Case: 13-15348 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15348
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61537-WPD
EDUARDO FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 28, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-15348 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Eduardo Flores, a Hispanic American male and a former full-time professor
at DeVry University, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of DeVry University, in his civil rights suit alleging retaliation in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1981. Flores’s suit sprung up from an e-mail complaint he sent to one
DeVry official (a statement alleging racist conduct on the part of DeVry) and from
his subsequent firing (allegedly for working simultaneously at a competing
institution contrary to University policy). On appeal, Flores expressly argues that
the district court erred in granting DeVry’s motion for summary judgment because
he established a prima facie claim for retaliation; we suppose he implicitly
challenges the court’s determination that he did not show pretext.
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Moton v.
Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). In doing so, we draw all inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. “[I]f the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law,” then summary judgment is appropriate. Id.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, “[a]ll persons ... shall have the same right ... to
make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens,” which in an
employment context means protection against discrimination based on race and
2
Case: 13-15348 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 3 of 5
color. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Section 1981 protects individuals who seek to
enforce their rights thereunder from retaliation. See CBOCS West, Inc. v.
Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 457, 128 S.Ct. 1951, 1961, 170 L.Ed.2d 864 (2008)
(retaliation claims permitted under § 1981); Andrews v. Lakeshore Rehab. Hosp.,
140 F.3d 1405, 1411–13 (11th Cir. 1998) (same).
Absent direct evidence, when analyzing claims for retaliation brought under
§ 1981, we employ the analytical framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Bryant v.
Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009). Under this framework, a plaintiff
alleging retaliation may establish a prima facie case by showing, among other
things, that a causal link exists between a protected activity he engaged in and an
adverse act, such as a firing. Id. 1307-08.
If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation and the defendant
articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse act, the plaintiff
must then demonstrate that the defendant’s proffered reason was merely a pretext
to mask retaliatory acts. See id. at 1308.
To create a genuine issue about a causal connection, the plaintiff has to show
(1) “that the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct” and (2) “that
the protected activity and the adverse actions were not wholly unrelated.” See
Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 2002) .
3
Case: 13-15348 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 4 of 5
Actual knowledge is required. Furthermore, “temporal proximity [between the
employee’s protected conduct and the adverse employment action] alone is
insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to causal connection where there is
unrebutted evidence that the decision[-]maker did not have knowledge that the
employee engaged in protected conduct.” Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc.,
231 F.3d 791, 799 (11th Cir. 2000).
To establish that a defendant’s explanation was pretextual, the plaintiff may
point to “concrete evidence in the form of specific facts which show[ ] that the
defendant’s proffered reason was mere pretext[;] [m]ere conclusory allegations and
assertions [do] not suffice.” Bryant, 575 F.3d at 1308 (alterations omitted). We
must evaluate whether the plaintiff’s evidence has demonstrated “such weaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions in the employer’s
proffered legitimate reasons for its actions that a reasonable factfinder could find
them unworthy of credence.” Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763,
771 (11th Cir. 2005) .
A reason is pretextual if it is false and the true reason is impermissible. St.
Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2752, 125 L.Ed.2d
407 (1993). “The plaintiff must meet the reason proffered [by his employer] head
on and rebut it.” Crawford v. City of Fairburn, Ga., 482 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2007) .
4
Case: 13-15348 Date Filed: 07/28/2014 Page: 5 of 5
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we see no
reversible error.
On this record, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in
favor of DeVry. Flores failed to establish a prima facie claim for retaliation
because the evidence indicated that the decision-makers (Spano and Padron) for his
termination were not aware of the racism complaint he had sent to another DeVry
official. Furthermore, Flores failed to show that DeVry’s reason for firing him was
pretextual: DeVry had a policy against full-time professors teaching at competing
institutions, and it was undisputed that Flores violated this policy. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
5