FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 36 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 07 84 -MEF- TFM SYLVIA SUMMER S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us THE CITY OF DOT HAN, AL ABAMA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, JOHN R. POWEL L, Ch ie f, inhi s Off

ic ia l Capa ci ty as Ch ie f of Po li ce fo r Dot ha n, Al ab am a, Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 11 )Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Sy lv iaSu m

m ers ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof h er fo rm er em

pl oyer, th e Ci ty of Dot ha n (“ th e Ci ty”) onhe r di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on cla im s, u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 an d Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a). Sh e arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n h er ra ce an d s ex di sc riminat io n a nd ret al ia ti on cla im s. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . I. Su m m ers fir starg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredingrant in g t he Cit y ’s
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t o n h er rac e an d s ex di sc riminat io n c la im s. Sh e as se rts th atsh e es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, b y sh owi ng ot he r si mil arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees, o ut si de he r pr ot ect edcla ss , who were n otpu ni sh ed
as ha rs hl y

as h er, d es pi te vi ol at in g t he same rul es inth e sa m e m an ne r, an d fu rth er th atth e Ci ty’ s re as on s fo r di sc ip li ni ng he r were m ere p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.

“ Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws d e n ov o s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s an d d raws all in fere nc es an d re vi ews all ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty .” Mo to n v . Cowa rt, 6 31 F.3d13 37 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s 2ap pr op ria te on ly if “ th e m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a). “ The m ov in g p arty m ay m eetit s b ur de n t o s ho w th atth ere are n o ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factby dem on st rat in g t ha t the re i s a l ackof e vi de nc e to supp ort the ess en ti al ele m en ts th atth e n on -m ov in g p arty m us t p ro ve at t ria l.” Mo to n, 6 31 F.3dat 1 34 1. Th e o pp os in g p arty m us t o fferm or e th ana “ m ere sc in ti ll a o f ev id en ce” i n s up po rt, s uc h t ha t “ th e jury cou ldreas on ab ly findforth at pa rty.” Broo ks v. Cn ty. Co m m ’n of J effe rs onCn ty., Ala., 4 46 F.3d11 60 , 11 62 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ Mer e co nc lu si on s an d u ns up po rte d fa ctua l al le ga ti on s ar e le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t t o c reat e a d is pu te to de featsu m m ary jud gm en t.” Ba ld Mo un ta inPark , Ltd . v. Oli ve r, 86 3 F .2d15 60 , 15 63 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Tit le VII pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g a ga in sta pe rs on ba se d
on race or s ex . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) . Like wis e, un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, an
em pl oyee ha s t he rig htto be free of i nt en ti on al raci al di sc riminat io n i n t he pe rfo rm an ce o f a co nt ract . The el em en ts requi redto est ab li sh a § 1 98 1 c la im are th e sa m e as th os e requi redto est ab li sh a Tit le VII cl ai m . Rice -Lam ar v . Cit y of F t. Lau de rd al e, 23 2 F .3d83 6, 8 43 n.1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. A pl ai nt iff

m ay est ab li sh a di sc riminat io n c la im th ro ug h t he in tro du ct io n o f di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Dix on v. Th e Hal lm ark 3Co m

pa ni es , Inc ., 62 7 F .3d84 9, 8 54 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Whe re, as he re, the pl ai nt iff rel ie s o n c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n, we ap pl y th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fram ewo rk

art ic ul at edinMcDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v . Green , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S. Ct . 18 17 (19 73 ). Alv arez v. Ro y al Atl . Deve lo pe rs , Inc ., 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Und er tha t fr am ewo rk , a pl ai nt iff is fir strequi redto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n. Id . To do th at , sh e m ay sh ow tha t: (1) sh e is a m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) sh e was subjec t t o a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; (3 ) he r em

pl oyer tre at edsi m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees wh o wer e n otm em be rs of he r pr ot ect edcla ss m or e fav or ab ly; an d (4 ) sh e was qu al ifi edto do th e job
. Bu rk eFo wlerv. Oran ge Cn ty., 44 7 F .3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). If th e p la in ti ff pr es en ts a pr im a fac ie cas e, th e b ur de n o f pr oduc ti on sh ift s t o the de fen da ntto of fer aleg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forth e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . Alv arez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 4. If t he de fen da ntm eet s t hi s b ur de n o f pr oduc ti on , th e bu rd ensh ift s b ackto th e p la in ti ff t o s ho w th atth e st at edreas on is a m ere p ret ex t fo r un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n. Id
. Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r em pl oyees a re s im il arl y

