F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 15, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble L loy d D. Geor g e, United States District Judge f or the District of N evada , * sitti ngby desig nation. [ PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N os. 05- 1083 3 & 05- 1111 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 97-000 92-CV- AR- S PATRICI A GARRETT, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant ,
ve rs us UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRM INGHAM BOARD OF TRUSTEES, De fendant-Appellee .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 15, 200 7) Befo re TJOFLAT an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GEORGE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * GE ORG E, District Judge:Gar rett also brought claims pursuant to the Amer icans with Disabilities Act, 42 1 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq . Those cla ims have alre ady been dismissed bec ause Congress did not validly abrog ate the States’ sovere ign immunity from suit by

private individuals for mone y damag es under

the ADA. Bd

. o f Trs . o f th eUn iv . o

f A la. v . G arre tt , 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.C t. 955, 148 L .Ed.2d 866 (2001). 2 I n 1 9 9 4 , th e Un i v e r s i ty o f Al ab a ma a tB i rmi n g h a m (t h e Un i v e r s i ty) em ploy ed Patric ia G arre tt as the Dir ector of Nursing, OB/G yn/Neonatal Ser vices at a hospital that it op erate d. A t the end of August of that y ear, Garrett w as di ag no se d wi th bre as t ca nc er. In th e fo ll owi ng m on th s, s he un de rwen t t wo s u r g e r i e s , r a d i a t i o n tr e a t men t , an dc h e mo th e r ap y. T hr ee w ee ks a ft er

he r sur ge ri es in Se pte m

be r, G ar re tt re tur ne d to w ork f

ull tim e. I n late D ec em

be r, G ar re tt re que ste d and r ec ei ve d f re que nt i nte rm itt en t m edical leave to ac com

m odate her treatm ents. I n January 1995 , G arre tt was hosp italized for leukopenia. S tarting March 1, 1995 , G arre tt tookfull m edical leave, returning to work on July10, 1995. Sever al w eeks later, after Garrett m et with her supervisor to discus s “ care er goals,” she requested and rece ived a transfer to a low er pay ing pos iti on a s Nur se Mana ge r at adif fe re nt f ac ili ty ope rate d by

the U n i v e r s i ty. G ar re tt the n su ed

the U niv er sity

pur suant t o th e Re habil itatio n A ct of 197 3, 29 U . S. C. §§ 7 01 et

se q. , f or discrim ination and retaliation. T he district court 1 gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the U niv er sity , f

ind ing that G ar

re tt w as notGar rett worke d pursuant to a f lexi ble sche dule that both acc ommodated her 2 radiation treatments, and the a dditional tim e she r equire d to complete her duties at work. 3 subject to an adverse em

ploym ent action, not disabled andthat the hosp ital had not retaliated against her. Garrett a ppeals. W e conclude that, although th e district co urt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing that G ar

re tt w as not

sub j ec t t o an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t act io n, s he can no t m ai nt ai n e it he r he r cl ai m fordi sc riminat io n o r fo r ret al ia ti on . I N earl y im m ed ia te ly a ft er he r dia gnos is o f br ea st c an ce r in Augus t 19 94, G a rr e t tu n d e rw e n ttw o s u r g e r i e s . Th i s wa s f o l l o w e d , i n th e e n s u i n g mo n th s , b y a co ur se of r ad ia tio n th er ap y

tr eatm en ts and the n ac our se of c he m oth er ap y tr eatm en ts. T he f

ir st s ur ge ry

c onsi ste d of

an e xc isi ona l bi opsy

of the m as s w ith in he r br ea st. T he se co nd s ur ge ry , on S ep te m be r 12, r em ove d tw enty -e igh t l ym ph node s f ro m the are a unde r G ar

re tt’ s r igh t arm . A s G ar

re tt re co ve re d f

ro m the se co nd s ur ge ry , she be gan a ssi sti ng i n he r se lf -c ar e, a lth oughshe w as ini tia lly lim ite d to usi ng o nly

he r le ft arm . T hr ee w ee ks a ft er

the sur ge ry , on O ct obe r 4, Garrett r eturned to work. Shortly after ward, she began her course of thirty -seven 2 rad ia ti on tre at m en ts th atco nt in ue d t hr ou gh th e en d o f Decem be r of th aty ear. Ne ar the e nd of these treatm ents, G arre tt rece ived radiation bu rns to her upperDuringJ anuar y , Gar rett wa s admitted into a hospital for an infe ction. 3 In consideringonly the compete nt evidence offe red by Gar rett re g ardingher 4 rea son for takingthe medica l leave, the rec ord indicate s that the University intended to transf

er her to a position overseeingthe Univer sity ’s contra ct with Cooper Gr een hospital, but that she instead ac cepte d the Univer sity ’s offe r of medic al leave . Gar rett has not off

ere d any evidenc e indicatingthe details of the intende d transfe r. 4 t o r s o an dr i g h tarm. G a rr e t t ’s tr e a t i n g p h ys i c i a n n o t e s th a th e r r i g h tarm b e c a me swollen at this tim e. A t w ork, G ar

