[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 18, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-12419
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00536-CV-T-27MAP
LEOLA RUTLEDGE,
a.k.a. Miki,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUNTRUST BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 18, 2008)
Before DUBINA, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Leola Rutledge, a former employee of SunTrust Bank
(“SunTrust”), appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of SunTrust on her retaliation employment claim based on violation of
Florida’s Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 448.101-448-105. Rutledge contends
that she was constructively discharged or suffered adverse employment actions and
conditions after she refused to participate in conduct which violated banking
regulations and SunTrust policies.
“We review a district court order granting summary judgment de novo, and
view all of the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, and draw all inferences in her favor.” Frederick v Sprint/United Mgt. Co.,
246 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). We liberally construe pro se pleadings and
briefs. Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Further, we may
affirm a district court’s judgment on any legal ground, regardless of the grounds
relied upon by the district court. Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230,
1235-36 (11th Cir. 2004).
Summary judgment is proper “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 moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Generally, a party
2
moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue
of fact. Eberhardt v. Waters, 901 F.2d 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990). The party
opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or
denials of her pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. Id.
In Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950-51 (11th Cir.
2000), we held that the summary judgment analysis for a Title VII retaliation claim
should be applied to a claim of retaliatory discharge under the Florida
Whistleblower Act. When considering a motion for summary judgment based on
Title VII which involves circumstantial evidence, we analyze the case using the
shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,
93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff bears the initial
burden of presenting sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to determine
that he has satisfied the elements of his prima facie case. 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.
Ct. at 1824. If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the defendant
to articulate a legitimate reason for the employment action. Id. If articulated, the
plaintiff must show that the defendant’s reason was pretextual. Id. at 802-03, 93 S.
Ct. at 1824-25.
The employer’s articulated reason is legitimate as long as it is honestly and
3
reasonably held. Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir.
1991). A plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, without more, are insufficient to show
pretext. Mayfield v. Patterson Pump Co., 101 F.3d 1371, 1376 (11th Cir.1996).
The Florida Whistleblower Act provides, in pertinent part:
An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an
employee because the employee has:
(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.
Fla. Stat. § 448.102. The legislative purpose is to "protect private employees who
report or refuse to assist employers who violate laws enacted to protect the public."
Jenkins v. Golf Channel, 714 So. 2d 558, 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). In order
to raise a successful claim of retaliatory discharge under the Florida Whistleblower
Act, a claimant should show that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected
expression, (2) she suffered a materially adverse action of a type that would
dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in statutorily protected activity, and
(3) there was some causal relation between the events. Pennington v. City of
Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001); Burlington Northern. & Santa
Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S.___, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2414-15 (2006) (announcing
?materially adverse” element for Title VII claims); Meeks v. Computer Assocs.
Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir.1994) (setting forth prima facie test pre-
4
Burlington Northern).
For purposes of appeal, the parties do not dispute that Rutledge engaged in
statutorily protected expression. However, the parties disagree as to whether
Rutledge established the materially adverse prong. With regard to the materially
adverse prong of the prima facie case, the Supreme Court has characterized the
anti-retaliation provision as protecting an individual not from all retaliation, but
from retaliation that produces injury or harm. Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at
___, 126 S. Ct. at 2414. The acts must be material and significant and not trivial.
Id. ___, 126 S. Ct. at 2415. The plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee
would have found the challenged action materially adverse enough to dissuade a
reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Id. (quotations omitted).
In the context of constructive discharge, we have held that a plaintiff must
show that an employer imposed conditions that were so intolerable that a
reasonable person would be compelled to resign. Fitz v. Pugmire
Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 348 F.3d 974, 977-78 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that a
withdrawal of a reprimand, an offer to transfer to another managerial role, two
posted cartoons, suspicions of an unsubstantiated plot to terminate the plaintiff’s
employment, and unsubstantiated allegation of unequal pay did not show
5
constructive discharge).
The record demonstrates that Rutledge failed to show a prima facie case
under the Florida Whistleblower Act because she did not demonstrate a material
adverse action. Moreover, she did not establish that SunTrust’s proffered reasons
for its actions were pretextual. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
6