si tu at edincas es in vo lv in g al le ge dl y di sc riminat ory

di sc ip li ne , we eva lu at e “ whe th er the em pl oyees [we re] in vo lv edinor a ccu se d o f th e sa m e o r si m il ar co nduc t an d [we re] di sc ip li ne d i n di ffer en t ways.” Burk e-Fo wler , 44 7 F .3dat 1 32 3 (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . The 4qu an ti ty andqu al it y of t he co m

pa rat or ’s m is co nduc t m

us t b e “ ne arl y

id en ti cal ” to th e p la in ti ff’s m is co nduc t, i n o rd er “ to pre ve ntco urts fro m sec on d- gu es si ng em pl oyers’ reas on ab le de ci si on s.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Also , pro ffer ed
co m pa rat or s’ act io ns are o nl y rel ev an t i f itis sh own th atth e d eci si on m ak er kne w of th e p rio r si m il ar ac ts an d d idno t d is ci pl in e th e ru le vi ol at or s. See Jo ne s v . Gerwen s, 8 74 F.2d15 34 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Kno wled ge of apri oractcan no t be im pu te d o n ade ci si on m ak er, b ecau se “ [d ]iscr im in at io n i s ab ou t ac tu al kn owl ed ge , andreal in te nt , no t co ns tru ct iv e kno wled ge an d a ss um edin te nt .” Si lv era v . Oran ge Cn ty. Sch . Bd., 2 44 F.3d12 53 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Su m m ers , an Afr ic an -Am eri can wom an , was em pl oyed b y th e Ci ty as a po li ce o ffi cer. Her e m

pl oym en t was termin at edby the Cit y on Ju ne 25 , 20 07 , aft er sh e rec ei ve d t wo m ajoroff en se s fo r fai li ng to co m

pl y with t he po li ce d ep art m en t’s
ru le s an d re gu la ti on s. Su m m ers arg ue s t ha t b ot h i ns ta nc es of d is ci pl in e were t he
res ul t o f rac e an d s ex di sc riminat io n. The fir stdi sc ip li na ry

act io n was tak enaft er Su m m ers fai le d t o s wear t o t he
arre stco m

pl ai ntfol lo win g h er Ap ril 5, 2 00 6 a rres t o f Bri anSh ackforcri m in al tre sp as s an d o ut st an di ng warran ts . Becau se ne it he r th e arr es ti ng off ic er, Su m m ers , no r th e o ffi cer wh o t ran sp orte d S ha ckto th e jail , Offic er J oe y Evan s, co m pl et edth e n eces sa ry

pape rwo rk , th ere was no reco rdof t he arre stan d a s a

5res ul t Sh ackrem ai ne d c on fin edinjail witho utsee in g ajud ge reg ard in g h is Apri l

5, 2 00 6 a rres t fo r 10 4 d ay s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Ci ty det erm in edth atSu m m ers di d
no t g o t o t he m ag is tra te ’s off ic e to swea r to th e co m

pl ai ntina ti m el y

fas hi on in vi ol at io n P ro cedur al Gene ral Orde r (“ PGO”) 5 11 , whi chpro vi de s t ha t “ [t]he Offi cer s ha ll be res po ns ib le forob ta in in g warran ts inSta te m is de m ean orcas es th e sa m e worki ng da y , if p os si bl e, or th e n ex t wo rk in g d ay

th e Ma gi st rat e is
av ai labl e.” Inth e co ur se of t he in ve st ig at io n o f th is in ci de nt , in te rn al affa irs di sc ov ered th atan ot he r of

fic er, Offi cer R ob ertCo le , a whi te m al e, ha d a ls o a rres te d S ha ckfor cri m in al tre sp as s an d fa il edto swear to th e co m pl ai ntina ti m el y

fas hi on . Whi le Su m m ers rece iv eda m ajor

off en se forhe r co nduc t, Co le rece iv edon ly a min or of fen se forhi s. Su m

m ers arg ue s t ha t thi s i s ev id en ce tha t h er em pl oyer tre at ed si mil arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees wh o wer e n otm em be rs of h er p ro te ct edcla ss m or e fav or ab ly. Bu rk e-Fo wler , 44 7 F .3dat 1 32 3. Un li ke Su m m ers , ho wev er, Co le twi ce at te m