re tt co m ple te d a ll of

he r dut ie s bu t r equir ed

a ddi tio na l t im e an d tookfre quent breaks because of fatigue. G arre tt had difficulty sleeping, in part be ca use of hot f la she s sh e be gan to e xpe ri en ce a ft er sto ppi ng h er

hor m one r e p l a c e men tup o n h e r

d i a g n o s i s o f

b r e a s tc a n c e r . Du r i n g h e r r a d i a t i o n th e r ap y, she began experiencing episo dic problem s with diarrhea , which som etim es affe cted her at work. A t hom e, Garrett’ s fiancé, whom she m arrie d in Novem

ber, pe rf orm ed the hou se hol d ta sks of

c le an ing , laundr

y , sho ppi ng and c ooki ng. L at e in D ec em

be r, G ar re tt be gan he r ch em oth er ap y , w hic h la ste d f or six m onths thr oughthe e nd o f June . G ar re tt co nti nue d to w ork un til the be gin nin g of Marc h purs uant t o af

le xib le sc he dul e, takin g in te rm itt en t f am ily m ed ic al le av es . 3 A t tha t t im e, she r eque ste d and r ec ei ve d am ed ic al le av e of abse nc e. S he

4 co nti nue d to suf

fe r w ithpoo r sle ep , hot

f la she s, f at igu e, and d iarr

he a. Whil e she di d n ot ass is t h er h us ba ndwit h t he ho us eh ol d c ho res , Garret t ca redforhe rs el f.5

She believes that, at that tim e, she took twice as long to com plete her self- care ta sks w he n c om

pare d to an ave ra ge pe rs on. S ev er al ti m es e ac h w ee k G ar re tt ne ed ed he r husb an d’ s a ssi stanc e in dre ssi ng. Af ter com pleting her chem otherapy in June 19 95, G arre tt returned to work on Ju ly 10. Les s t ha n t wo wee ks lat er, o n J ul y 21 , Garret t m etwit h h er s up erv is or . T houg h th e ev en ts o f that m ee tin g are in dis put e, w e co nstru e the m in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to G ar

re tt. A t tha t m ee tin g, G ar re tt’ s su pe rv iso r tol d he r that sh e co ul dn ’t st ay

in he r po si ti on an d t ha t s he ha d t o t ran sf er t o t he nu rs in g p oo l. Fo llo w ing that m ee tin g, G ar re tt subm itt ed

atr an sf er r eque st t o th e nur sin g po ol a n d , o n J u l y 3 1 , ar e s i g n a t i o n l e t t e r e f f e c t i v e Au g u s t3 1 . Th e f

o l l o w i n g d a y, G ar re tt as ke d th at

the thi rty -d ay

not ic e be w ai ve d to pe rm it he r to transf er to a N ur se Mana ge r posi tio n e ff ec tiv e A ugus t 14 , 199 5. Garrett argues that the side effec ts of her treatm ent for cancer disabled her, subs tantially

lim iting her in the m aj or life ac tivities o f caring for herself, pe rf orm ing m anua l t as ks, li ft ing , and w orkin g.

I I The R ehabilitation Ac t prohibi ts recipients of feder al financial assistance fro m di sc riminat in g a ga in stin di vi du al s wi th di sabi li ti es . B ragd on v . A bbot t, 524The Unive rsity has not contested that its receipt of suc h funds constitutes a wa iver 5 of its El e ve nth

Am e ndme nt i mmunit

y to s uit un de r t he Re ha bil itatio n A c t. 6 U . S. 624 , 632 , 118 S . Ct . 219 6, 141 L . E d. 2d 5 40 ( 1998 ). A s a cknow le dge d by the U niv er sity , it

is a re ci pie nt o f fe de ra l f unds . 5 T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inatio n un de r the Re habil itatio n Ac t, G arre tt has the burden of sho wing that (1) she had a disability ; (2) she w as oth er w ise qua lif

ie d f or the pos iti on; and ( 3) she w as sub j ec te d to unl aw fu l di sc riminat io n a s t he res ul t o f he r di sabi li ty. See, Sutto n v. Lader , 185 F . 3d 1 203, 1207 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . A s r el ev an t t o th is a ct ion , the A ct de fi ne s " dis ab ili ty " t o m ean “ a phy sic al or

m en ta l i m

pa irm en t tha t su

bst an tia lly

li m its one or

m or e m aj or life ac tivities.” 29 U. S. C. §705 (9)(B ). T he Ac t further e stablish es that an

“ ind ivi dua l w ithadis ab ili ty ” inc lud es “ any pe rs on who ( i) ha s aphy sic al or m en ta l i m

pa irm en t whic h su

bst an tia lly

li m its one or

m or e of suc h pe rs on' s m aj or lif e ac tiv iti es ; ( ii) ha s ar ec or d of suc h an im

pa irm en t; or

( iii ) is r eg ar de d a s havin g suc h an im

pa irm en t. ” 29 U . S. C. §70 5( 20) (B ). W e m ust str ic tly int er pr et the te rm s “ m aj or

li fe a ct ivi tie s” and “ subs tanti al ly li m its ” so a s “ to c re at e a de m an din g standard for qualify ing as dis abled . . . .” Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. W il li ams , 534 U. S. 184, 197, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.E d.2d 615 (200 2).As both parties have re lied upon the EEOC re gulations interpretingthe ADA a s 6 rea sonable, we follow the lea d of the Supreme Court and assume that the r egulations are rea sonable in the guidance they provide. Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky , Inc. v . W

illiams , 534 U.S. 184, 194, 122 S.C t. 681, 151 L .Ed.2d 615 (2002). 7 Whil e the Re habil itatio n A ct de fi ne s ne ith er

