[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11431 November 29, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00971-CV-CO-W
GEORGE W. HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL JOHANNS,
Secretary United States Department
of Agriculture,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 29, 2006)
Before BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Assuming, without deciding, that Title VII’s analytical framework applies to
retaliation claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), we affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
Under Title VII’s analytical framework, where a plaintiff relies on
circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case of
retaliation. See Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 724–25 (11th Cir. 2004).
The defendant then must rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case by producing a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his action. Id. at 725. If the defendant
articulates such a reason, the burden returns to the plaintiff to establish the reason
offered by the defendant is pretext. Id.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ECOA, a plaintiff
must show: (1) the plaintiff participated in a protected activity; (2) the plaintiff
suffered an adverse credit action; and (3) there is a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse credit action. See Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d
1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1999).
After oral argument and a thorough review of the record, we determine
Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Specifically,
Appellant failed to establish a causal connection between his participation in the
protected activity and the adverse credit action. While Appellee had knowledge of
2
Appellant’s participation in the protected activity, Appellant failed to provide
evidence that his participation in the protected activity and the adverse credit
action were related. See Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th
Cir. 2000) (explaining that to establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show
that the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct and that the
protected activity and the adverse action were at least somewhat related).
Additionally, even if Appellant established a prima facie case of retaliation,
Appellant failed to show the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason offered by
Appellee was pretext. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
AFFIRMED.
3