[ DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 21, 2006
No. 04-12120 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 02-60019-CV-SH
MEGHAN BUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MOTOROLA, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 21, 2006)
ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before DUBINA and PRYOR,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United
States with instructions to reconsider our panel opinion decision, 141 Fed. Appx.
819 (11th Cir. 2005), in the light of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Co.
v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). Bussell v. Motorola, Inc., -- S. Ct. --, 2006 WL
2794976 (2006) (mem). After consideration of the supplemental briefs, we
reinstate our previous decision because it is not affected by Burlington Northern.
In Burlington Northern, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the anti-
retaliation provision of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The Court held that “the
anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those
that are related to employment or occur at the workplace,” and “the provision
covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially
adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant.” 126 S. Ct. at 2409. Neither
holding applies to Bussell’s appeal. The only alleged retaliatory acts of which
Bussell complained were employment related, and the alleged retaliatory acts were
*
Due to the death of Honorable Paul H. Roney, United States Circuit Judge for the
Eleventh Circuit, on 16 September 2006, this decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §
46(d).
2
either not retaliatory or were not acts that “would have been materially adverse to a
reasonable employee.”
OPINION REINSTATED.
3