“ m aj or li fe a ct ivi tie s” nor

“ subs tanti al ly

li m its , ” w e loo k to the r eg ulatio ns o f the E qua l E m plo ym en t OpportunityCom

m issio n (“ EE OC” ) for guid ance, which re gulatio ns that agency pr om ulg at ed to im ple m en t the A m er ic an s w ithD isa bil iti es A ct . Gordon v. E.L .

6 Ham m &Assoc. , I

nc. , 100 F . 3d 9 07, 911 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . T hose r eg ulatio ns sugg est that m aj or life ac tivities m ean “ functions such as caring for oneself, pe rf orm ing m anua l t as ks, w al kin g, se ei ng, he ar ing , spe ak ing , br eathi ng, le ar nin g, an d w orkin g. ” 29 C . F. R. §16 30. 2( i) . T he E E O C f urthe r not es that this li st i s no t ex haust ive , but

appl ie s to “ tho se ba sic a ct ivi tie s th at the ave ra ge pe rs on i n th e ge ne ra l po pul at ionc anpe rf orm w ithli ttl e or

no d if fi cu lty . ” 29 C . F. R. App. §163 0.2(i). Furthe r, in co nsi de ri ng whe the r anind ivi dua l ha s adis ab ili ty , the re gul at ion s a dvi se that the f oll ow ing f

ac tor s are r el ev an t: “ (i ) T he na tur e an d se ve ri ty of the im pa irm en t; (i i) T he dur at ionor e xpe ct ed dur at ionof

the im pairm ent; and (iii) The perm anent or long term im pact, or the expected perm anent or long term

im pact of or r esulting from

the im pairm ent.” 29 C.F .R.8

§163 0. 2( j )( 2) . A s f

urthe r expla ine d by

the E E O C, “ te m

por ar y , non -c hr oni c im pairm ents of short du ration, w ith littl e or no long term or perm anent im

pact, are usua lly not dis ab ili tie s. S uc h im

pa irm ents m ay

inc lud e, but

are not li m ite d to , br oke n li m

bs, spr ai ne d j oin ts, c onc uss ion s, appe ndi ci tis , and i nf lue nz a. ” 29 C.F .R. App. §163 0.2(j ). Ea ch claim

of disabilitym

ust be consi dered on a case -by -case basis. When th e s ym p t o m s o f a n i m

p ai rmen tv ary wi d el y fr o m p er s o n t o p er s o n , “ [a ]n indiv idualized assessm ent of the eff ect of an im

pairm ent is particularly

necessary .” To yo ta , 534 U . S. 184 , 198 -9 9, 122 S . Ct . 681 . T hus, it is inc um be nt u pon tho se

“ ‘ claim ing th e A ct's protection . . . to prove a disabili ty by offer ing evid ence that th e ex te nt of t he li m it at io n [c au se d b y th ei r im pa irment] in ter m s o f th ei r own experience . . . is substantial.’ ” Id . , at 198 (q uot ing Albertson's, I nc. v . Ki rk ingburg , 527 U.S . 555, 567, 119 S. Ct. 2162 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 51 8 (1999)).

III In iti al ly , w e m

ust a ddr es s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ho ldi ng tha t G ar re tt co uld not m ai nta in h er

dis cr im inatio n c la im

be ca use she vol unt ar ily

r eque ste d he r tr an sf

er to the low er -p ay ing pos iti on o f N ur se Mana ge r, and thus ne ve r suf fe re d an a dve rs e em ploym ent action. T his determ ination wa s m ade sua spon te , a s th e de fe ndantIn mo vin gfo r s umm ary jud g me nt, the de fe nd ant a rgue d o nly

that it s approval

of 7 G ar r e t t ’ s tr an s f

e r r e qu e s tw a s l e g i t i m at e an d n o n - d i s c r i m i n at o r

y. Ag a in, thi s c on c e ssi on

is m a de re lativ e to G arr e tt’ s r e ta liatio n c la im. 8 As the def

endant did not brief

the issue to the district court whe ther Ga rre tt’s 9 transfe r re quest was voluntar y , and Ga rre tt did not oppos e that issue, it is unsurprising that the dis tr ic t c ourt

ov e rl oo ke d th e e vid e nc e e xistin gin t he re c or d th at he r t

ra ns fe r r e qu e st w a s in re s p o n s e t o th e J u l y

2 1 , m ee t i n g. 9 neither argued that Garrett had voluntarily requested the transfer

nor that she had not suf fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion . T o th e co ntr ar y , in anarg um en t ad dr es sin g G ar

