[DO NOT PUB LISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EL EVENTHCIR CUIT

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ No. 1 2-1097 4 Non-Argum ent C al en da

r

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D.C . Doc ke t No . 3: 10-c v-0117 2-HLA-JR K MEL BA J. GR

AY, lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll l Pla int iff - Appe lla nt, ve rsus CITY OF JAC KSONVILLE, FLO RIDA, lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll lll l De fend ant - App el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d State s Di stri ct Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Oct obe r 9, 20 12) Be fore M ARC US, W ILSON an d PR YOR , C irc uit

Jud ge s. PER C URIAM : Me lba Gray , a n Afric an -Am eri ca

n fe m al e, a

ppe al s th e dis tric t c ourt’ s gra nt Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 1 of 23of sum

m ary jud gm ent i n favor of h er e m plo y er, t he Ci ty of Ja ck sonv ill e (Ci ty), on he r rac e dis cri m ina

tio n, ge nde r dis cri m inatio n a nd re ta lia tio n c la im s brou ght pursu ant t o Ti tle VII of theCi vilRi ght s Ac t of 1 964, 42 U .S.C. § 20 00e et se q. , 42 U.S.C . §§ 1981 –83, and t he Florid a Ci vilRi ght s Ac t (FCR A), Fla . Stat. § § 76 0.01 et se q . She argue s th at

(1) she pre se nte d e vid en ce suffic ie nt t o e sta bli sh a prim a fac iec as e of pa

y dis cri minatio n a s to he r rac e an d he r ge nde r, an d (2) sh e pres ente d e vid en ce suffic ie nt t o de feat su m m ary jud gm ent on

he r cl ai m of ret al iatio n. Aft er re vie w of th e brie fs a nd re co rd, we a ffirm . I. B ac kgr ound Gray be ga n worki ng for t

he Ci ty in Oc tob er 1 999. In Se pte m be r 2006 , she wa s prom ote d to the pos iti on o f ac co unt te chnic ia n in the Ci ty ’s Envi ronm enta l Qua lit y Div isi on, Pe trole um

Cl ea nup Bra nc h (B ranc h), whe re h er p rim ary dut y wa s to sup port T om

m y Mc Ca rty , a whi te m al e, in his pos iti on a s a cc ount ant j uni or. The gravam en

of he r pay -disp ari ty

c la im is that wh en

Mc Ca rty le ft th e Bra

nc h in 2006 , shea ssum ed

his dutie s a

nd p erform ed

a ll of thework h e ha d pre vio usl y pe rform ed

a s a cc ount ant j uni or, but wa s ne ve r give n a

c onc om ita

nt ra isein pa

y , nor prom ote d to thea ct

ua l po sition

of a cc ount ant j uni or. She a lso a lle ge s th at she wa s de nie d out-of-cl as s pa y durin g th is t im e an d th at , whe n sh e requ es te d ov ert im e to p ermit he r to p erform

bot h he r duti es a s a cc ount

te chnic ia n a nd M cC art

y ’s

2 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 2 of 23dut ie s a s a cc ount ant j uni or, he r requ es ts w ere routi ne ly de nie d. Ac co rdingto Gray , th es e de nia ls o f ove rtim e an d e xtra pa y we re d isc rim inatory

be ca use Pau l Pare nte , a whi tem al e co worke r, did rec ei ve out -of-posi tio n work an d pa y for co ve ring fo r a c oworke r who h ad ta ke n m at erni ty

le av e. In April200 9, Gra

y first voi ce d c onc erns tha

t sh e wa s be ingdis cri minate d ag ai nst on a cc ount

of he r rac e an d ge nde r to h er s upe rviso r, All en e Ra ch al , a nd t he Ch ie f of the Envi ronm enta l Qu al ity Div isi on, V inc e Seibol d. She a lle ge s th at the rea fte r he r supe riors at t he Bra nc h e nga ge d in

a se rie s of re ta lia

tory atta ck s up on he r. She c ont en ds t

hat fol lowi ng h er c om

pla int s of d isc rim inatio n, R ac ha l be ga n to se nd h er d erog at ory

e m ai ls, be ca

m e cri tic alof he r work i n front of c oworke rs, ex clude d he r from

we ek ly m ee tin gs re gul arl y

atte nde d by

the e nti re B ranc h st aff, too k a way dut ie s re ga

rdingthe rev ie w of work orde rs, a nd forc ed he r to p erform fili ng d uti es for two whi te , m al e co lle ague s. Gra y a lso a lle ge s th at , a fte r a d isp ute wit h Rac ha l at a

Feb ruary 201 0 st aff m ee tin g, sh e wa s pl ac ed on a dm ini strativ e le av e an d is sue d a

fina l writ te n re prim an d. Th ough

Gray res orte d to he r unio n’ s grie va nc e proto co l a

nd t he fina l writ

te n re prim an d wa s e ve ntu al ly res ci nde d, t

he da y a fte r he r grie va

nc e wa s fil ed , Gray

c la im s to have be en

sho wn a pho tog raph

of a horse bridl e by

a c oworke r, Pattie Jon es . Ac co rdingto Gray , th e horse bridl e ha d

3 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 3 of 23be en

ha ngi ng i n R ac ha l’ s offic e an d R ac ha l ha d to ld J one s th at she int en de d to

