Zsolt Lagler v. Health First, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 05-13956 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 14, 2006 ________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00789 CV-ORL-18-KRS ZSOLT LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HEALTH FIRST, INC., HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (June 14, 2006) Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY*, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: __________________ *Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. After oral argument and careful consideration, and for the reasons explored at oral argument, we readily conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Especially in light of the plaintiff’s own personal notes (which are merely the strongest of extensive evidence supporting the reasonableness of the perception of all five of defendants’ decision makers), plaintiff has altogether failed to create genuine issues of material fact. In this regard, we note that plaintiff’s personal notes were apparently recorded contemporaneously with or shortly after the relevant events. On this record, we cannot conclude that a reasonable jury could find that retaliation against plaintiff was a motivating factor for the employment decision.1 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 In light of our holding, we need not decide whether Desert Palace v. Costner, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (2003), applies in the mixed motive retaliation context. Moreover, we note that plaintiff failed to present the case to the district court as a mixed motive case, but, in light of our disposition, we need not address whether or not the issue should be considered preserved. 2