re tt’ s r et al ia tio n c la im , the U niv er sity c onc ed ed

that “ a fa ct

ua l i ssu e [exists] as to whether plaintiff actually wanted to transfer the [sic] Nurse Manager posi tio n. ” T he U niv er sity r ep eats i ts c onc es sio n, ve rb at im , on a ppe al . T he 7 8 concession is appropriate, given th at G arre tt testified that her supervisor tol d her, on Jul y 21, that she could no t stay in her j ob and th at she needed to fill out transfer papers to the nursing pool. Garrett a lso testified that her sup ervisor then denied he r re que st tha t sh e be a llo w ed to re m ai n inhe r posi tio n un til O ct obe r. A ft er thi s 9 m ee tin g, she sub m itt ed

atr an sf er r eque st t o th e nur sin g po ol. G ar re tt’ s su bse que nt identification of and request for a less-onerous dem otion than sugg ested by her supe rv iso r– a tr an sf

er to N ur se Mana ge r rathe r than to the nur sin g po ol– doe s no t ex ti ng ui sh th e fac tu al is su e whe th er h er t ran sf er re qu es ts were i nv ol un ta ry . A cc or din gly , a s a cknow le dge d by the de fe ndant, the r ec or d r equir es that w e fi ndThe e x tent of this mispl ace d relianc e is signif icant. She not only

offe rs her

own 10 observations of her c ondition after 1995, but re lies upon the deposition testimony and dec laration of on e of he r t re atin gphy sic ians , D r. JohnCarp e nte r. Dr . Ca rp e nte r, ho we ve r, did

no t be g in treating Ga

rre tt until 1997. Gar

rett has not shown that Dr . Carpente r had pe rsonal knowledg e of Gar rett’s c ondition in 1994 and 1995. Garre tt also relies upon the de clar ation and deposition testimony of Mar y Kessler to establish her limitation in working. Dr . Kessler , howeve r, has re lie d in pa rt up on Dr . Ca rp e nte r’ s e xpe rt

re po rt in r e a c hin ghe r o pin ion s. 10 that an issue of m aterial f act exists whether Garrett voluntarily requested a transfer to a low er -p ay ing pos iti on. I n a ddi tio n, be ca use c ont es te d is sue s of

f ac t m ust be construed in favor of the non-m ovin g party , w e assum e for purposes of this appeal that G ar re tt w as sub

j ec t t o an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion , ade m oti on, on July 21.

I V W e ne xt c onsi de r w he the r G ar re tt ha s sh ow n th at

she w as an in div idu al w ith a disability , a s that phrase is used in the Rehabilitation Act, when she w as dem oted by he r supe rv iso r on July

21. I n se ek ing to m ee t he r bur de n onthi s is sue , G ar re tt relies not onlyupon the status of her im pairm ents and lim itations prior to that m eeting but also m isplaces her re liance upon her condit ion y ears a fter that me e t i n g . T h e R e h ab i l i t a t i o n A c td o e s n o tp r o t e c te mp l o ye e s w h o b e c o me

10 disabled after the discrim inatory act, but protects tho se em ploy ees w ho were disabled at the tim e of the discrim inatory act. T o m aintain a Rehabilitation Act cl ai m f or dis cr im inatio n, an e m

plo y ee m ust sho wthat sh e w as sub

j ec te d to11

un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n a s t he res ul t o f he r di sabi li ty. Se e, Sut ton , 185 F.3d at 1207 . T he de te rm inatio n of w he the r a pe rs on i s di sa

ble d r equir es “ that a

pe rs on be pr es en tly

–not pot en tia lly

or hy pothe tic al ly

–sub stanti al ly

li m ite d inor de r to de m on st rat e a d is ab il it y . Su tt on v. Uni te d Ai rl in es , Inc ., 527 U . S. 471 , 482 , 119 S. Ct . 213 9, 144 L . E d. 2d 4 50 ( 1999 ). S inc e the dis ab ili ty m ust be the c au se of

the dis cr im inatio n, the r equir em en t tha t a pe rs on m ust pr es en tly be sub stanti al ly lim ite d ne ce ssari ly

m eans tha t the pe rs on m ust be sub stanti al ly

li m ite d inam aj or life ac tivityat the tim e of the discrim ination , and no t several y ears late r. W ithou t dispu te, Garrett had bre ast cancer . To the extent G arre tt has of fe re d m ed ic al r ec or ds c ont em por an eo us t o he r canc er

tr eatm en t a s e vid en ce of he r im pa irm en ts and l im itatio ns, tho se r ec or ds e sta bli sh tha t ne ar ly

im m ed ia te ly af te r he r dia gnos is o f br ea st c an ce r, G ar re tt unde rw en t tw o surg er ie s, ac our se of ra diatio n th er ap y

tr eatm en ts, and a

c our se of c he m oth er ap y

tr eatm en ts. T he f

ir st sur ge ry c onsi ste d of

abio psy that c onf irm ed the dia gnos is o f canc er . T he se co nd sur ge ry , on S ep te m

be r 12, r em ove d no t on ly br ea st t iss ue but

a lso tw en ty -e igh t ly m ph n ode s f

ro m the are a unde r G ar

re tt’ s r igh t arm . R ad ia tio n th er ap y co m m en ce d inO ct obe r an d w as c om ple te d by D ec em be r. O n D ec em