“ tam e [Gray ’s ] big , bl ac k a ss w ith it .” 1 Whe n he r ad

m ini stra tiv e ch argeof di sc rim ina

tio n wi th t

he EEOC broug ht no re dres s, Gra

y file d th e ins ta

nt c au se of a ct ion . Thedis tric t c ourt grant ed sum m ary jud gm ent for t

he Ci ty , find ingtha

t Gra y ha d fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a prim a fac iec as e of e ith er p ay

dis cri m inatio n or re ta lia

tio n. Th e ins ta

nt a ppe alfoll owe d. II. Dis cuss ion W e revi ew

the dis tric t c ourt’ s gra

nt o f sum m ary jud gm ent denov o , a

ppl y ing the sa m e le ga l st an da

rds a s th e dis tric t c ourt. Ch apma n v . AI Tran sp. , 229 F.3d 1012 , 102 3 (11t

h C ir. 20 00) (e n ba

nc ). W e affirm

a dis tric t c ourt’ s gra

nt o f sum m ary jud gm ent wh en , vi ew ingthee vid en ce in the li ght m ost fav orab le to the nonm ovi ng p art

y , th e rec ord sh ows t

hat t he re i s no ge nui ne dis put e as to an y m at eri alfac t a

nd t hat t he m ovi ng p art

y is entit le d to jud gm ent a s a m at te r of la w. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c); se e Alvare z v . Roy al A tl. De ve lop er

s, Inc . , 610 F.3d 1 253, 1263 –64 (11th

Ci r. 2010 ). And tho ugh thenonm ovi ng p art y c an survi ve sum

m ary jud gm ent by

de m onst rat ingtha t t he re e xis ts s om e iss ue of fac t t o be de ci de d at Though Gra

y ’s complaint states the a ctual phra se used wa s “bigblack a ss,” in a 1 document attac hed to her amende d Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (EEOC) complaint, she cla imed J ones told her Rac hal had state d she intended to use the bridle to “tame [Gray ’s] big hostile ass.” In her deposition, Gray admitted that J ones neve r used the w ord “blac k” but had only

ref err ed to “tam[ing] [m ]y

big a ss.” At any

rate , J ones denie s ever

having made a ny such statement, a

nd asser ts that she only

took a picture of the horse bridle af ter Gr ay asked he r to do so. 4

Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 4 of 23tria l, “ [a] m ere sc int ill a of e vid en ce in supp ort of t he nonm ovi ng p art

y wil l no t suffic e to o ve rcom e a m oti on for s um m ary jud gm ent.” Young v. Ci ty of Palm Bay , 358 F.3d 85 9, 86 0 (11t

h C ir. 20 04). Be fore p roce edingto the m eri ts o f Gray ’s c la im s, we not e prel im ina rily tha t the e le m ents o f a § 198 1 ra ceor ge nde r dis cri m inatio n c la im a re i de nti ca l t o th ose of a Tit le VII dis pa

rat e tre at m ent c la im

and n ee d no t be ana lyze d sepa rat el y . Ric eLamar v . C

ity of Fort Laude rdale , 232 F.3d 8 36, 8 43 n .11 (11 th C ir. 20 00). Like wise , fed era l c as es c onst ruingTit le VII are a

ppl ic ab le to FCR

A c la im s. Harp er v . Blo ck buster Ent m’t C orp. , 139 F.3d 1 385, 138 7 (11t h C ir. 19 98). Synth es iz ingthe se two princ ipl es , it foll ows t hat Gra y ’s c la im s of disc rim inatio n an d re ta lia

tio n un de r al l t

hree sta tut ory fram ew orks (Ti tle VII, § 19 81, a nd t he FCR A) m ust sta nd— or fal l—

tog et he r. A. Di sc rim inatio n Tit le VII prosc ribe s di sc rim inatio n a ga ins t a ny e m plo y ee wit

h re spe ct to co m pe nsatio n, t erm s, or p rivil eg es of e m plo ym ent be ca

use of th at

e m plo y ee ’s rac e or ge nde r. 42 U .S.C. § 20 00e -2(a)(1). Whe re, a s he re, a n e m plo y ee ba se s he r dis cri minatio n c la im

on c irc um sta

nti ale vid en ce , we e m

plo y the tra dition alburde nshi ftingfram ew ork prom

ulg at ed in McD onne ll Douglas Co rp. v . Gre en , 411 U.S.

5 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 5 of 23792, 93 S. C t. 1 817 (1973). “ Unde r thi s fram ew ork, t he pla int iff first ha s th e 2 burde n of e sta

bli shi ng a prim a fac ie c as e of dis cri m ina tio n, wh ic h c reate s a rebutta ble pre sum

pti on t hat t he e m plo y er a ct ed

il le ga lly .” W

ils on v . B/E Ae ros pac e, Inc . , 376 F.3d 1 079, 108 7 (11t h C ir. 20 04). Onc e the pla intiff es ta

bli she s a prim a fac ie c as e, “ the burde n sh ifts to the em plo y er t o ‘ art ic ula

te som e le git im at e, non dis cri m inatory rea son’ ” for the em plo ym ent de ci sio n at i ssu e. Cr aw for d v . C arroll , 529 F.3d 9 61, 9 76 (11 th C ir. 2008 ) (quot ing McD onne ll Douglas , 411 U.S. at 80 2, 93 S.Ct . at 18 24); se e St. Mary 's Hon or C

tr. v. Hic ks , 509 U.S. 50 2, 51 0–11 , 113 S. C t. 2 742, 274 9 (199 3) (noti ng t hat t he role of th e McD onne ll pres um pti on i s to “ forc[e ] the de fend ant t o co m e forward wit

h so m e res pons e” to the pla int iff’s c la im of di sc rim inatio n). If the e m plo y er m ee ts t

his burde n, t

he pla int iff m

ust sho w th at

the proffere d re as ons we re p ret extua l—

that t he re a re “ suc h we ak

ne sse s, i m

pla usibil iti es , in co nsi ste nc ie s, inc ohe renc ie s, or c ont

radi ct ion s in

the e m plo y er's proffere d le gitim at e rea sons for its a ction tha t a rea sona ble fac tfind er c oul d find

the m unwo rthy

of c rede nc e. ” Co mbs v . Pla nta tio n Patte rns , 106 F.3d 1 519, 153 8 (11t h C ir. 19 97) (inte rnal Though admittedly

“the McD onnell Douglas framework is not, and ne ver w as intended 2 to be, the sine qua non for a plaintiff to survive a summar y judgme nt motion i n an employ ment discrimination case ,” Smith v. Lockhe ed-M artin Cor p. , 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 ( 11th Cir. 2011), Gra y has prof fer ed no alter

native theor

y or evide nce suf

ficient to cr eate a triable issue of fa ct conce rningthe City ’s discriminatory intent, see id. (notingthat summary judgme nt is improper “so longas the c ircumstantial evidenc e ra ises a re asonable infere nce tha t the employer discriminated ag ainst the plaintiff”) . 6

Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 6 of 23quot at ion

m arks om itt ed). At t

his jun ct ure, the pla int iff’s burde n “ m erge s wi th t he ult im at e burde n of pe rsua din g th e co urt t hat sh e ha s be en

the vic tim

of inte nti ona l dis cri minatio n,” Tex . De

p’t of Cm ty . Aff

air s v . Bur din e , 450 U.S. 24 8, 25 6, 10 1 S. Ct . 108 9, 10 95 (19 81), a

nd “ theque sti on b ec om es whe the r the e vid en ce , co nsi de red in t

he li ght m ost fav orab leto the pla int iff, y ie lds the rea sona ble infe renc e that t

he e m plo y er e nga ge d in

the a lle ge d di sc rim ina

tio n,” Smit

h , 644 F.3d at 13 26. If so, s um

m ary jud gm ent c annot

iss ue . 1. Prim a Fac ie Ca se As a ge ne ralrule , th e plaint iff’s prim a fac ie burde n is not an on erou s on e. Ve sse ls v . Atl

ant a Inde p. Sc h. Sy s. , 408 F.3d 7 63, 7 69 (11 th C ir. 20 05) (pe r cu riam). A pl ai nti ff est ab lis he s a prim a fac ie c as e of pa

y dis cri m inatio n by de m onst rat ingtha t: (1) she wa s a

m em be r of a prote ct ed

c la ss; (2) she rec ei ve d lo w wa ge s; (3 ) simila

rly sit uate d e m plo y ee s outsi de the prote ct ed c la ss re ce ive d hi ghe r pa y ; a nd (4) s he wa s qu al ifie d to rec ei ve the hig he r pay . Co ope r v . Sou the rn C o. , 390 F.3d 69 5, 73 5 (11t

h C ir. 20 04), ov er

rul ed on o the r ground

s , Ash v. Tys on Food s, Inc . , 546 U.S. 45 4, 45 7, 12 6 S. C t. 1 195, 199 7 (200 6). The dis tric t c ourt h el d th at Gray fai le d to m ak e a prim a fac ie sho wing be ca use she c oul d no t pre se nt s im ila rly sit uate d c om

pa rat ors wh o we re t

reate d m ore favo rabl y

tha n sh e. W e ag ree . “ To m ak e a co m pa rison of th e pla int iff's

7 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 7 of 23tre at

m ent t o th at

of non -m ino rity

e m plo y ee s, t he pla int iff m

ust sho w th at

[s] he and the e m plo y ee s a re simi larly

sit uated in all re le va nt res

pe ct s .” Holi fie ld v . Re no , 115 F.3d 15 55, 1 562 (11th Ci r. 1997 ) (per c uriam) (em pha sis sup pli ed); se e Co ope r , 390 F.3d at 73 5; se e als o Mul hall v . Advanc e Se c. , Inc . , 19 F.3d 58 6, 59 8 (11th Ci r. 1994 ) (noti ng t

hat a pla int iff m ak es out

a prim a fac ie c as e by

sho wing

“ she is [a mino rity ] an d he r job wa s su bst antia lly

simila r to h igh er p ay ingjob s oc cu pie d by [non-mino riti es ]” ); Mira nda v. B &B C ash Groc er

y Sto re , Inc . , 975 F.2d 15 18, 1 529 (11th

Ci r. 1992 ) (exp la ini ng, i n a ge nde r-disc rim inatio n c as e, tha t the c om pa rat or ana ly sis a sks whe the r the “ job [the pla int iff] oc cu

pie d wa s si m ila

r to h igh er p ayingjob s oc cu pie d by m al es ”). He re, t he e vid en ce pre se nte d fa ils to rai se a ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri alfac t a s to whe the r Gray

wa s pa id l es s for work “ subs ta nti al ly simila r” t o th at of he r put ative c om

pa rat ors, M cC art

y a nd Pa rent e. To b eg in w ith , Gray produ ce d th e follo winge vid en ce in supp ort he r cl ai m s: h er o wn a ffidavit , in whi ch she c la im s she wa s a ske d to ta

ke ove r Mc Ca

rty ’s job dut ie s in

a ddi tio n to pe rform inghe r own; an e m ai l se nt o ut b y Mc Ca rty prior t o hi s depa

rture in whic h hetol d B ranc h em plo y ee s th at

“ the ir e fforts i n he lpi ng [Gra y ] ‘h old down the fort’ until he lp arriv es wil l be gre at ly

a ppre ci at ed ”; a

nd c ert ai n work orde rs si gne d by Gray on t he sig nature li ne ti tle d “ FDEP [Florida De pa rtm ent of E nvi ronm enta l Prote ct ion ] 8 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 8 of 23Ma

na ge r Signa

ture ,” a lon g wi th e xam

ple s of wh ere Mc Ca

rty ha d si gne d on

the sam e lin e. W ith reg ard to Gray ’s c la im

in he r affid av it that sh e too k ov er M cC art y ’s dut ie s up on h is d ep art

ure, Gray a dm itt ed tha t sh e ha d no kno wle dge of M cC art y ’s dut ie s wi th re ga

rd to inv oic es , work o rders , or do cum ents t ha t re qui red co rrec tio n an d re vis ion ; t

he dis tric t c ourt c oul d th ere fore p rope rly dis rega rd he r av erm ent for want o f pe rsona l kn owle dge . Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(c )(4) (set tin g forth the requ ire m ent t

hat a n a ffida vit use d to “ oppo se a

[sum m ary jud gm ent] m oti on m

ust be m ad e on p ers ona l kn owle dge ”); se e Mac uba v. De boe r , 193 F.3d 1 316, 1322 –23 (11th

