Case: 12-11535 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11535
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22651-KMM
ADA RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MIAMI DADE COUNTY,
KAREN EVANS,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 15, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ada Ramirez appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her
former employer, Miami Dade County (“County”) on her claim of retaliatory
Case: 12-11535 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 2 of 3
discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3.
We agree with the district court that there is no basis for Ramirez to have an
objectively reasonable belief that she engaged in protected activity. See Little v.
United Techs., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir. 1997) (ruling
that for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, he
must “not only show that he subjectively (that is, in good faith) believed that his
employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices, but also that his belief
was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented”). In this case,
the alleged underlying conduct of which Ramirez complained to her employer was
not severe enough to create an objectively reasonable belief that Ramirez was
sexually harassed, based under current precedent. See Howard v. Walgreen Co.,
605 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2010) (ruling that the reasonableness of a
plaintiff’s belief that her employer “engaged in an unlawful employment practice
must be measured against existing substantive law”) (quotation omitted); see also
Webb-Edwards v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 525 F.3d 1013, 1027-28 (11th Cir.
2008) (finding taunting and boorish comments that were not physically threatening
or humiliating were not reasonably hostile or abusive).
Moreover, the County introduced legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for
Ramirez’s termination. In the present case, there is no direct evidence of retaliatory
intent, so this Court employs the burden-shifting framework set forth by the
2
Case: 12-11535 Date Filed: 02/15/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See
Schaaf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 602 F.3d 1236, 1243 (11th Cir. 2010). Once
the employer articulates a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the employment
action, the plaintiff has the burden to present evidence that the reasons given were
pretexts for retaliation. Id. at 1243-44. Nothing in the record suggests that the
County’s reasons were merely pretexts.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3