be r 30, Garrett began chem otherapy . On January 15, she w as adm itted into the hospi tal fo r le ukop en ia , ac om

pli catio n of

he r ch em oth er ap y . S he w as dis ch ar ge d onDr. Miller a lso noted that Garr ett had diffic ulty sleepingdue to hot flashes a nd 11 other sy mptoms related to menopause , for whic h Gar rett’s hormona l reg imen had bee n dis c ontin ue d b e c a us e of he r c he mot

he ra py tr e atme nt. 12 January 21, and her c hem otherapy dosage was r educed. S he com pleted her ch em oth er ap y

on June 16, 199 5. D r. D ona ld M ill er be gan tr eatin g G ar

re tt in Oc tober 1994 , and com

pleted reports of Garrett’ s clinic visit s starting on Oc tober 1 1 , 1 9 9 4 . R eg ar d i n g s i d e e ff ec t s o f h ertre at m en t s , t h e r ep o rt s n o t e G arre t t ’s h o s p i t al i za t i o n fo r l eu k o p en i a o n Fe b ru ary 1 0 , 1 9 9 5 . In ad d i t i o n , Dr . M i l l er ’s re port of Apr il 4, 199 5, not es that G ar re tt “ [c am e] to the c lin ic tod ay onl y w ith co m pla int s of hot f la she s and dy spare uni a. S he w as a lso a ski ng que sti ons ab out re sum ing E str oge n. S he de nie s any he ad ac he s, blurr

y vis ion , nause a, vom iti ng, fevers, chills, chest pain, c ough , or abdom inal pain.” T he report further notes that G ar re tt “ spe ci fi ca lly

r ai se d is sue s of

hot f la she s, dis co m fo rt , e m oti ona l sw ing s, and dy sparuneia.” The m edical re cords that Gar rett has subm itted do n ot reflec t any oth er sid e- ef fe ct s th at she suf fe re d duri ng h er

tr eatm en t. Inhis de cl ar at ion , D r. Mi lle r not es the f oll ow ing sid e ef

fe ct s no t othe rw ise inc lud ed in the m ed ic al r ec or ds s ubm itt ed by G ar re tt. G ar re tt suf fe re d f ro m bur ns to h er arm c au se d by

the r ad ia tio n th er ap y . H er arm be cam e sw oll en . S he experienced episodic diarrhea and fatigue. O n June 1, 1995 , D r. Miller approved 11He a sserts that he did not note any restric tions because Gar

rett did not reque st any 12 re str ic tio ns . 13 G ar re tt’ s r et ur n to w ork w ith out

r es tr ic tio ns. Whil e D r. Mi lle r state s th at G ar re tt 12 wa s “ very

lim ited” in her ability

to use her right arm , and was “ unable to perform any m ed ium or he av y pos iti ons, ” he doe s no t i de nti fy any obj ec tiv e cr ite ri a or te sti ng u pon w hic h he ba se d hi s op ini on. Re gard ing he r im

pa irm en ts and l im itatio ns i n 19 94 and the f ir st p ar t of 1995 , G ar re tt te sti fi ed

in 1997 of

he r sur ge ry , r ad ia tio n th er ap y , and chem otherapy , plus the following events and con ditio ns. G arre tt returned to work on O ct obe r 3, 199 4, but

too k lo nge r to d o he r w ork be ca use of he r fatig ue . S he noted her hosp italization in Janu ary , and her extended m edical leave of absence from Marc h throug h her return to w ork on Ju ly 10. G arre tt testified that she had problem s sleeping due to hot flashes, which w ere due to the cessation o f her horm one replacem ent. S he also noted p roblem s with episodic diarrhea. In January , she ha d asig nif

ic an t e pis ode of

ha ir thi nni ng. S he not ed

that, dur ing the ra diatio n and c he m oth er ap y , she “ re al ly w as not able to do m

uc h of anythi ng f

or m y self. My

husband took o ver all of the shoppin g, cooking, housek eeping, that so rt o f th in g, g ro cery sho pp in g.” Re gard ing the c ondi tio n of he r ri ght arm , G ar re tt te sti fi ed :In h e r d e po sit ion , G arr e tt t e sti fi e d th at sh e re a lly did n’ t su ff e r f ro m na us e a , d ue to 13 the medications she was g iven to control nause a. 14 N ow , I – a ft er

m y nod e sur ge ry , of

c our se , I have the pr obl em w ith the arm be ing m uc h larg er

than th e oth er

and n ot dra ini ng w el l. A lso dur ing that pe ri od o f tim e, the r igh t a xil lary , of c our se , ha d to have an op portun ity

to he al , and tha t w as aw kw ar d. A l s o du r i n g my r a d i a t i o n a tth e v e ry e n do f th a tI b e g a n t o g e ts o me bu rn s t ha t wer e d iff

ic ul t t o d eal wit h a ndki ndof r es tri ct ed , y ou kn ow, m ove m en t, but

not anythi ng tha t w oul d r es tr ic t m y w ork. Jus t m ad e it a little m or e dif

fi cu lt. Sh e furthe r not ed , r eg ar din g m ove m en t r es tr ic tio ns, that sh e ha d di ff ic ulty