Ci r. 1999 ). And as to Gray ’s havin g si gne d c ert ai n worke r orde rs on t he “ FDEP Ma

na ge r Signa

ture ” lin e, tha

t fa ct c ha nge s no thi ng: the Ci ty ’s unc ont rove rte d e vid en ce de m onst rat es tha t t he “ FDEP Ma

na ge r” wa s e xpe ct ed

to as sure work-orde r co m

pli an ce wit

h FDEP’ s st an da

rd ope rat ingproc ed

ures , a nd Gray he rse lf a dm itt ed

at a rbitratio n th at

she ne ith er c he ck ed

work o rders for co m pli an ce wit

h st an da rd ope rat ingproc ed

ures nor for c om

pli an ce wit

h gu ida nc e from FDEP. Allof whi ch

le av es only

the e m ai l from

Mc Ca rty a dvi sin g th e Bra

nc h th at Gray woul d “ hol d do wn t

he fort” a fte r his de pa

rture . Gra

y a sse rts t hat t his e m ai l i s suffic ie nt t o c reate a

que sti on o f fac t a s to whe the r he r em plo ym ent wa s 9 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 9 of 23“ subs ta

nti al ly simila r” t o M cC art

y ’s , but we do n ot re ad

it qui te so e xpa

nsi ve ly a s she woul d ha

ve us. Giv en

the stru ct ure of theBra

nc h a nd t he flui d nature of ta sk as sig nm ents d

uringthi s tra

nsi tory pe riod, we find thepa ssi ng re fere nc e to

“ hol d[ing ] down

the fort” to be of m argi na l prob at ive va lue in as ce rta ini ng t he exte nt t o whi ch

Gray a ct ua lly a ssum ed Mc Ca rty ’s da y -to-da y res pons ibi lit ie s follo winghis depa

rture . To the e xte nt t

he e m ai l i m

pli es tha t Gra y woul d be ta

kin g ove r al l of M cC art

y ’s dut ie s—a

ta ll orde r, to b e sure , gi ve n th at Gray c oul d no t ev en e nunc iate the sub sta

nc e of m any

of th ose dut ie s sh e wa s su ppos ed ly as suming—i t i s a

“ m ere sc int ill a of e vid en ce [that] . . . wil l no t su ffice to ove rcom e a m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent.” Young , 358 F.3d at 86 0. Othe r ev ide nc e ad duc ed

by the Ci ty furthe r au gurs a ga ins t a

findi ng t hat Gray ha s c reate d a

n is sue of fac t a s to whe the r Mc Ca rty is a va lid c om pa rat or for Tit le VII purpos es . Afte r al l, M cC art y e xe rci se d un ila

te rala uth ority in rec onc ili ng inv oic es and wo rk orde rs a nd m akingany

ne ce ssa ry c orrec tio ns h im se lf, but Gra y ac know le dge d th at

she did not m ak e any

suc h c orrec tio ns t o invoi ce s or wo rk orde rs, a nd t hat a ll of he r work wa s at so m e poi nt re vie we d for a cc urac y by a supe rior. Furth er, Gray

a dm itt ed in he r de posi tio n th at

som e of Mc Ca

rty ’s work wa s gi ve n out t o oth er

e mplo ye es , a fac t wh ic h re nde rs im

poss ibl e he r cl ai m

tha t she a ssum ed

“ al l” of M cC art

y ’s work u

pon his de pa

rture from

the Bra nc h. The se 1 0 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 10 of 23fac ts, co upl ed wit h Gra y ’s a sth en ic pre se ntatio n of a ffirm at ive e vid en ce in supp ort of he r co m

pa rat or the ory , le av e us wi th l itt le dou bt t hat i n e sta

bli shi ng a co m pa rat or “ simila

rly sit uate d in a ll rel ev ant re spe ct s” to he r posi tio n at t he Bra nc h, Gra y ha s fa lle n we ll short

of th e m ark. Gray a ddi tio na lly

c la im s th e dis tric t c ourt a ppl ie d th e wrong l eg alsta nda rd whe n it int im at ed tha t t he “ simila

rly sit ua te d e m plo y ee ” prong of a

prim a fac ie Tit le VII cl ai m

req uire d he r to p rove tha

t he r posi tio n wa s “ subs ta nti al ly e qua l” or

“ subs ta nti al ly simila r” t o he r propos ed

c om pa rat ors. She sub m its tha

t t he simila rity c al cu lus in Tit le VII ca se s is “ rel ax ed ,” se e Mulh all , 19 F.3d at 59 8; Mira nda , 975 F.2d at 15 26, a nd m ere ly req uire s a sho wingtha

t t he c om pa rat ors

“pe rform [ed] job s si m ila

r to p la int iff’s ,” Co ope r , 390 F.3d at 73 5, or “ sha red the sam e ty pe of ta sks ” as the pla intiff, Mira nda , 975 F.2d a t 15 29. W e are not

3 pe rsua de d. Aft er a ll, e ve n a ssum ingtha t t he tria l c ourt a

ppl ie d th e wrong s ta

nda rd, any vic tory for Gray woul d bepy

rrhic , be ca

use she c an

not m ee t t he rel ax ed sta nda rd she urge s us to ap ply

he re a nd wo uld thu s be una

ble to es ta

bli sh a prim a fac iec as e of dis cri m ina

tio n in any e ve nt. United

Sta te s v . $12 1,10 0.00

in U.S. Cu rre nc y , 999 F.2d 1 503, 150 7 (11t h C ir. 19 93) (“ This c ourt w illa ffirm a grant o f We note incidentally

that while Gra

y claims the prope r standar d to be applied is set 3 forth by our dec isions in Miranda and Mulhall , one of those c ases in fa ct applied the“ substantial simil arity” for

mulation Gray

so vocifer ously

opposes her e. See M

ulhall , 19 F.3d at 598 (explaining that a

prima fa cie c ase in a

Title VI Ig ender -discrimination ca se re quires the plaintiff to show “that her

job was substantially

simil ar to higher pa

ying jobs oc cupied by

males”) . 1 1 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 11 of 23sum

m ary jud gm ent i f it i s c orrec t for a ny rea son. ”). Put a

nth er wa y , whe the r the dis tric t c ourt a

ppl ie d th e “ rel ax ed

simila rity ” or “ subs ta

nti al ly simila r” s ta nda rd to Gray ’s c la im s is a

poi nt w ith out

a diffe renc e, for und er e ith er m odeof a na ly sis , th e sam e res ult

obt ai ns: Gray ’s dis cri m inatio n c la im s c annot survi ve sum

m ary jud gm ent. Be fore m ovi ng furt

he r, we not e that Gra

y ’s pe riphe ralc la im s a s to he r Tit le VII disc rim inatio n c la im

are wi tho ut m eri t. Fi rst, t houg h Gra

y now cl ai m s th at Mc Ca rty wa s in fac t pe rform ingthe dut ie s of a n a cc ount te ch nic ia n whi le be ing pa id t he sa la ry of a n a cc ount ant j uni or, in

