Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15574
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00567-RS-CAS
CYNTHIA TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BOB INZER,
in his official capacity as Leon County Clerk of the Court
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 4, 2013)
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 2 of 8
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Cynthia Turner, a black woman, appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of her employer, the Leon County Clerk of the
Court, on her claims of whistleblower retaliation, in violation of Fla. Stat.
§ 112.3187, and gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3. Turner
alleges that her employer initially suspended her, transferred her to a less desirable
position within the Clerk’s Office, and placed her on probation because of her race
and because she made protected disclosures under the Florida Whistleblower’s Act
(“FWA”). She further alleges that her employer ultimately fired her in retaliation
for her FWA disclosures and a charge of racial discrimination that she filed with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Turner contends that the district
court erred in finding that she failed to: (1) identify any disclosures protected under
the FWA; (2) identify proper comparators; (3) consider circumstantial evidence of
racial hostility; and (4) show that her employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory
and non-retaliatory reasons for her suspension, transfer, and termination were
pretextual. Turner also contends that the district court erred because it did not
analyze her Title VII retaliation claim.
2
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 3 of 8
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and all
evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty.,
Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1161‒62 (11th Cir. 2006); Wascura v. City of South Miami,
257 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate if the
evidence demonstrates 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. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if, under the applicable substantive law, it
might affect the outcome of the case.” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc.,
357 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004). The moving party must make enough of a
showing that a jury could reasonably find for that party, and a mere “scintilla” of
evidence supporting its position will not suffice. Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1162. The
non-moving party, meanwhile, must make a sufficient showing on each essential
element of his case for which he has the burden of proof. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986).
The FWA provides that an agency may not dismiss or discipline an
employee for disclosing “[a]ny violation or suspected violation of any . . . local
law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency” or
“[a]ny act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance . . .
.” Fla. Stat. § 112.3187(4), (5), (7). The FWA protects disclosures presented “in a
3
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 4 of 8
written and signed complaint,” as well as disclosure made by persons “who are
requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry conducted by
any agency or federal government entity.” Fla. Stat. § 112.3187(7).
We have approved a district court’s application of a Title VII retaliation
analysis to a claim of retaliatory discharge under the FWA. See Sierminski v.
Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950‒51 (11th Cir. 2000). In order to
establish a prima facie showing of retaliation under Title VII, a claimant must
show that: (1) she engaged in an activity protected under Title VII, (2) she suffered
an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action. McCann v. Tillman, 526
F.3d 1370, 1375 (11th Cir. 2008). Once a claimant has made a prima facie
showing, the employer may present legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the
employment action in question. Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262,
1266 (11th Cir. 2001). The claimant then bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the reasons given by the employer were
pretextual. Id.
Where pretext is an issue, the question that the factfinder must answer is
whether the employer’s proffered reasons were “a coverup for a . . . discriminatory
decision.” Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 805‒06, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1826
4
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 5 of 8
(1973)); see also Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354,
1361 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that this court is “not in the business of adjudging
whether employment decisions are prudent or fair. Instead, [its] sole concern is
whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a challenged employment
decision”). We must, considering all of the evidence, ascertain whether the
plaintiff has cast doubt on the defendant’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons
sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to determine that the defendant’s
proffered “legitimate reasons were not what actually motivated its conduct.”
Silvera v Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253, 1258 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we must evaluate whether the plaintiff has
demonstrated “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or
contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a
reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.” Combs v. Plantation
Patterns, Meadowcraft, Inc., 106 F.3d 1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any
individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To establish a prima facie case of disparate
treatment, a plaintiff may show that “(1) she is a member of a group protected by
5
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 6 of 8
Title VII; (2) she was qualified for the position or benefit sought; (3) she suffered
an adverse effect on her employment; and (4) she suffered from a differential
application of work or disciplinary rules.” Spivey v. Beverly Enters., Inc., 196 F.3d
1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999). “Evidence that similarly situated employees are
disciplined more leniently is admissible to support a disparate treatment claim
when the plaintiff has established that the co-employees are in fact similarly
situated.” Anderson v. WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561, 564 (11th Cir. 2001). Thus, the
plaintiff should show that the comparator employees are “involved in or accused of
the same or similar conduct,” yet are disciplined in a different, more favorable
manner. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above “framework is not, however, the only way to use circumstantial
evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment, and a plaintiff’s failure to
produce a comparator does not necessarily doom his case.” Chapter 7 Tr. v. Gate
Gourmet, Inc., 683 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). “Rather, the plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if
he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the
employer’s discriminatory intent.” Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d
1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011). “A triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in
a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of
6
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 7 of 8
circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination
by the decisionmaker.” Id. (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts
to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action
taken, which rebuts the presumption of discrimination. Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1162.
So long as the employer articulates a clear and reasonably specific non-
discriminatory basis for its actions, it has discharged its burden of production, the
inference of discrimination drops out of the case entirely, and the plaintiff has the
opportunity to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reasons
were pretextual. St. Mary’s Honor Cent. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S. Ct.
2742, 2749 (1993). Where an employer’s proffered reason for termination is the
violation of a workplace rule, this court has held that explanation to be “arguably
pretextual” when a plaintiff can submit evidence that: (1) “she did not violate the
cited work rule;” or (2) “if she did violate the rule, other employees outside the
protected class, who engaged in similar acts, were not similarly treated.” Damon,
196 F.3d at 1363.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Turner made out prima facie cases of
retaliation under the FWA and racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII,
we conclude from the record that she failed to produce evidence that her
employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for her
7
Case: 12-15574 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 8 of 8
suspension, transfer, and termination were pretextual. The Clerk stated that he
suspended and transferred Turner for insubordination. He further stated that
Turner was terminated for poor work performance. Turner produced no evidence
to rebut the Clerk’s proffered reasons for her suspension, transfer, and termination.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Clerk
on all counts.
AFFIRMED.
8