“ [r ] ai sin g m

y arm s a bove m y he ad , usi ng m

y r igh t arm to lif t w ith . Mo ve m en ts w ithm y tor so f ro m r igh t t o le ft

w er e of te n ti m es pa inf

ul and d if fi cu lt, r el at ed

to the bur ns. ” I n th at

de posi tio n, G ar

re tt did not of fe r any oth er te sti m ony

of the ex te nt o f he r ar

m ’ s li m itatio ns. G ar re tt te sti fi ed

that, dur ing the pe ri od tha t sh e w as on m ed ic al le av e, she was ex tre m el y

ti red , andhe r da y

co ns is te d o f ge tt in g up, d res si ng , andres ti ng . O the r than th er ap y , he r onl y a ct ivi tie s w er e ne ed le w ork, r ea din g, or w at ch ing te le vis ion . S he be cam e m or e an d m or e tir ed a s he r ch em oth er ap y

tr eatm en t co nti nue d. Inan a ff idavit sig ne d inD ec em

be r 1997 , G ar

re tt not ed the f oll ow ing sid e ef fe ct s of he r canc er

tr eatm en t. D ur ing the pe ri od f ro m O ct obe r thr ough D ec em be r 1994 , she suf

fe re d f ro m e xtr em e fatig ue , nause a, hot f la she s, dif

fi cu lty 1315

sleeping, episodi c diarrhea , and her hosp italization for leukopeni a. She f urther not ed that whe n sh e pla ce d he r en er gy int o w orkin g, she w as too e xhaust ed to func tio n inthe hom e. R eg ar din g he r ar m s, she ge ne ra lly

state d th at

“ [s he ] w as not able to . . . lift and m ove m y arm s. . . .” A s for the period of her m edical leave, G ar re tt not ed onl y that he r husb an d c ont inu ed to have to carr

y the gr eat m aj or ity of hou se hol d du tie s. G ar re tt al so t es tif

ie d of the sid e ef

fe ct s of he r canc er

tr eatm en t, and the re sul tin g li m itatio ns, in a 2004 de posi tio n. A t tha t t im e, G ar re tt ad de d th at

she be lie ve d sh e ha d m ini m iz ed he r te sti m ony

r eg ar din g he r dis ab ili tie s inhe r 1997 de posi tio n. I n part ic ular, she not ed that r eg ar din g he r ar

m s sh e “ co uld

not do a lot o f l i ft i n g an dth at s o rt o f t h i n g .” Sh e f u rt h ero p i n edth at s h e “pr o b ab l y” co u l dn ’t lif t anythi ng o ve r fi ft ee n to tw en ty pounds. Fi na lly , G ar

re tt of fe rs he r 2004 de cl ar at ionr eg ar din g he r im pa irm en ts and lim itations . In addition to what has previously been noted, G arre tt provid ed ad dit ion al de ta il of

the e xte nt t o w hic h sh e re qui re d a ssi stanc e dur ing the f ir st three w eeks after

her surgery . She noted that she had no use of her r ight arm dur ing thi s ti m e, and tha t sh e de pe nde d up on h er sis te r an d he r fi an cé , w hom she w oul d m ar

ry in N ove m

be r, in pe rf

orm ing se lf

-c ar e ta sks . G ar

re tt not ed that sh e be gan a ssi sti ng w ithhe r se lf -c ar e, a t f ir st u sin g j ust

he r le ft arm , and tha t he r ri ght16

ar m w as li m ite d to li ft ing no m or e than te n po unds . I n c ar ing f or he rs el f, G ar

re tt opi ne s th at , a t tha t t im e, she too k tw ic e as lon g a s m ost pe opl e in p er fo rm ing m ost ta sks . G ar

re tt furthe r not es that, a s sh e be gan he r ch em oth er ap y , she be cam e ab le to sho we r independently , per form ed self-c are activities, and required her husb and’ s assistance dressing several tim es a w eek. She further states that her husb and contin ued to perform the househ old tasks . She also asserts that she wa s lim ited to lifting fiftee n to twenty poun ds. G arre tt re-iter ates that, during this tim e, she continu ed to suffer f

rom fatigue, which caused her to take frequent breaks at w ork, and t o c oll ap se be ca use of e xhaust ionw he n sh e re tur ne d ho m e fr om

w ork. Fo r se ve ra l r ea sons , thi s e vid en ce of G ar re tt’ s im pa irm en ts and l im itatio ns fa ils to ra ise an is sue of

tr ia ble f ac t tha t sh e w as dis ab le d. Mo st n ota bly , the m ost severe per iods o f lim itation th at G arre tt suffered during her cancer tre atm ent wer e short-term , te m

porary , and contem

poraneous with her treatm ent. Asevere li m it at io n t ha t i s s ho rt t erm an d t em po rary is n ot ev id en ce o f a d is ab il it y . See, Su tt on , 185 F. 3d at 12 09 ( “ Ate m por ar y ina bil ity to w ork w hil e re cu