pt edto swea r to th e arr es t co m pl ai ntat t he m ag is tra te ’s off ic e, bu t was un ab le to do so be cau se no m ag is tra te co ul d b e fo un d t he fir stti m e an d t he
co m pl ai ntco ul d n otbe fou ndth e se co ndti m e. Mo reo ve r, as a res ul t o f Co le ’s act io ns , Sha ckrem ai ne d c on fin edinth e jail forth irt een da y s, i n c om pa ris on to th e 10 4 d ay s Sh ackrem ai ne d c on fin edaft er Su m m ers arre st edhi m . Thu s, Co le ’s 6co nduc t was no t “ ne arl y id en ti cal ” to Su m

m ers ’s andhe was t he refo re n ota pr op er co m pa rat or . See i d.

1 Su m m ers ne xtarg ue s t ha t Ev an s, an Afric an -Am eri can m al e, was als o tre at edm or e fav or ab ly than s he was. Sh e as se rte d b efo re the di st ric t co urt tha t the Summers also argues that summary judgme nt should not have bee n grante d on her 1 discrimination claims beca use she disputes that she a ctually violated PGO 511. Duringthe investigation of the incident, Summers stated that she f ollowed the usual pra ctice a nd did swear out a war rant for Shack. To be sure, in Jones v. Gerwe ns, we said that in case s involving alleg ed rac ial bias in the application of discipline for violation of work rules, the plaintiff, in addition to being a member of a protec t ed cl as s , must s h o w either (a) that he did not violate the work rule, or (b) that he en gage d i n misconduct simil ar to that of a person outside the protec ted class, and that the disciplinary measure s enfor ced ag ains t him wer e more sever e than those enfor ced ag ainst the other pe rsons who eng ag ed in similar misconduct. 874 F.2d at 1540. But we later c larified that the languag e in J ones v. Ge rwe ns “about ‘did not violate the wor

k rule’ [is] unnece ssary

to [ that] decision . . . and [i s] di cta,” and westated that [t ]he pertinent words in J ones[ v. Ger wens] demand not two, but three elements: (1) the pl aintiff is a member of a p ro t ec t ed class; (2) the plaintiff has eng ag ed—either (a) disputedly or (b) admittedly —in misconduct simil ar to persons outside the protec ted class; and (3) that s i m i larly situated, nonminority employees (that is, persons outside the pr otected c lass) re ceive d more fa vorable treatment. J ones v. B essemer

Carra way Med. Ctr., 137 F.3d 1306, 1311 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1998), supersede d in part, 151 F .3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1998). We explained that “no plaintiff ca n make out a prima fac ie case by showingjust that she belong s to a protec ted class a nd that she did not violate her employer’ s work rule .” I d. Instead, “ [t ]he plaintiff must also pointto someone similarly situated (but outside the protec ted class) who disputed a violation of the r ule and who w as, in fac t, treate d better.” I d. Thus, we c onclude that Summers ca nnot defe at the City ’s motion for summary judgme nt on her ra ce a

nd sex di scrimination claims mere ly by attempting to dispute the City ’s deter mination that she violated the work r ule.

7“us ua l p ract ic e” i n s itua ti on s wh ere t he arre st in g o ffi cer d oe s n ottra ns po rt t he

arre st ee t o t he jail is “ fo r th e tr an sp orti ng off ic er t o fi ll ou t the fir stpa rt o f th e co m pl ai ntform , att ach itto th e arr es t re po rt, andsen d i t thr ou gh th e ch anne ls whe re u lt im at el y

itis po st edon th e ‘swear b oa rd ’ atth e m ag is tra te ’s off ic e fo r th e arre st in g o ffi cer t o s ig n.” She arg ue s t ha t fo ll owi ng he r arre stof S ha ck , Evan s fai le d t o fi ll ou t the fir stpart o f th e co m pl ai nt , att ach itto th e arr es t re po rt a nd tra ns mititth ro ug h t he ap pr op ria te ch an ne ls , bu t tha t h e was no t d is ci pl in ed
. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Ev an s, the tra ns po rti ng off ic er, i s n ot
anap pr op ria te co m

