### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 04- 1349 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 60 23 6- CW-W JZ FAYE W RIGHT SIMP SON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us FL ORI DADE PA RT MEN T O F CO RRE CT IO NS , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (M ay 1 9, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd B A RKE T T Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIU M: Fay e Wright Sim

pson appeals the district court’ s orders granting (1) partial summ ary j udgm ent and (2) j udgm ent as a m atter of law in favor of her form er em plo y er , the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns ( “ D O C” ), in thi s c as e al le gin g re ta liatio n invio la tio n of T itl e V II , 42 U . S. C. § 20 00e e t se q. N o r ev er sib le e rr or h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Si m pson , a n A fr ic an -A m er ic anw om anw ho w as ac or re ct ion al pr oba tio n spe ci al ist a t the D O C, a lle ge d th at he r supe rv iso rs ove rb ur de ne d he r w ith ex ce ssi ve w ork a ft er

she f ile d an in te rn al c ivi l r igh ts c om pla int , ac harg e of discrim ination with the E qual Em ploym ent OpportunityCom m issio n (“ EE OC” ), an d a199 8 e m

plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n law sui t a ga ins t the D O C. S im pson asserted that, in early

2001 , the D OC instit uted office staff ing changes th at left her as the onl y

spe ci al ist

in he r of fi ce . S im psonsub se que ntl y

a sse rt ed in ana ff idavit that sh e w orke d a t l ea st f ive hours unp ai d ov er

tim e pe r w ee k f

or ove r a y ear to m eet th e job ob li ga ti on s ca us edby the in crea se d wo rk lo ad . Bas edon Sim

ps on ’s all eg at io ns of wo rk in g u np ai d o ve rti m e, th e DOC reported this condu ct to the state inspector general’ s office ( “ OI G” ), which inv es tig at ed

he r fa ilure to dis cl ose the a lle ge d ov er tim e on h er

a tte ndanc e an d3

le av e re ports. T he D O C t er m inate d S im

psonin A ugus t 20 03 a ft er the in ve st ig at io n. T he P ubl ic E m

plo y ee s R el at ion s C om

m itt ee ( “ PE RC ”) he ld a

pos tterm ination hearing. The hearing officer determ ined that Sim pson had not worked the ove rt im e she c la im ed a nd thus did

not f al sif y he r tim e she et s. B ut the he ar ing officer opined th at Sim

pson therefor e had filed a f alse aff idavit allegin g she had w orke d unpa id o ve rt im e. T he of fi ce r al so d et er

m ine d th at

S im psonha d r ef

use d to an sw er que sti ons ab out

he r j ob d uti es a nd h ad

f ai le d to f oll owins tr

uc tio ns d ur ing the inv es tig at ionint er

vie w . T he of

fi ce r co nc lud ed

that di sc ipl ine , inc lud ing te rm inatio n, w as w ar

rante d. Si m ps on su pp le m en te d h er co m pl ai nt to ad d a cla im

th atth e DOC term inated her in retaliation for her engaging in a protected activity . The district co urt gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t onthe c la im

of r et al ia tor y te rm inatio n. T he d i s t ri ct co u rt d et er m i n ed t h at Si m p s o n h ad n o tre b u t t ed as p re t ex tu al t h e D OC ’s pr of fe re d r ea sons f

or he r te rm inatio n: that sh e ha d e nga ge d inm isc ondu ct by fa lsi fy ing e ith er

he r tim e she et s or

he r af fi da vit a nd tha t sh e did

not c oope rate w ith the investig ation abou t the tim e sheet discrepancy . But the district court allowed the c la im about r et al ia tor y inc re as ed

w orklo ad

to pr oc ee d to aj ur

y tr ia l. A ft er

theSimps on has provided only the 18-pa g e tra

nscript of the or al ar g ument on the Rule 50 motion. 1 But she has not submitted the transcr ipts showing the testimony and evide nce pr esente d at trial, on wh i ch th e d i s tri ctco urtb as edi t s ru l i n g. 4 cl ose of S im pson ’ s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e D O C’ s F ed . R. Ci v. P. 50 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Si m psona rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in gr an tin g th e D O C’ s R ule 50 m oti on: she c ont en ds a