the dis tric t c ourt h er s ole argum ent wa s the c onve rse—t

hat sh e wa s in

fac t pe rform ingthe dutie s of a n a cc ount ant j uni or, ab ove he r offic ia l st at ion

of a cc ount

te chnic ia n. Of c ourse , ha

vin g fa ile d to rai se thi s th eo ry

be low, Gray

c annot now rai se it

he re. J uri s v . Iname d C

orp. , 685 F.3d 1294 , 132 5 (11t

h C ir. 20 12) (“ A fed era l a ppe lla te c ourt w illnot , a s a

ge ne ralrule , co nsi de r an

iss ue tha t i s ra ise d for th e first t im e on a ppe al .” ). And a s for he r at te m pt t o e sta bli sh Pa rent e— the c oworke r who wa s a

pprove d for ov ert im e pa

y whil e a fel low Bra

nc h e m plo y ee wa s out on

m at erni ty

le av e— as a

c om pa rat or, Gray ha s a dduc ed

no e vid en ce suffic ie nt t o sl ak e Tit le VII’s c om pa rat or-simila

rity requ ire m ent. Earley

v . C hamp ion Int'l

Co rp. , 907 F.2d 1 077, 108 1 (11t h C ir. 1990 ) (noti ng t

hat “ co nc lus ory

a lle ga tio ns a nd a sse rtion s wi ll not

suffic e” to de feat 1 2 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 12 of 23sum

m ary jud gm ent). Wha

t i s m ore, the Ci ty

ha s prov ide d e vid en ce tha t Gra y did in fa ct rec ei ve ove rtim e pa

y durin g th e rel ev ant t im e pe riod, a fac t t hat un de rm ine s Gray ’s argum ent t

ha t sh e wa s tre at ed

diffe rent ly

tha n Parent e. Furthe r, Gray ’s c la im

tha t t he Ci ty dis cri m inate d a ga ins t he r throu gh inc onsi ste nt a

ppl ic at ion of work ru le s (i.e ., fa ili ng t o offe r he r out-o f-cla ss p ay) fai ls, too . For e xa

m ple , th ough

Gray argue s th at

she wa s e lig ibl e for, but

did not rec ei ve , out -of-cla ss p ay , sheis wrong: pursu ant t o Arti cl e 17.1 of he r co lle ct ive ba rgai nin g a gree m ent, a

n e m plo y ee “ m

ust m ee t t he qua lifi ca

tio ns o f the hig he r le ve l c la ssi fic at ion ” be fore s he c an be a ssi gne d to work i n a

hig he r cl as sifi ca

tio n for a p eri od e xc ee din g 20 da y s. Ye t t he Ci ty pre se nte d e vid en ce tha

t t he ac co unt ant j uni or pos iti on re qui res at l ea st 2 1 ho urs of c oll eg e-l ev ela cc ount ing co urse work, a

nd Gra y a dm itt ed tha t sh e la ck ed

suc h e duc at ion ale xpe rie nc e. W e fai l t o a ppre he nd h ow t

he Ci ty c an be de em ed

to have dis cri m inate d a ga ins t Gra y by fai lin g to gra

nt h er o ut-of-c la ss p ay

for whi ch

she did not qua lify . Thu s, e ve n if Gray ha d su pport ed he r the ory

tha t Pa rent e is a n a ppropri at e co m

pa rat or wit h ev ide nc e suffic ie nt t o de fea t su m m ary jud gm ent—

whic h sh e ha s no t—

he r argum ent re ga

rdinginc onsi ste nt a

ppl ic at ion of work ru le s wou ld fa il be ca use she ha s fa ile d to sho w th at

the Ci ty ’s a

ppl ic at ion of it s work

rule s wa s, i n fa ct , inc onsi ste nt . Se e Be rg v . Fla . De p’t of Labor &Emp’t Se c. , 163 F.3d 1 251, 125 5

1 3 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 13 of 23(11th

Ci r. 1998 ) (noti ng t

hat “ inc onsi ste nt a

ppl ic at ion of e m plo ym ent po lic ie s [m ay be ] ci rcum sta

nti ale vid en ce of di sc rim inatio n” ). 2. Le giminate , Non -Disc rim ina tory Purpose Eve n if Gra

y ha d e sta bli she d a prim a fac ie c as e of rac e or ge nde r dis cri minatio n, su

m m ary jud gm ent wo uld

be wa rrant ed in any e ve nt. Unde r the McD one ll Douglas fram ew ork, on ce the pla int iff es ta bli she s a prim a fac ie c as e of dis cri minatory

anim us, “ the burde n sh ifts to the e m plo y er t o a

rtic ulate som e le git im at e, non dis cri m inatory rea son for the a dve rse e m plo y m ent a ct ion ” at

iss ue . Cr aw for d, 529 F.3d at 97 6 (int ernal qu ota tio n m arks om itt ed). “ [T]h e de fend ant's burde n of rebutta l i s e xc ee din gly li ght . . . At t his sta ge of th e inq

uiry , th e de fend ant ne ed

not pe rsua de the c ourt t

hat i ts p roffere d re as ons are le git im at e; the de fend ant's b urde n is m ere ly oneof prod

uc tio n, no t proo f.” Co ope r , 390 F.3d at 725 (al te rat ion

in origi na l) (int erna l qu otatio n m arks om itt ed). If thee m plo y er produc es a

le git im at e rea son, “ theburde n th en shi fts b ac k to [the e m

plo y ee ] to showtha t [th e em plo y er’ s] sup pose dly

ind ep en de nt re as ons we re, i n re al ity , m ere ly a pret ext for di sc rim inatio n.” Sc haaf v . Smi thK

lin e Be ec ham C

orp. , 602 F.3d 1236 , 124 4 (11t

h C ir. 20 10). Turni ng t o th e ca se at ha

nd, i t i s pl ai n th at

the Ci ty artic ulate d le git im at e, non-di sc rim ina

tory rea sons for it s fa ilu

re t o prom ote Gray

to Mc Ca rty ’s pos iti on, 1 4 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 14 of 23an d th at