pa rat or be cau se hi s co nduc t was no t “ ne arl y id en ti cal ” to Su m m ers ’s con du ctas t he arre st in g o ffi cer. Se e id . (“ [W] e requi re tha t the qu an ti ty andqu al it y

of t he co m

pa rat or ’s m is co nduc t b e n earl y id en ti cal to pre ve nt co urts fro m

sec on d- gu es si ng em

pl oyers’ reas on ab le de ci si on s an d c on fu si ng ap pl es with o ran ge s.” ( qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Even ass um in g t ha t Ev an s vi ol at eda ru le or r eg ul at io n b y fai li ng to fol lo w th e u su al pro cedur es fora tra ns po rti ng off

ic er, h e st il l wo ul d n otha ve vi ol at edth e sa m e ru le Sum m ers was di sc ip li ne d fo r vi ol at in g. As th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed , th e Ci ty is en ti tl edto in te rp retPGO 51 1’s s ta te m en t tha t “ [t]he Offic er s ha ll be res po ns ib le for ob ta in in g warran ts ” to ap pl y sp eci fic al ly to the arre st in g, ra th er tha n t ran sp orti ng , of fic er. See Man ic ci a v . Bro wn, 1 71 F.3d13 64 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ Tit le VII 8do es no t t ak e away an em pl oyer’s rig htto in te rp retit s ru le s as itch oo se s, an d t o m ak e d et erm in at io ns as i t s ees fitun de r th os e ru le s.” ( qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). The sec on d d is ci pl in ary in ci de ntres ul te d fr om Su m m ers ’s fai lure t o turn i n Uni fo rm Traffi c Ci ta ti on s (“ UTCs” ) wit hi n 4 8 h ou rs aft er i ss ua nc e, in vi ol at io n o f Ru le 19 of t he Alab am a Ru le s o f Ju di ci al Adm in is tra ti on . Rul e 1 9( 6) (a)( i) s ta te s: Each la w e nf

or cem en t of

fic er sh al l co m

pl et e an d s ig n t he ti ck et , s erv e a co py of th e co mp l e t e d ti ck et up on th e de fen da nt , an d witho ut un ne ces sa ry de la y , no rm al ly withi n 48 ho ur s, ackno wled ge un de r oa th th e fact s al le ge d th erei n be fo re an y pe rs on withi n th e jud ic ia l br an ch of go ve rn m en t who is au th or iz ed b y th e St at e of Alab am a to adm in is te r oa th s an d fil e th e co urt co pi es of th e ti ck et w i t h th e co urt ha vi ng juri sd ic ti on ov er the all eg edoff en se . Su m m ers is su edth ree UTCs to m ot or is ts inDotha n o n M arch 15 , 20 07 . Over a
m on th lat er, o n o r aro un d Ap ril 17 , 20 07 , on e o f th e m ot or is ts wentto th e m ag is tra te ’s off

ic e to pa y th e ti ck et , bu t co ul d n otbe cau se th e UTC ha d n otbe en tu rn edin . An o ffi cer i nv es ti ga ti ng th e m is si ng UTC di sc ov eredth atSu m m ers ha d th e uns worn UTCs tu ck edin to th e b ack si de of h er b oo k. As a res ul t, Su m m ers rece iv eda se co ndm ajoroff en se , whi ch co ns ti tu te d g ro un ds fordi sc ha rg e. Her
em pl oym en t was term in at edon Ju ne 25 , 20 07
. Inap pe al in g h er t erm in at io n t o t he Pers on ne l Bo ard , Summ ers ’s m eri t syste m att orne y subp oe na edth e p ol ic e d ep art m en t fo r th e UTC reco rd s o f ot he r

9po li ce o ffi cers . As a res ul t o f th atsubp oe na , th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t d is co ve redan d

pr oduc edev id en ce o f se ve ral vi ol at io ns of t he 48 -h ou r ru le forUTCs b y ot he r of fic ers , in cl ud in g a t l eas t o ne whi te m al e o ffi cer wh o d idno t turn i n aUTC un ti l si x wee ks aft er i t was is su ed . Sum m ers arg ue s t ha t thi s t oo co ns ti tu te s ev id en ce th atth e Ci ty treat edsi m il arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees wh o wer e n otm em be rs of h er pr ot ect edcla ss m or e fav or ab ly. See Bu rk e-Fo wler , 44 7 F .3dat 1 32 3. W e can no t ag ree t ha t the ot he r of fic ers were s im il arl y

