FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 71 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 01 03 -CB- C VIVIAN DUDLE Y, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITY OF MONROEVILLE, ALA BAMA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 3, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Viv ia n Du dl ey , an Afr ic anAm eri canfem al e, fi le d alaws ui t ag ai ns t h er cu rren t em

pl oyer, th e Ci ty of Mo nr oe vi ll e, al le gi ng ret al ia ti on invi ol at io n o f Tit leVII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -3 (a). Aft er d is co ve ry , th e

Ci ty file d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d. Dud le y th enfil edth is ap pe al m ak in g t hr ee p rin ci pa l ar gu m en ts : (1 ) th atsh e es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on ; (2 ) th atsu m m ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te be cau se th e rec or d c on ta in s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o c as t d oubton whe th er the Cit y ’s no n- ret al ia to ry expl an at io ns forit s ac ti on s ar e le gi ti m at e; an d (3 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es inhe r fav or be cau se itacce pt edun swo rnst at em en ts as e vi de nc e ag ai ns t h er, y etrefu se d t o co ns id er an un swo rnst at em en t as ev id en ce ag ai ns t the Cit y . I. Afte r th e Ci ty pro m ot edDud le y fro m co urt m ag is tra te to co urt cl erk/m ag is tra te , sh e le arn edth athe r sa la ry di d n otin crea se to th e sa m e le ve l as th os e o f si mil arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees. Be li ev in g t he reas on forth is di sp ari ty w as race di sc riminat io n, Du dl ey fil eda co m

pl ai ntwith t he Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty Com

m is si on . She all eg es th ataft er s he fil edth is EEOC charg e h er imm ed ia te supe rv is or , Ju dg e Ph il li p S an ch ez, ret al ia te d b y su sp en di ng he r, rep rimand in g h er, d en y in g h er a p ay in crea se , ord eri ng he r to att en d atra in in g se ss io n, an d e nc ou rag in g c it iz en s t o fi le co m pl ai nt s ag ai ns t h er. Dud le y th enfil ed

2a se co ndEEOC com pl ai ntall eg in g re ta li at io n i n v io la ti on of Ti tl e VII, wh ic h i s th e o nl y cla im sh e h as ass ert edinth is laws ui t. Init s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, the Cit y

co nt en de d t ha t Du dl ey

co ul d no t s ho w a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e fi rs t EEOC co m pl ai ntan d t he adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s. Itals o p ro ffer edno n- ret al ia to ry reas on s t o ju st ify Ju dg e San ch ez’s ac ti on s, cl ai m in g a m on g o th er thi ng s tha t Du dl ey was i ns ub or di na te , was th e subjec t o f se ve ral cit iz enco m pl ai nt s, m ad e p ers on al lo ng -d is ta nc e p ho ne cal ls whi le at wo rk , andfai le d t o u se th e Ci ty’ s t im e-k eep in g s y st em pro pe rly. The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he Cit y , con cl ud in g Dud le y di d n otest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on . It al so reas on edth at , ev enif Du dl ey

ha d s at is fie d h er i ni ti al bu rd en , sh e d idno t cr eat e a fac tu al is su e reg ard in g wh ethe r th e Ci ty’ s n on -ret al ia to ry jus ti fic at io ns were p ret ex tu al . II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ardas t he di st ric t co urt an d v ie win g a ll 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 . Mic co su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a. v. Uni te d S tate s, 5 16 F.3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Summary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if the 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. 3Ci v. P. 5 6( a). “ A m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t i f th e n on m ov in g pa rty has ‘ fai le d t o m ak e a s uf fic ie ntsh owi ng on aness en ti al ele m en t o f he r cas e with re sp ectto whi chsh e h as th e b ur de n o f pr oo f.’” Park s v . Cit y of Warn er Ro bi ns , 43 F.3d60 9, 6 12 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ti ng Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 23 , 10 6 S .Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 2 (1 98 6) ). III. Tit le VII m ak es itun la wfu l t o d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t em pl oyees o n t he ba si s of race , col or , sex , rel ig io n, o r na ti on al ori gi n. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a). Itals o pr oh ib it s emplo y ers fro m ret al iati ng ag ai ns t em

pl oyees wh o o pp os e “un la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e[s ]” or who m ak e ch arg es ag ai ns t an em pl oyer du rin g “ an in ve st ig at io n, p ro ceed in g, o r he ari ng .” Id . § 2 00 0e -3 (a). W e u se th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rkof M cDo 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 ), whe n apl ai nt iff rel ie s o n ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh a Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im , as Du dl ey do es he re. See Bro wn v . Ala. Dep ’t of Tran sp ., 59 7 F .3d11 60 , 11 81 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The pl ai nt iff

fir stbe ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e th ree p ro ng s o f a p rima facie cas e o f ret al ia ti on . She m us t s ho w th at“ (1 ) [s ]he en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct ed act iv ity ; (2 ) [s ]he su ffer eda m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n; an d (3 ) th ere was a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n.” Howardv. 4W al gr eenCo ., 60 5 F .3d12 39 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Once a pl ai nt iff est ab li sh es a p rima facie cas e, th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to “pr of