j ur y sho uld ha ve be enpe rm itt ed

to de ci de the de gr ee to w hic h he r w orklo ad

inc re as ed

a ft er the sta ff ing c hange s inhe r of

fi ce a nd t o de ci de w he the r the D O C i nte nti ona lly inc re as ed

he r w orklo ad . B ut S im

psonha s no t providedus with transcripts of the trial. Feder al Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b) places on the appellant the bu rden of ensuring that the record on appeal -- includi ng the approp riate transcripts -- is provided to this Court. Se e Fe d. R. App. P. 10( b) ; L or env. S as se r, 309 F . 3d 1 296, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (w riting that a pro se litigant “ m ust prov ide trial transcripts in the appellate rec ord to e nable thi s c ourt t o r ev ie wc ha lle nge s to suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce ”) , c er

t. de ni ed , 12 3 S .Ct. 1 58 9, 2 21 9 (2 00 3) . Andwit ho ut tra ns cri pt s o f th e tr ia l, we cannot r ev ie ww he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g th e D O C’ s R ule 50 m oti on. So , du e to Sim

ps on ’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de th e n eces sa ry tri al tra ns cri pt s, we 1Simps on sug g ests that the mag istrate judg e should not have de nied her motion to compel 2 production of c aseloa d printouts for other spe cialists: these prin t outs alleg edly would have sub s ta n ti ate d h e r c la im . T h e ma g is tr ate ju d g e a b u s e d n o d is c r e ti o n in d e n yin g th is mo ti o n : the mag istrate dete rmined that the motion was u n t i mely and that the DO C attested that no such documents we re in its possession. See H inson v. Cli nch County , Ga., B d. of Educ., 231 F .3d 821, 826 (11th Cir. 2000) (no abuse of discretion for district court to deny motion to compel production due to plaintiff’s de lay

in filing motion). 5 m ust a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the D O C’ s R

ule 50 m oti on o n he r cl ai m of re ta liator y inc re as ed

w orklo ad . S ee L or en , 309 F . 3d a t 13 04. 2 Sim pson also argues that the district court erred in granting summ ary j udgm ent on her retaliatory term ination claim . She asserts ( 1) that she established a p ri m a f ac i e c as e o f r et al i at i o n an d(2 ) t h at s h e r eb u t t ed as p re t ex tu al t h e D OC ’s re as ons fo r he r te rm inatio n by pr es en tin g a ff

idavit s and t es tim ony

sho w ing she ac tua lly w as te rm inate d f

or f ili ng E E O C c harg es a nd a law sui t, not

f or f ili ng f al se tim es he et s or

af al se a ff idavit . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o; an d we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p art y op po si ng th e m ot io n. K el le y v. H ic ks, 400 F . 3d 1 282, 128 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny m at er ia l f

ac t and . . . the m ovin g party

is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d.R. Civ.P. 56(c). To evaluate claim s of Title V II r etaliation based on circum stantial, ra ther than di re ct , e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n, w e use the bur de n- shi ft ing f ram ew ork inThe DOC has subm itted supplemental authority : the s tate court of appeals’ a ffirma nce of the 3 PER C dec isi on up ho ldi ng Simp so n’ s te rm inatio n. Th e DO C c on te nd s th at Sim ps on is c oll ate ra lly estopped fr om arguing tha t she did not commit t he violations that l ed t o h er t er mination. But the district co u rt al rea dy

had conside red the PERC decision in deter mining that nondiscriminatory re a so ns e xiste d f

or Simp so n’ s te rm inatio n. An d e ve n th ou g h th e stat e c ourt de c ide d th at c a

us e exis ted for Simpson’s termination, this does not pr eclude Simps on from ar g uing that her ter mination “wa s the product of