si tu at edto Su m

m ers fo r th e p ur

po se s o f di sc ip li na ry

act io n. Un li ke Su m

m ers ’s m is co nduc t, wh ic h
cam e to li gh t b ecau se a m ot or is t was un ab le to pa y a tr affi c ti ck et , th e o th er of fic ers ’ vi ol at io ns of t he 48 -h ou r ru le were n otkn own by the rel ev an t d eci si on m ak ers un ti l Su m

m ers ’s att orne y

subp oe na edth e d ep artm en t’s re co rd s i n ap pe al in g h er t erm in at io n. Be cau se th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t d eci si on m ak ers di d n ot kn ow ab ou t the ot he r of

fic ers ’ pr io r si m il ar ac ts at t he ti m e th ey di sc ip li ne d Su m m ers , th is di sp arat e tr eat m en t ca nn otbe ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. See Jo ne s v . Gerwen s, 8 74 F.2dat 1 54 2. As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d b efo re,

“ [d ]iscr im in at io n i s ab ou t ac tu al kn owl ed ge , andreal in te nt , no t co ns tru ct iv e kn owl ed ge an d a ss um edin te nt .” Sil ve ra, 2 44 F.3dat 1 26 2. 2 Summers also argues that the 48-hour rule wa s a “sham” rule that was only enfor ced 2 ag ainst her, but she c ites to no authority allowingus to ex cuse he r fa ilure to identify appropriate compar ators on this basis. We observe, how ever , that to the extent S ummers appe ars to argue 10Bec au se no ne of t he pro ffer edem pl oyees a re p ro pe r co m

pa rat or s t o Su m m ers , sh e fai ls to est ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e fo r di sc riminat io n. We con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in grant in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Ci ty on Su m m ers ’s race a ndsex di sc riminat io n c la im s u nd er Tit le VII an d § 19 81
. II. Su m m ers als o a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredingrant in g t he Cit y ’s
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t wi th reg ard s t o h er re ta li at io n c la im s. Sh e arg ue s th athe r co m

pl ai nt s o f rac e an d s ex di sc riminat io n wer e cau sa ll y co nn ect edto th e adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s t ak enag ai ns t h er, an d t he Cit y ’s reas on s fo r th e adve rs e act io ns were p ret ex t fo r ret al ia ti on . Titl e VII p ro hi bi ts anem pl oyer fro m ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t an em

pl oyee fo r op po si ng anun lawfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e. See Bu rli ng to n N. an d S an taFe Ry. Co . v. Whit e, 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 5 9, 1 26 S. Ct. 24 05 , 24 10 (20 06 ). A race-b as edret al ia ti on cla im is als o c og ni zab le un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. CB OCS West , Inc . v. Hu m ph rie s, 5 53 U.S. 44 2, 4 57 , 12 8 S . Ct. 19 51 , 19 61 (20 08 ). To es tabl is h aTit le VII or§ 1 98 1 re ta li at io n c la im , th e pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th atsh e en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edex pr es si on , sh e su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , andth ere was a cau sa l co nn ect io n

once a g ain that she wa s not in viol ation of a va lid work rule, she cannot e stablish a prima fa cie case of discrimination simply by disputing the violation. See Jones v. Besse mer Car raw ay Med. Ctr., 137 F.3d at 1311 n.6. 11be twee n the two ev en ts . Gol ds m it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., Inc ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 ,

12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Once a pl ai nt iff est ab li sh es a pr im a fac ie cas e, th e em pl oyer th enha s an op po rtu ni ty to arti cu la te a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on fo r th e ch al le ng edem

pl oym en t ac ti on . Id. The pl ai nt iff th enha s t he ul ti m at e bu rd enof p ro vi ng th atth e rea so n p ro vi de d b y th e em pl oyer was apre te xtfor pr oh ib it ed , ret al ia to ry

co nduc t. Id
. To es tabl is h acau sa l co nn ect io n, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th atth e d eci si on m ak er was aware o f th e p ro te ct edco nduc t, an d t ha t the pro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io ns were n otwho ll y un rel at ed . Shann on v. Be ll So ut h Tel eco m m s., In c., 29 2 F .3d71 2, 7 16 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ Cl os e te m po ral pro xi m it y

be twee n t he pr ot ect edact iv it y

an d the adve rs e act io n m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th atth e two were n otwho ll y