fer aleg it im at e, no nret al ia to ry

reas on forth e adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on .” Olm st edv. Taco Bel l Co rp ., 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). If th e em pl oyer su ccee ds , th e pl ai nt iff m us t the n s ho w by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the pro ffer ed reas onforth e adve rs e act io n i s “ a p ret ex t fo r pr oh ib it ed , ret al iato ry co nduc t.” Id .; se e al so McC an n v . Till m an , 52 6 F .3d13 70 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fo r si m pl ic it y , we wil l as su m e th atDud le y canest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e of ret al ia ti on . The Ci ty’ s b ur de n, the n, i s t o p ro ffera le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al iato ry reas onforit s ad ve rs e act io ns . It h as pro vi de d s ev eral , in cl ud in g t im e-k eep in g erro rs , cit iz enco m

pl ai nt s, i ns ub or di na ti on , andpo or job pe rfo rm an ce. Itals o cl ai m s tha t Du dl ey

to okon anin te rnwitho utpe rm is si on an d i nc urred un au th or iz edov ert im e. To s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t, Du dl ey

m us t p res en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c as t d oubton th e v al id it y of t he se no n- ret al ia to ry

reas on s i n th e m in d o f a rea so nabl e juro r. See Cr awfo rdv. Ca rro ll , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 76 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Dud le y ha s o ffer edon ly con cl us ory all eg at io ns of p ret ex t i n h er at te m ptto reb utth e Ci ty’ s n on -ret al ia to ry jus ti fic at io ns . She ha s n otch al le ng edth e Ci ty’ s cl ai m th atitrece iv edco m

pl ai nt s ab ou t h er wo rkpe rfo rm an ce. Nordo es sh e d en y

5m ak in g t im e-k eep in g e rro rs . In fa ct , Dud le y co nc ed es th atso m e o f th e Ci ty’ s ex pl an at io ns are tru e, adm it ti ng th atsh e to okon anin te rnwitho utpe rm is si on an d in cu rredun au th or iz edov ert im e. To s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t, Du dl ey

m us t 1 crea te a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factbo th as t o wh ethe r th e Ci ty’ s re as on s ar e fal se an d a s t o wh ethe r “ di sc riminat io n was th e rea l re as on .” St. M ary’ s Ho no r Ctr. v. Hi ck s, 5 09 U.S. 50 2, 5 15 , 11 3 S .Ct. 2 74 2, 2 75 2 (1 99 3) . She ha s d on e ne it he r. Ins te ad , Dud le y

adm it te d t ha t s om e o f th e rea so ns are tru e an d p ro vi de d no sp eci fic ev id en ce tha t wo ul d “ al lo w a fact fin de r to di sb el ie ve [th e Ci ty’ s] pr of fere d e xp la na ti on forit s ac ti on s.” C om bs v. Pl an ta ti on Patte rn s, 1 06 F.3d 15 19 , 15 32 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); c f. Ch ap m anv. AI Tran sp ., 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 30 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enbanc ) (“ A pl ai nt iff is no t al lo wedto reca stanem pl oyer’s pr of fere d n on di sc riminat ory

reas on s o r subs ti tu te hi s b us in es s ju dg m en t fo r th atof th e em pl oyer. Prov id edth atth e p ro ffer edreas on is on e th atm ig htm ot iv at e a reas on ab le em

pl oyer, an e m

pl oyee m us t m eetth atreas on he adonan d re bu t i t, an d Dud le y att em pt s t o re bu t the Cit y ’s no n- ret al ia to ry jus ti fic at io ns by 1 cl ai min g t ha t s he co ns is te nt ly recei ve d p os it iv e ev al ua ti on s fr om Ju dg e San ch ez be fo re h er fi rs t EEOC fi li ng bu t re cei ve d ane ga ti ve ev al ua ti on aft er the fil in g. Sh e cl ai m s tha t thi s re ve rs al est ab li sh es pre te xt . ButDud le y ne it he r subm it te d ev id en ce o f th e p erfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s n orrai se d thi s ar gu m en t b efo re the di st ric t co urt, s o we wi ll no t co ns id er i t fu rth er. See Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 40 F.3 d 1 21 9, 1 22 8 n .8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (“ Arg um en ts no t ra is edinth e d is tri ctco urt are wai ve d.” ). 6th e em

pl oyee can no t s uc ceedby sim pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of t ha t reas on .”). IV. Dud le y ’s fin al arg um en t i s tha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto dra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es inhe r fav orbe cau se itdi d n otco ns id er the un swo rn st at em en t o f a ci ti zenwho ass ert edth atJu dg e San ch ez t ol d h er t o p uthe r co m pl ai ntinwrit in g wh enitrul edon th e Ci ty’ s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Uns worn s ta te m en ts do no t m eetth e requi rem en ts of Rul e 5 6, s o t he di st ric t co urt co ul d n ot—an d p ro pe rly didno t—rel y on th e co nt en t o f th e ci ti zen ’s st at em en t. Carrv. Tat an ge lo , 33 8 F .3d12 59 , 12 73 n.2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Nordi d the di st ric t co urt v io late th is rul e whe n i t co ns id eredth e Ci ty’ s o th er pr of fere d e vi de nc e o f ci ti zenco m pl ai nt s ag ai ns t Du dl ey . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t rel y on th e co nt en t o f an y

un swo rncit iz enco m

pl ai nt ; i t co ns id eredon ly the ex is te nc e o f su chgri ev an ces as e vi de nc e th atJu dg e San ch ez h ada no n- ret al ia to ry reas onforhi s ac ti on s. Th atpu rp os e is va li d, an d Du dl ey di d n otdi sp ut e th e ex is te nc e o f ci ti zenco m

pl ai nt s. AFFIRMED.

7