Gray the rea fte r fail ed

to ad duc e any

e vid en ce whate ve r that t

he Ci ty ’s sta te d re as ons we re p ret extua l. Se e Ch apma n , 229 F.3d at 10 24–2 5 (“ If the pla intiff doe s no t proffe r suffic ie nt e vid en ce to cre at e a ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri al fac t re ga rdingwhe the r ea ch

of th e de fend ant e m

plo y er's art ic ulate d re as ons is pret extua l, t

he e m plo y er i s e nti tle d to sum

m ary jud gm ent on

the pla int iff's cl ai m .” ); se e als o C

ombs , 106 F.3d at 15 29. He re, t he Ci ty pre se nte d e vid en ce tha

t budg et ary fundi ng for t

he Bra nc h de cre as ed

from ove r $1,50 0,00 0 in

200 6 to $963 ,442 in 2010 . TheCi ty sub m its tha

t t his de cre as e in fun din g is the rea son it el ec te d no t t o fil l M cC art

y ’s pos iti on a fte r his de pa rture , a nd Gra y ha s offe red not hin g in reb utt alto sugg es t t

hat t his jus tifi ca

tio n wa s di sin ge nuou s or p ret extua l. W e arem ind ful of t

he de lic at e ba la

nc ingatte nda

nt t o a ny e nte rprise ’s a llo ca

tio n of ofte n-sc arc e fina

nc ia l re sourc es ; a cc ordin gly , in thea bse nc e of any

e vid en ce sugg es tiv e of rac ia l i m

pe tus or ot

he rwise giv ingus c au se to doub t t he sta te d rea sons for a giv en

e m plo ym ent de ci sio n, we are l oatheto se co nd-gue ss t hat de ci sio n or t o m an

ufac ture an in fere nc e of dis cri m inatio n whe re t he rec ord fa irly ad m its of non e. Se e, e .g. , W ils on , 376 F.3d at 10 92 (“ The role of th is C ourt i s to prev ent un la

wful h iringpra ctic es , not

to ac t a s a

sup er p ers onne l depa

rtm ent t hat se co nd-gue sse s e m

plo y ers ’ busi ne ss j udgm ents.”(int erna l qu otatio n m arks om itt ed)); Be ard v. Anni

s , 730 F.2d 7 41, 7 44 (11 th C ir. 19 84) (per c uriam) (“ This

1 5 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 15 of 23co urt do es not sit in jud gm ent ov er wh et

he r the de fend ants m ad e the right em plo ym ent de ci sio n in

de ci din g to red

uc e [the pla int iff’s ] hours ins te ad of th e hours of th e two se cre ta

rie s, on ly whe the r the de ci sio n wa s m ad e on t he ba sis of rac e. ”) . That be ingso, an d in li ght of Gray ’s fai lure to reve al“ suc h we ak ne sse s, im pla usibil iti es , in co nsi ste nc ie s, i nc ohe renc ie s, or c ont radi ct ion s in

the e m plo y er's proffere d le git im at e rea sons for it s a ct ion tha t a rea sona ble fac tfind er c oul d find the m unwo rthy

of c rede nc e, ” Co mbs , 106 F.3d at 15 38, w e find t hat t he dis tric t co urt pro pe rly

e nte red sum

m ary jud gm ent for t

he Ci ty on Gray ’s dis cri m inatio n cl ai m s. B. Re ta lia tio n Gray a lso c ont en ds t

hat t he Ci ty vio late d Ti tle VII by

ret al ia tin g a ga ins t he r in t he wake of he r co m

pla int s re ga

rdinginv idi ous dis cri m inatio n at t he Bra nc h in April200 9 a

nd h er EE OC ch arge of di sc rim inatio n in Jun e 2009 . Ti tle VII’s ret al iatio n prov isi on p rohib its an e m plo y er from

ret al iatin g a ga ins t a

n e m plo y ee in res pons e to t

hat e m plo y ee ’s c ha

rge of dis cri m inatio n or ot he r atte m pt t o e nforce his or he r right s un de r the Ac t. 4 2 U.S.C . § 2 000e -3(a). T o e sta bli sh a prim a fac ie ca se of Ti tle VII ret al iatio n, a pla int iff m

ust sho w th at

(1) she e nga ge d in sta tut orily prote ct ed a ct ivi ty ; (2) sh e suffe red a m at eri al ly a dve rse e m

plo ym ent ac tio n; a nd (3) t he re wa s a

c au sa l l ink

be twe en the prote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and t he

1 6 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 16 of 23m at eri al ly

a dve rse e m

plo y m ent a ct ion . Se e Dix on v . Hallmar k Co s., Inc . , 627 F.3d 849, 856 (11th

Ci r. 2010 ); Gold

smit h v . Bag by Ele va tor Co ., Inc . , 513 F.3d 1 261, 1277 (11th

Ci r. 2008 ). Gray

argue s th at

Ra ch al , he r supe rviso r at the Bra nc h, ret al iate d a ga ins t he r on fiv e dis cre te oc ca sio ns: (1) by informinghe r in front

of he r co worke rs th at

she wa s no lon ge r ne ed ed at we ek ly

sta ff m ee tin gs, d es pit e the fac t t hat su ch m ee tin gs we re re gul arl y

atte nde d by

the e nti re s ta ff of the Bra nc h; (2) by ta kin g a wa y he r work-orde r duti es foll owin g Gra y ’s m ee tin g wi th Rac ha l on Ma y 21, 2009 ; (3) by

