[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 9, 2012
No. 11-14040
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:10-cv-80294-WJZ
BEHEEN MOGHADDAM-TRIMBLE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 9, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, Beheen Moghaddam-Trimble, a woman proceeding pro se, alleges
gender discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42
U.S.C. § 1981.1 Defendant, South Florida Water Management District
(Management District), moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate
recommended granting summary judgment for the Management District, and the
district court accepted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. The
Magistrate found that Moghaddam-Trimble could not establish a prima facie case
of gender discrimination because she could not show that male employees in a
similar situation were treated more favorably than she. Additionally, the
Magistrate found that Moghaddam-Trimble did not establish that the Management
District’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for investigating whether
Moghaddam-Trimble sexually harassed Peter Kwiatkowski was pretexual. After
reviewing the briefs and the record, we affirm.2
I. Background
Moghaddam-Trimble was a Senior Scientist for the Management District,
and she reported directly to Kevin Rodberg. Rodberg reported to Peter
1
The district court dismissed Moghaddam-Trimble’s claim of national origin
discrimination; therefore only her gender discrimination claim remains.
2
We construe pro se filings liberally to afford review on any “legally justifiable base.”
Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
2
Kwiatkowski, the Division Director for Resource Evaluation/Sub-Regional
Modeling. According to Kwiatkowski, Moghaddam-Trimble and Kwiatkowski
only interacted on a professional level, but Moghaddam-Trimble claims that they
had an intimate relationship. On October 3, 2007, Kwiatkowski filed a sexual
harassment complaint against Moghaddam-Trimble. Moghaddam-Trimble claims
that Kwiatkowski filed his complaint as retaliation against Moghaddam-Trimble
because she ended the relationship between Kwiatkowski and herself.
Kwiatkowski views the events that led to his complaint differently.
According to the report prepared by the Management District’s EEO
Consultant, Tanya Vaughn-Patterson, Kwiatkowski alleged that Moghaddam-
Trimble committed several inappropriate actions. Around June 13, 2007,
Moghaddam-Trimble approached Kwiatkowski and asked if he wanted to have a
sexual relationship with her, which Kwiatkowski refused. Moghaddam-Trimble
denies ever asking Kwiatkowski to have a sexual relationship with her. However,
on June 15, 2007, Moghaddam-Trimble handed Kwiatkowski a folded note (First
Note) then quickly left his office. The First Note states that she wanted to clarify
that she wanted more than a just sexual relationship with Kwiatkowski and did not
want to “use” him. Moghaddam-Trimble admits that she authored the First Note
and gave it to Kwiatkowski.
3
Kwiatkowski further alleged that in late August or early September of 2007,
Moghaddam-Trimble came into his office and asked if he ever fantasized about
her and lifted her shirt exposing her bare breasts. Moghaddam-Trimble denies this
allegation.
On October 3, 2007, Moghaddam-Trimble gave Kwiatkowski the Second
Note. The Second Note states that Moghaddam-Trimble thought Kwiatkowski
was her “dream man” but was really “an insensitive, selfish, and mean person”
who “just pretend[s] to be nice.” The note also apologizes for all the trouble
Moghaddam-Trimble created for Kwiatkowski and states that Kwiatkowski was a
good boss. Moghaddam-Trimble also admits to writing this note and giving it to
Kwiatkowski. Kwiatkowski stated in his deposition that he filed the complaint
after the Second Note because between the several phone calls he had received
from her and the other incidents, he felt that she was not accepting his insistence
that he did not want a relationship with her.
On October 8, 2007, the Employee Relations Manager in the Human
Resources Solutions Department informed Moghaddam-Trimble of the allegations
and that there would be an investigation into Kwiatkowski’s claims. Moghaddam-
Trimble was also placed on unpaid administrative leave, but was permitted to use
annual leave which would be credited back to Moghaddam-Trimble if no
4
wrongdoing was found. Moghaddam-Trimble agreed to take annual leave.
On October 9, 2007, Vaughn-Patterson interviewed Moghaddam-Trimble.
