaluations; (2) the
continuing animosity between Reeve and Murphy, including Reeve’s undermining
of Murphy in the classroom; (3) that Reeve’s written report about his confrontation
with Murphy could not be substantiated; (4) Reeve’s failure to comply with CBP
policy about the placement of magazine pouches; (5) Reeve’s negative reaction to
2
Because Reeve’s claim is based on circumstantial evidence, the burden-shifting framework
established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973), applies. Under this
framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, which creates a presumption of
unlawful discrimination against the employee. The employer may then rebut that presumption
with legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse employment acts. The employee must
then proffer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant’s
articulated reasons are pretextual. See Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 976 (11th Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff must show both that the employer’s stated reasons were false and that
discrimination or retaliation was the real reason for the action. See Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of
Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006).
3
Case: 13-11378 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 4 of 5
Huggins’s performance evaluation; and (6) Reeve’s attitude that a conspiracy
existed against him.
Reeve argues that, because Koran based his decision on the “culmination” of
all six reasons, Reeve can avoid summary judgment by demonstrating that even
one of DHS’s reasons was pretextual. We need not consider Reeve’s
“culmination” argument because Reeve has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that
even one of DHS’s reasons was pretext for retaliation.
Even assuming that a supervisor told Reeve that the student complaints were
unfounded, Koran was still permitted to consider the student complaints in making
his termination decision. An employer may take an adverse action “for a good
reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as
long as its action is not for a [retaliatory] reason.” Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall
Commc’ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. 1984).
The record evidences that Koran believed, based on his investigation of
Reeve’s confrontation with Murphy, that continuing animosity existed between
Reeve and Murphy and that Reeve had been undermining Murphy’s teaching.
Reeve denies that he and Murphy had a hostile relationship before the physical
confrontation at issue in this case, but the record reflects that the two men had had
an ongoing dispute for several months about the proper placement of magazine
pouches. In any event, even if Koran’s belief about Reeve and Murphy’s
4
Case: 13-11378 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 5 of 5
relationship was erroneous, Koran was entitled to rely on his belief in making his
termination decision. See id. Reeve has also failed to present evidence showing
that Koran’s investigation was unreasonable or that Koran did not in fact rely on
his determination that Reeve’s written statement about the incident could not be
substantiated.
About DHS’s other reasons, nothing evidences that Reeve complied with
CBP policy or that Koran knew that he complied with CBP policy. And Reeve
does not dispute that he responded poorly to Huggins’s performance evaluation or
that he had asserted that others had conspired against him.
Reeve has failed to demonstrate either that DHS’s legitimate, non-retaliatory
reasons for terminating his TDY were false or that retaliation was the real reason
for his termination. See Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1163. We affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
5