forci ng Gra

y to pe rform

fili ng wo rk for two whi te , m al e co lle ague s in

Jun e 2009 a fte r she ha d be en prom ote d from

a pos iti on t hat i nc lud ed fili ng d uti es in 2006 ; (4) by

pla ci ng h er o n a dm ini stra tiv e le av e an d fil inga

fina l writt en rep rim an d a fte r a disp ute at a sta ff m ee tin g in

Feb ruary 201 0; a nd (5) b y ha ngi ng a horse bridl e on a

doo rknob at

theBra nc h offic e an d in dic at ingto a co worke r that t

he purpo se of su ch

bridl e wa s to “ ta

m e [Gray ’s ] biga ss.” To de m onst

rat e shesuffe red a m at eri al ly a dve rse e m

plo ym ent a ction , Gray m ust poi nt t o a ction s ta

ke n in ret al iatio n a ga ins t he r “ that wo uld have be en m at eri al ly a dve rse to a rea sona

ble e m plo y ee . . . , [whic h] . . . m ea ns t hat t he em plo y er's ac tio ns m

ust be ha rm ful t o th e poi nt t

hat t he y c oul d we ll dis sua de a rea sona ble worke r from

m akingor su

pport inga

c ha rge of dis cri m inatio n.” Burlington N. &San ta F

e Ry . C o. v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53 , 57, 126 S. C t. 2 405, 240 9

1 7 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 17 of 23(2006). “ W e have be en c are ful t o re co gni ze tha

t Ti tle VII doe s no t re qui re p roof of dire ct e co nomic c onse que nc es in al l c as es .” Holl and v. Ge e , 677 F.3d 1 047, 105 7 (11th Ci r. 2012 ) (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). Tha t sa id, “not

a ll co nduc t by an e m plo y er n eg at ive ly

a ffec tin g a

n e m plo y ee c onst itute s a dve rse e m plo ym ent ac tio n.” W

eb b-Edw ards v . Ora ngeCn ty . She rif f's O ffi ce , 525 F.3d 1 013, 103 1 (11th Ci r. 2008 ). Mo reov er, t

he e m plo y ee ’s sub

je ct ive vie w of th e ad

ve rsit y ac co m pa ny inga pa rtic ula r ac tio n is not

dis posi tiv e or e ve n ne ce ssa rily probativ e; rat he r, “ the e m

plo ym ent a ction

m ust be m at eri al ly

a dve rse a s vi ew ed

by a rea sona ble pe rson i n th e ci rcum sta nc es .” Butler

v . Ala . De

p’t. o f Tra nsp. , 536 F.3d 1209 , 121 5 (11t

h C ir. 20 08) (quo tin g Dav is v . Tow n of Lak e Park , 245 F.3d 1 232, 1239 (11th

Ci r. 2001 )); se e Co tto n v . C rac ke r Ba rre l Ol

d C ount ry Sto re , Inc . , 434 F.3d 12 27, 1 231 (11th

Ci r. 2006 ) (noti ng t

ha t a c ogni za ble a dve rse e m

plo ym ent ac tio n “ co nst itute s a

signific ant c ha

nge in em plo ym ent st at

us, s uc h a s hi ring, firing , fai lin g to prom ote , rea ssi gnm ent wi th s ign ific antly diffe rent res pons ibi lit ie s, or a de ci sio n c au sin g a

signific ant c ha

nge in be ne fits ”). Fina lly , a nd a s we have ofte n sa id, to p rove a

m at eri al ly

a dve rse e m

plo ym ent a ct ion , “ an

e m plo y ee m ust showa se rio us a nd ma te ria l c ha nge in thete rm s, c ondi tio ns, o r privi le ge s of em plo ym ent.” Holl

and, 677 F.3d at 10 57 (e m pha sis in origi na l) (quo tin g Dav is ,

1 8 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 18 of 23245 F.3d at 12 39); se e How ard v. W alg re en Co . , 605 F.3d 1 239, 124 5 (11t h C ir. 2010 ) (sam e); Butler , 536 F.3d a t 12 16 (sa m e). Onc e a pla int iff de m onst

rat es tha t sh e suffe red a m at eri al ly a dve rse em plo ym ent a ct ion , shem

ust the n sh ow t

ha t t he a dve rse a ct ion

wa s c au sa lly rel at ed to he r sta tut orily prote ct ed a ct ivi ty . To do s o, “ a pla int iff m ere ly ha s to prove tha t t he prote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and t he ne gativ e . . . a ct ion

are n ot c om

ple te ly unre late d.” Pe nnington v . C ity of Hunt sv ille , 261 F.3d 1 262, 126 6 (11t h C ir. 20 01) (inte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). In m akingthi s sh owin g, t he pla int iff ca

n re ly sol el y upo n te m pora l prox im ity

be twe en the sta tut orily prote ct ed c ondu ct and ad ve rse e m plo ym ent a ct ion ; ho we ve r, “ m ere te m pora l prox im ity , wit

hout m ore, m ust be ‘ ve ry c los e. ’” Thomas v . C

oope r Lig hti ng, Inc . , 506 F.3d 1 361, 136 4 (11t h Ci r. 2007 ) (per c uriam) (quot ing Cl ark Cn ty . Sc h. Di

st. v. Bre ed

en , 532 U.S. 26 8, 273, 121 S. C t. 1 508, 151 1 (200 1)). “ Eve n a thre e-m ont

h inte rvalbe twe en

the prote ct ed e xpre ssi on a

nd t he e m plo ym ent a ct ion

. . . is t oo l ong. ” Brown v . Ala . De p’t of Trans p. , 597 F.3d 1 160, 118 2 (11t h C ir. 20 10). “ Thus , in

the a bse nc e of oth er e vid en ce te ndi ng t o sh ow c au satio n, i f the re i s a sub sta nti alde la y be twe en the prote ct ed

e xpre ssi on a

nd t he a dve rse a ction , th e co m pla int of ret al iatio n fa ils a s a m at te r of la w.” Thomas , 506 F. 3d a t 13 64.