During the interview Vaughn-Patterson kept notes reflecting the conversation with
Moghaddam-Trimble. Moghaddam-Trimble then initialed each of the three pages
of notes as accurate. Moghaddam-Trimble now claims that the notes do not
accurately reflect their conversation.
On November 5, 2007, Vaughn-Patterson finished her EEO Report. The
Report found Kwiatkowski to be more credible than Moghaddam-Trimble because
Moghaddam-Trimble denied propositioning Kwiatkowski but the First Note leads
to the determination that she did proposition Kwiatkowski. Thus, it is also likely
that Kwiatkowski truthfully retold the encounter in which Moghaddam-Trimble
lifted her shirt in his presence, even though no one else could corroborate his
version of the incident. Taking into consideration the two notes and the incident
in Kwiatkowski’s office, Vaughn-Patterson found that Moghaddam-Trimble had
violated the Management District’s Standards of Conduct and Equal Employment
Opportunity and Harassment policies. This report was then given to Moghaddam-
Trimble’s Department Director, Marjorie Craig. Craig would make the ultimate
decision as to the type of discipline that Moghaddam-Trimble’s actions warranted.
Before making her final decision, Craig permitted Moghaddam-Trimble to
5
give Craig a written response to the EEO report. Craig reviewed Moghaddam-
Trimble’s written response, and felt that Moghaddam-Trimble failed to provide
any new information that would support reversing the EEO Report’s findings. At
that point Craig decided that terminating Moghaddam-Trimble would be in the
best interest of the Management District, but Moghaddam-Trimble resigned before
Craig terminated her employment.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party. Owen v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 629 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir. 2011). Summary
judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552
(1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any
disputed material fact. Fickling v. United States, 507 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). If the moving party meets its burden, “the nonmoving party
must present evidence beyond the pleadings showing that a reasonable jury could
find in its favor.” Id. “Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact . . .”
Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal
6
quotation marks omitted). Likewise, a plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment
by relying upon conclusory assertions. See Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1564
n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
III. Analysis
Where, as here, the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence of
discrimination, the case is analyzed under the burden-shifting framework set out in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–04, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824–
25 (1973); Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla., 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir.
2006) (per curiam).3 Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff bears
the initial burden of presenting sufficient evidence of her prima facie case.
411 U.S. at 802, 93 S. Ct. at 1824. Once the plaintiff shows sufficient evidence of
a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant “to articulate some
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse employment action. Id.
Then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the reason is pretextual. Id. at
804, 93 S. Ct. at 1825. In order to show pretext the plaintiff must cast doubt on
the defendant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason “to permit a reasonable
factfinder to conclude that the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons were not
3
Title VII and § 1981 have the same requirements of proof and utilize the same analytical
framework. See Brown v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 939 F.2d 946, 949 (11th Cir.1991).
7
what actually motivated its conduct.” Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d
1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Assuming that Moghaddam-Trimble could establish a prima facie case of
gender discrimination, she cannot show that the Management District’s legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason was pretexual. Moghaddam-Trimble claims that the
Managment District’s decision to investigate her was solely because she was a
woman. Furthermore, she argues that the investigation was biased against her
because of her gender. Finally Moghaddam-Trimble claims that despite Craig
permitting her to resign instead of simply terminating her, Craig’s decision to
terminate Moghaddam-Trimble’s employment was also based on gender.
Even if ultimately found to be untrue, the Management District had a duty
to investigate the allegations made by Kwiatkowski. Also, Moghaddam-Trimble
has not pointed to anything in the record to show that the Management District did
not follow its own policies when investigating Moghaddam-Trimble and when the
Management District put her on administrative leave. Furthermore, given the
findings of the EEO Report, there is nothing to indicate that the decision tto
terminate Moghaddam-Trimble’s employment with the Management District,
although not carried out, was pretextual. See Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of
Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1363 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that an employer is
8
not liable for discriminatory conduct if the employer terminates an employee
under “the mistaken but honest impression” that the employee violated a policy).
Therefore, the district court properly decided that Moghaddam-Trimble did not
carry her burden to prove that the Management District’s legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. We affirm the grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Management District.
AFFIRMED.
9