pe ratin g f ro m sur ge ry is not suc h ape rm an en t or

lon g- te rm

im pa irm en t and d oe s no t c onst itu te ev ide nc e of

adis ab ili ty

c ove re d by

the A ct . ”) F urthe r, abse nt f ro m the r ec or d is any e vid en ce that, f

ro m the pe rs pe ct ive of

Jul y 199 5, she w as e xpe ct ed

to co nti nue17

to s uf fe r fr om any lon g- te rm

or pe rm an en t si de -e ff

ec ts o f suf

fi ci en t se ve ri ty

to co nst itu te adis ab ili ty . A s to G ar re tt’ s f at igu e, w hic h w as the pr im ar y li m itatio n of w hic h sh e ini tia lly

c om pla ine d in199 7, it

ha d a lr ea dy

suf fi ci en tly dim ini she d to pe rm ithe r to return t o wo rkwit hi n wee ks of h er l as t ch em ot he rap y ses si on . Regarding the im

pairm ent to Gar

rett’ s arm , the only

evidence of its expected ongo ing status is G ar

re tt’ s st at em en ts i n 20 04 tha t, som et im e af te r he r sur ge ry , she co uld not li ft m or e than te n po unds , and tha t sh e co uld pr oba bly li ft f if te ento tw en ty pounds som et im e dur ing he r ch em oth er ap y . T his e vid en ce sug ge sts onl y that G ar re tt’ s arm w as r ec ove ri ng. F ina lly , w e not e the la ck of any obj ec tiv e evidence of the extent of G arre tt’ s lim itations . While Dr. Miller asserts that G ar re tt w as pr ec lud ed

f ro m pe rf orm ing m ed ium

or he av y j obs, he ha s no t refe renced any

objec tive criteria supp orting hi s conclusio n. H e did not id entify any te st tha t he pe rf

orm ed , or r equir ed G ar re tt to p er fo rm , to de te rm ine the e xte nt of he r lim itatio ns. To the extent that G arre tt has relied upon h er subj ective observations o f her l i m i t at i o n s , h ers t at emen t s ar e r ep ea t ed l y co u ch edi n g en er al an dv ag u e t er m s . We have pr ev iou sly

he ld tha t t es tim ony

of li m itatio ns c ouc he d inva gue te rm s is ins uf fi ci en t, part ic ularl y

in the abse nc e of

e vid en ce that a

de sc ri be d a ff

lic tio n isThe re cord la cks any basis to conclude that the University reg arde d Gar

rett has 14 havinga disability . Whil e the Unive rsity had knowledg e that Ga

rre tt was beingtreated for canc er, she has not offe red a ny evidenc e that the Unive rsity reg arde d that treatment, or its side e ff e c ts, a s d isa

bli ngGa rr e tt. 18 wor se th an is su ffer edby m an y adul ts . See, Ros sb ac h v . Cit y o f Mi ami , 371 F . 3d 1354 , 1359 (11 Cir. 2004 ). th G ar re tt ha s a lso f

ai le d to sho wthat sh e w as sub stanti al ly li m ite d in

“ w orkin g. ” T he c onc ep tua l di ff ic ult ie s inhe re nt i n r el y ing upo n ali m itatio n inthe ab ili ty to “ w ork” a s e vid en ce of adis ab ili ty

are c om poun de d, in thi s m atte r, by several aspects of the opinion of Garr ett’ s expert regar ding j obs from which Garrett is prec luded. T he expert asserts that G arre tt could n ot perform either m ed ium or he av y j obs, but doe s no t of

fe r any ind ic at ionthat sh e ind ep en de ntl y determ ined that Garr ett could no t perform these j obs in 1995 . Instead, the e xpert re lie d so le ly

upo n th e as se ssm en ts o f D rs . Mi lle r an d C ar pe nte r that G ar

re tt co uld not pe rf orm m ed ium or he av y j obs. D r. Carp en te r, how ev er , did not be gintr eatin g G ar re tt unt il 1997 , and h is a sse ssm en t w as ba se d on ly upo n hi s ob se rv at ion s of G ar re tt’ s c ondi tio n a ft er

199 7. F urthe r, a s pr ev iou sly not ed , D r. Mi lle r did

not ide nti fy or r ef er to any spe ci fi c, obj ec tiv e ev ide nc e to s uppo rt his a sse ssm en t of G ar re tt’ s a bil ity to pe rf orm m ed ium or he av y w ork. 1419

Ac cordingly , G arre tt did n ot m eet her burden of sho wing that she was dis ab le d a t the ti m e of

he r de m oti on i n Ju ly

199 5.