un rel at ed .” Id . at 7 16 –1 7 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Sho win g th atanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on happ en s wi th in on e m on th of t he pro te ct ed act iv ity sat is fie s the cau sa ti onrequi rem en t fo r su m m ary jud gm en t p ur

po se s. Don ne ll onv. Fru eh au f Co rp ., 79 4 F .2d59 8, 6 01 –0 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . Howev er, a th ree t o fo urm on th pe rio d b etweenth e d at e o f th e co m pl ai nt s an d t he da te of t he adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , witho utm or e, is in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh cau sa ti on . Tho m as v. Co op er Lig ht in g, In c., 50 6 F .3d13 61 , 13 64 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Add it io na ll y , th e al le ge d a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on m

us t fo ll ow the pro te ct ed 12co nduc t. Gri ffi n v . GTE Fl a., In c., 18 2 F .3d12 79 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Whe n

anem pl oyer co nt em

pl at es tak in g am at eri al ly adv ers e act io n b efo re an em pl oyee en ga ge s i n p ro te ct edact iv it y , tem po ral pro xi m it y

be twee n t he pro te ct edact iv it y an d t he subs eque ntadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on do es no t s uf fic e to sh ow caus at io n. Drag o v . Jen ne , 45 3 F .3d13 01 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Here, i n a n a tt em

ptto sh ow tha t the m ajor off en se s s he rece iv edon Janua ry 18 , 20 07 forth e Sh ackin ci de ntan d o n J un e 2 5, 2 00 7 fo r fai li ng to tu rninUTCs, whi chco m

bi ne d t o l eadto he r Ju ne 25 , 20 07 term in at io n, wer e n otwho ll y un rel at edto pro te ct edact iv it y , Sum m ers po in ts to sev eral in st an ces inwhi ch sh e arg ue s s he co m

pl ai ne d o f di sc riminat io n. Fi rs t, s he ass ert s t ha t, fo ll owi ng he r an nu al pe rfo rm an ce re vi ew, sh e co m pl ai ne d t o C hi ef J oh n P owe ll onJu ne 1, 2 00 6 th atsh e was subjec t t o d is cri m in at io n o n the ba si s o f se x. Seco nd , on Jan uary 26 , 3 20 07 sh e co m

pl ai ne d o f rac e an d s ex di sc riminat io n wh ensh e m etwith t he Cit y of Dot han EEO Offi cer, Dav idTho rn to n, re ga rd in g a n i nv es ti ga ti on in to di sc riminat io n c om

pl ai nt s b y an ot he r fem al e o ffi cer. Th ird , sh e cl ai m s t ha t s he

In the form she submitt ed to Chief Powell, Summers did not ex plicitly alleg e 3 discrimination on the basis of sex or rac e, but did, amongother thing s, complain that she wa s “not beingtreated equa lly or fa irly” by

her supe rvisors. She stated that he r super visors were indiffer ent to her c omplaints that she was put in situations “which put [her] s afe ty and/or the safe ty of [her] family

at risk.” In her deposition, S ummers explained that she wa s ref erring to he r conce rn that police dispatc hers we re r espondingmore fa vorably to calls for ba ck-up f

rom male office rs than fe male off

icer s. 13co m

pl ai ne d o f di sc riminat io n o n J un e 1 5, 2 00 7, wh enm eet in g wi th Cap ta in Larry Drau gh on to reque sta tr an sf er. 4 The fir sttwo in ci de nt s—th e Ju ne 1, 2 00 6 c om pl ai nt s fo ll owi ng he r pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on an d t he Jan ua ry 26 , 20 07 m eet in g wi th Tho rn to n— are n ot te m po ral ly pro xi m at e en ou gh to th e ad ve rs e act io ns un de r ou r pr eced en t. The Ju ne 1, 2 00 6 c om

pl ai ntwas l od ge d s ev enm on th s b efo re Su m m ers was di sc ip li ne d, o n J anua ry

18 , 20 07 , forfai li ng to swear to anarre stco m pl ai ntfor Sh ack . Her Jan ua ry

