[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-13430 FEBRUARY 24, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00418-CV-4-RH-WCS
FELTON N. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
APALACHEE CENTER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 24, 2009)
Before DUBINA, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Felton Williams, an African-American male, appeals the district
court’s grant of defendant Apalachee Center, Inc.’s (“Apalachee”) motion for
summary judgment as to his complaint alleging retaliation, in violation of Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat.
§ 760.10(1)(a), (7) (“FCRA”).1 Williams argues that the district court erred in
granting Apalachee’s motion for summary judgment because he showed that he
had suffered an adverse employment action and that Apalachee’s proffered reasons
for its actions were pretextual.
We review the district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo. Rojas
v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2002). The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, “show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “When deciding whether summary
judgment is appropriate, all evidence and reasonable factual inferences drawn
therefrom are reviewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Rojas,
285 F.3d at 1341-42 (quotation omitted).
1
Although Williams’s complaint also included claims for race and gender discrimination,
he does not challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Apalachee as to
these claims on appeal. Accordingly, we do not discuss these claims because Williams has
abandoned these arguments by failing to raise them in his initial brief. Rioux v. City of Atlanta,
Ga., 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 n. 4 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
We typically apply legal standards developed in Title VII and FCRA cases
interchangeably. Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th
Cir. 1998). Under Title VII, an employer may not retaliate against an employee
because the employee “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment
practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). “To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in statutorily
protected expression; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there
was some causal relation between the two events.” Pennington v. City of
Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). “Once a
plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the employer then has an opportunity to
articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged employment
action.” Id. If the employer accomplishes this, the plaintiff bears the ultimate
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason provided by
the employer is a pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct. Id. Considering all of
the evidence, we must ascertain whether the plaintiff has cast doubt on the
defendant’s proffered reasons sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to
determine that the proffered reasons are not what actually motivated the
3
employer’s conduct. Silvera v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253, 1258
(11th Cir. 2001).
In order to constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of
establishing a prima facie case under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, the
action must be materially adverse from the standpoint of a reasonable employee,
such that it would dissuade a reasonable employee from making a discrimination
charge. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57, 126 S.
Ct. 2405, 2409, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006). Although we will look to the “totality
of the alleged reprisals,” we will “consider only those that are truly adverse.”
Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 434 F.3d 1227, 1234 (11th Cir.
2006) (quotations omitted).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Williams as the non-moving
party, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in
favor of Apalachee because Williams failed to create a genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether: (1) he suffered an adverse employment action, and
(2) Apalachee’s proffered reason for its actions was pretextual. Accordingly, we
affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Apalachee.
AFFIRMED.
4