. . . reta liation.” Manicc ia v. B rown, 171 F .3d 1364, 1368 (11 Cir. 1999). th 6 McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. G reen, 93 S.C t. 1817 (1973 ). See Roj as v. F lorida, 285 F. 3d 1 339, 134 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . S im psonf ir st m ust e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e case of r etaliation. T he DO C then m ust offer a legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory re as on f or it s e m plo ym en t a ct s. I f the D O C s uc ce ssf ull y r eb uts the pr es um

pti on, the burden shi fts back to Sim pson to discredit the proffere d non discrim inatory re as on a s pr et ex tua l. S ee id. W e as sum e w ith out

de ci din g th at

S im psonc ane sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of retaliation. And the D OC offer ed legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory rea sons for her te rm inatio n: h er

sub m iss ionof

f al se ti m e she et s and h er

la te r fa ilure to co ope rate w iththe O IGinv es tig at ion . T he D O C c ir cu it adm ini str at or und er sc or ed

the se ri ousn es s of

ac la im of unr ec or de d ov er

tim e: thi s e xpos ed

the D O C t o li ab ili ty for violations of the Fair

La bor Standards Ac t. That the P ER C determ ined that Si m psonha d no t w orke d th e al le ge d ov er tim e doe s no t save S im

psonf ro m sum m ar y j udgm en t: a ne ce ssary

inc onsi ste nc y

e xis ts b et

w ee n S im pson ’ s a ff

idavit claim ing sh e w orked overtim e, and the tim e sheets ref lecting no o vertim e. 3We do not consider S impson’s contention t hat s he established prete x t beca use t he DOC failed 4 t o t e r m i n at e a s p e c i a l i s t w h o c o m m i t t e d , an d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o p r o b at i o nf o r , a v i o l e n ts e x u a l b at t e r

y. Simps on prese nted this evidence to the district court only afte r her trial: it was not before the cour t when the c ourt ruled on the summar y judgme nt motion. S ee Clinkscale s v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 831 F.2d 1565, 1570 ( 11th Cir. 1987) (stating that appellate court does not consider e vidence not part of re cord pr operly befor e district c ourt in r uling on summary

judgme nt motion). S impson also refe rs to tr ial tes timony

that a lle g e dly

su pp or ts h e r a rgume nt o n p re te xt. B ut w e do no t c on sid e r t his evidenc e: it was not befor e the district court when it r uled on the DOC’s summary judgme nt motion, 7 Si m ps on ha s n ot reb ut te d a s p ret ex tu al th e DOC’s reas on s fo r he r te rm in at io n. She points to the aff

idavits o f a c oworker, Donald Cam pbell, and a supervisor, Larry Sullenger, that the DO C “ m ade it known” that she would be term inated be ca use she f ile d th e E E O C c harg es a nd l aw sui ts. S ull en ge r’ s a ff idavit c ont ai ns noth ing m ore than conclusory allegations that Sim

pson wa s term inated for an illegal reason. S ee L eigh v. W arner Bros., Inc. , 212 F. 3d 12 10, 1217 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (writing that conclu sory allegations in affidavit are insufficient to defeat m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t) . C am

pbe ll ind ic at ed

that i n an O ct obe r 2000 te le phon e co nve rs at ionw ithS te phanie Curd , a n a ssi stant atto rn ey ge ne ra l f or the St at e of F lor ida , Curd

state d D O C a dm ini str at or s “ ha te [d ] ” Si m psonf or f ili ng la wsu it s an d t ha t t he se ad m in is tra to rs sai d e ve nt ua ll y th ey wou ldfir e Si m

ps on . Bu t S im psonw as not

f ir ed unt il ne ar ly

thr ee y ears a ft er

thi s c onve rs at ion . A nd Curd ’ s c om

m en ts i ndi cate d no thi ng m or e than he r ow n op ini on o f the DOC ’s attit ude toward S im

pson : these com

m ents do no t address the DO C’ s proffer ed re as ons fo r he r te rm inatio n. 4and

in a ny e ve nt, sh e ha s n ot p ro vid e d u s w ithtr ia l tr ans c ri pts . 8 In sum , S im

pson has not m et the D OC’ s legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory re as ons fo r he r te rm inatio n “ he ad on” a nd r eb utt ed

the m . W ils on v . B/ E A er ospa ce , I nc . , 376 F . 3d 1 079, 108 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( T itl e V II dis cr im inatio n cas e). The di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e DOC o n S i mp s o n ’s r e t a l i a t o ry t e rmi n a t i o n c l a i m. AFFIR MED.