26 , 20 07 m eet in g wi th Tho rn to n t oo k p la ce o nl y af te r sh e was di sc ip li ne d fo r th e Sh ackin ci de nt , see Drag o, 4 53 F.3dat 1 30 8, an d fi ve m on th s be fo re s he was d is ci pl in ed , on Ju ne 25 , 20 06 , for fai li ng to tu rninUTCs. We ha ve pre vi ou sl y

he ldth at“ [a] th ree t o fo ur m on th di sp ari ty betweenth e st atut or il y pr ot ect edex pr es si on an d t he adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on is no t en ou gh .” Tho m as , 50 6 F .3dat 1 36 4. Th e se ve n- an d fi ve -m on th pe rio ds Su m m ers po in ts to he re ar e th eref or e n otsh ort en ou gh to rai se anin fere nc e th atth e ad ve rs e act io n was no t who ll y un rel at edto pro te ct edact iv it y .

On J une 12, 2007, Summers submitted to Chi ef Powe ll her re quest to speak with 4 Captain Dra

ughon about a tra

nsfer , but she did not alleg e discrimination on that form. Instead, she mere ly

stated that she wa s “re questingthe opportunity to speak with Captain L arr y Dra ughon about a tra

nsfer to another da

y shift assignme nt and workingconditions as it relates to [her] curr ent assignment.” Captain Dr aughon’s notes fr om that J une 15, 2007 mee ting do not re flec t that Summers claimed discriminatory treatment, but they

do indicate that Summers cla imed her supervisors “ wer e out to g et her ” and tha t she was “ still havingproblems with dispatcher s.” 14W it h re sp ectto th e Ju ne 12 , 20 07 co m pl ai nt s t o C ap ta in Drau gh on , th e ti m e pe rio d i s s uf

fic ie nt ly pro xi m at e to th e Ju ne 25 , 20 07 di sc ip li ne forfai lure t o turn in UTCs i n t im e an d t he res ul ti ng term in at io n, b utth e d eci si on m ak er— Ch ie f Po well —s wears th athe ha d n o kno wled ge of S umm ers ’s all eg at io ns of r ace o r se x di sc riminat io n wh enhe m ad e th e d eci si on to is su e h er a s eco ndm ajoroff en se an d te rm in at e h er em

pl oym en t. Su m

m ers arg ue s t ha t b ecau se Cap ta in Drau gh on ha d a du ty to re po rt t he co m

pl ai ntof d is cri m in at io n, we s ho ul d i m pu te Cap ta in Drau gh on ’s kn owl ed ge of t he co m pl ai ntto Ch ie f Po well . W e h av e m ad e cl ear, ho wev er, tha t i n t he co nt ex t o f Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im s “ ne it he r a co urt n ora jury m ay im pu te kn owl ed ge to a de ci si on -m ak er wh o h as swo rnhe ha d n o a ctua l kn owl ed ge .” Bro ch u v . Cit y of R iv ie ra Be ach , 30 4 F .3d11 44 , 11 56 (11 th Cir
. 20 02 ). In o th er wo rd s, “ m ere c oi nc id en ce i n t im e [m ay no t] rais e anin fere nc e o f actua l kno wled ge wher e th ere i s u nr eb ut te d e vi de nc e th atth e d eci si on m ak er d id
no t h av e kno wled ge th atth e em pl oyee en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edco nduc t.” Id
. (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. Thu s, ev enass um in g t ha t Su m m ers canest ab li sh th at 5

For the same r eason, Summers’s a lleg ations of ra ce a nd sex di scrimination faxed to the 5 Equal Opportunity

Employ ment Commi ssion (“EEOC”) on June 20, 2007 would not help her establish a prima f

acie case of pre text . The City did not rece ive notice of

EEOC cha

rg e until J uly 3, 2007, which wa s eight day s after Summers was terminate d due to re ceivinga sec ond major offe nse. 15sh e al le ge d d is cri m in at io n i n h er J un e 1 5, 2 00 7 c on ve rs at io n wi th Cap ta in

Drau gh on , we can no t i m

pu te th is kn owl ed ge to th e d eci si on m ak er, Ch ie f Po well
. Bec au se Su m

m ers di d n otest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n Su m m ers ’s ret al ia ti on cla im s u nd er Tit le VII an d § 19 81
. 6 Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

The district cour

t assumed without decidingthat Summers had made out a prima fa cie 6 case of re taliation, but “[t ]hi s [C ]ourt may aff irm a dec ision of the district court on any ground supported by

the re cord.”See United States v. F ort, 638 F.3d 1334, 1337 ( 11th Cir. 2011). 16