V Garrett a lso cannot m aintain her claim for r etaliation. T o defeat sum m ary j udgm ent as to this claim , G arre tt had to sh ow that she engaged in a protected activity , that she suffe red an adverse em ploym ent action, and that the protected act iv it y was c au sa ll y

co nn ect edto th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . W

eeks v . Har de n Mf

g. Co rp ., 291 F.3d 1307 , 1311 (11 Cir. 2002 ). th A s pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi tie s, G ar

re tt poi nts to (a ) he r re que st f or le av e in Se pte m be r 1994 to unde rg o and r ec upe rate f ro m sur ge ry , ( b) he r re que st f or int er m itt en t l eave be gin nin g inD ec em be r 1994 , and ( c) he r re que st f or ale av e of ab s en ce s t ar t i n g Ma rc h 1 , 1 9 9 5 . We a s s u m e, wi th o u ts o d ec i d i n g , th at Ga rr et t ’s vari ous re que sts f

or le av e w er e pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi tie s. A s a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion s f

or he r fi rs t r eque ste d le av e, G ar re tt as se rt s that ( a) w he n sh e re tur

ne d to w ork, he r supe rv iso r tol d he r that sh e did not loo k w el l and s he sho uld

le av e w ork and g o ho m e, and ( b) she w as dis ci pli ne d f or not fulfilling h er duties. Ne ither of these events are adverse em ploym ent actions, as they do not m eet even a m inim um “ thresholdlevel of substantialit y .” See ,The Ag enda be lies Garr ett’s cha rac terization, in her dec laration, that it s tated she 15 was to be r eplac ed. 20 W ide m an v . W

al- M art Sto res, Inc ., 14 1 F .3d14 53 , 14 56 (11 Cir . 19 98 ). At th worst, the statem ents of Gar rett’ s superviso r ar e innocuou s statem ents of concern fo r G ar re tt’ s a dm itt ed

f at igu e at w ork, and a

r em ind er that l eave w as a va ila

ble to G ar re tt if ne ed ed . A s G ar

re tt adm itt ed

r eg ar din g he r supe rv iso r’ s f ir st c om m en t, she “ didn ’ t see [it] as threatening at all, obvio usly .” A s to Gar rett’ s assertion that she w as dis ci pli ne d, the m em or an dum upo n w hic h sh e re lie s st at es : Pat, thank y ou for attem

pting to m eet the expectations of the service lin e dir ec tor

r ole w e ar e ev olv ing . F ro m our c onve rs at ionla st Mon day , it

is ap pare nt tha t the f

inanc ia l m an ag em en t, str at eg ic planni ng, and p hy sic ian r el at ion s c om pone nts of

thi s r ole are not suf fi ci en tly m et . N or

is thi s w ork de sir ab le to y ou. N oth ing in the m em or an dum sug ge sts that G ar

re tt w as be ing dis ci pli ne d. Re gard ing the a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ionin re spon se to he r re que st f or interm ittent leave, G arre tt asserts that the University began recr

uitin g to fill her posi tio n. T he onl y

c om pe te nt e vid en ce of

fe re d by G ar re tt in s uppo rt

of thi s as se rt ionis the a ge ndaf

ro m am ee tin g th at

she did not a tte nd, ind ic at ing that the posi tio n of

D ir ec tor of W om en ’ s S er

vic es w as be ing r ec ru ite d. T he U niv er sity 15 of fe re d un dis put ed

e vid en ce that the pos iti on f or w hic h it w as r ec ru iti ng w as not G ar re tt’ s po sit ion , but

the se rv ic e lin e dir ec tor

f or W om en ’ s S er

vic es .21

As to G arre tt’ s request for a leave of a bsence on March 1, she asserts that the r et al ia tor

y a dve rs e ac tio n w as he r de m oti on o n Ju ly 21. A s pr ev iou sly indicated, G arre tt has offere d sufficient evidence to place into disp ute whether her tr an sf er r eque sts to low er -p ay ing pos iti ons w er e vol unt ar y . Ade m oti on t o a low er -p ay ing pos iti on i s an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ion . G ar

re tt ha s no t sh ow n, however, a ca

usal connection betwee n her request for a leave of a

bsence and her dem otion . As evidence of causality , she r elies only upon the previouslynoted ev en ts , whi ch we ha ve fou ndwere n ot ad ve rs e, an d t he “ ti m in g” of h er d em ot io n. Si nc e G ar re tt ha s no t r ai se d atr ia

ble iss ue of

f ac t tha t sh e w as sub

j ec t t o any adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionoth er

than he r de m oti on, he r cl ai m hin ge s up on w h e th e r s h e h a s s h o w n t e mp o r a l p r o x i mi ty. A s s u mmar i z e db y t h e S up r e me Co u rt , “ [t ]h e c as es th at ac ce p tm er e t emp o ra l p ro x i m i ty b et we en an empl o yer’s know le dge of

pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct iona s su ff

ic ie nt ev ide nc e of

c au sa lity to es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se uni fo rm ly hol d th at the tem poral proxim ity

m ust be ‘ very

close.’ ” Clark County Schoo l Dist. v. Bre eden , 532 U.S . 268, 273, 121 S. Ct 1508, 149 L.E d.2d 509 (200 1). The University had know le dge of

G ar re tt’ s r eque st f

or le av e be fo re Marc h. S he w as de m ote d inJul y 1995 , m ore than four and one-half m onth s after her re quest. G arre tt’ s request for a m edical leave and her dem otion we re not tem porally close, m uch less “ very

close.”22

A cc or din gly , G ar

re tt did not m ee t he r bur de n to go f

or w ar d w ithhe r cl ai m

of re ta liatio n. AFFIRMED.