1 9 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 19 of 23Havin g se t forth theprope r le ga l st an da

rd a ppl ic ab le to Gray 's re ta lia tio n cl ai m s, i t i s c le ar t

hat t he dis tric t c ourt p rope rly

gra nte d sum m ary jud gm ent. Fi rst, Gray ’s a lle ga

tio ns t hat sh e wa s to ld i n front

of c oworke rs th at

she wa s no lon ge r ne ed ed in we ek ly

sta ff m ee tin gs a

nd t hat sh e wa s te m

pora rily a ssi gne d to work i n the fileroom , whi le inc lud ed in he r co m

pla int , we re n ot d ev el ope d in he r resp onse to t he Ci ty ’s m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent no r supp orte d by any rec ord e vid en ce whatso ev er. As s uc h, t

he y e as ily suc cum b to sum m ary judgm ent. Unit

ed Sta te s v . Train or , 376 F.3d 1 325, 133 4 n.5 (11th Ci r. 2004 ) (“ [E]v en

in the c ivi l c ont ext of sum m ary jud gm ent, ‘ co nc lus ory

a lle gatio ns wi tho ut s pe ci fic sup porti ng fa ct s ha ve no p robativ e va lue .’ ” (quot ing Lei gh v . W arne r Bros., Inc. , 212 F.3d 1 210, 121 7 (11th Ci r. 2000 ))). As to Gray ’s c la im tha t t he remova l of h er wo rk-orde r duti es wa s re ta lia

tory , Gra y fai le d to m ak e thi s a

rgum ent be low an d we de cl ine to co nsi de r it fo r the first tim e he re. Ju ris , 685 F.3d at 13 25. In any e ve nt, an d e ve n if s he ha d ra ise d th em be low, the fili ng-room as sig nm ent a

nd re m ova l of Gra

y ’s work-orde r duti es are a far c ry from the

“unus ua l i nst an ce s” in whic h we have he ld a c ha ngein work dutie s wi tho ut a n a ny ta ngible ha rm to be “ so s ubst antia l a

nd m at eri altha

t [th ey do] ind ee d a lte r the te rm s, c ondi tio ns, o r privi le ge s of e m plo ym ent.” Dav is , 245 F.3d a t 12 45 (inte rnal quot at ion m arks om itt ed); se e Holl and, 677 F.3d a

t 10 58 (no tin g th at

a pe rm an ent 2 0 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 20 of 23rea ssi gnm ent wi th “ sig nif ic antly diffe rent

dut ie s” and a

red uc tio n in bot h pre sti ge an d re spon sib ili ty

woul d su ffice(em

pha sis a dde d)). That i s e spe ci al ly so i n li ght of Gray ’s c onc es sio n th at she c ont ac te d R ac ha l sp ec ific al ly to co m pla in t hat he r work-orde r duti es ha d le ft he r sa ddl ed wit h m ore work t

ha n sh e co uld

ha ndl e. The Ci ty ’s e vid en ce de m onst

rat es tha t Gra y ’s work-orde r duti es we re re m ove d to ac co m m odate he r co nc erns reg ardi ng b ei ng o ve rloa de d wi th w ork. W e are ha rd pres se d to fat

hom how an e m plo y er’ s re m ova l of wo rk dut ie s, un de rtake n in res pons e to a

n e m plo y ee ’s c om

pla int tha t sh e is o ve rwhe lm ed

wit h work, c oul d in any wa y be de em ed

“ ad ve rse ,” m uc h le ss re ta lia

tory . Gray ’s fina l t

wo a lle ge d re ta lia

tory inc ide nts sha

re t he sa m e fat e, tho ugh for diffe rent rea sons . Admitt edly , whe the r Gray ’s pla ce m ent on a dm ini strativ e le av e aft er t he Feb ruary

201 0 st aff m ee tin g or t

he Ma rch 2010 horse -bridl e inc ide nt qua lify a s a dve rse e m

plo ym ent a ct ion s pre se nt m ore ne ttl es om e iss ue s th an tho se prev iou sly

a ddre sse d. Th an

kfull y , how ev er, w e ne ed not c onsi de r whe the r the se inc ide nts woul d c onst itute a dve rse e m plo ym ent a ction s be ca

use Gray ha s who lly fai le d to de m onst

rat e a ca usa l re latio nship be twe en he r prote ct ed

c ondu ct and t he se two inc ide nts . B ec au se Gray offers no e vid en ce of c au satio n wi th re ga rd to the se two inc ide nts , onl y

te m pora l prox im ity

c an se rve as the ba sis for a show ingof ca usatio n. Th e la st a ct ivi ty

tha t c oul d qu al ify

a s prot ec te d e xpre ssi on, h owe ve r, 2 1 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 21 of 23too k pl ac e on J une 21, 2009 (Gray ’s EEOC Ch argeof Dis cri mina tio n), whe rea s th e dis put e at the sta ff m ee tin g di d no t oc cu r unti l Fe brua

ry 24, 2010 and t

he a lle ge d bridl e inc ide nt t ook pla ce on M arc h 10 , 201 0. Thu s, a nd g ive n th e ab se nc e of 4 oth er e vid en ce te ndi ng t o sh ow c au satio n, t he se e ight- a

nd n ine -m ont

h inte rval s co nst itutea

“ subs ta nti alde la y ” ins uffic ie nt t o c onfe r te m pora l-proxi m ity

c au satio n. Thomas , 506 F. 3d a

t 13 64; se e Brown , 597 F.3d at 11 82 (e xpl ai nin g th at e ve n a thre e-m ont

h de la y is too lon g). In s um , non e of Gray ’s a lle ge d a dve rse em plo ym ent a ct ion s, e ith er t ak en ind ivi dua lly

or a s a whol e, c reate a

ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri alfac t a s to whe the r the Ci ty ret al iate d a ga ins t he r in c ont rave nti on o f Tit le VII. In thec ont em

pora ry Am eri ca n workp la ce , som e m ea sureof c onfli ct be twe en em plo y ers and e m

plo y ee s—wrought

by the pe rsona l a

nd p rofes sio na l st

res sors t hat We admit that we ar e deeply troubled by

the so-ca lled “horse -bridle” incident. 4 Nonethele ss, Gray

relies solely

upon double hea

rsay —an alleg ed stateme nt by cowor ker Pattie J ones to Gra

y rec ounting the e arlier

statement of Rac hal—to support her a ssertion that this event transpire d. J ones denie s ever havingmade a

ny such statement to Gr ay . “On motions for summary judgme nt, we may

consider only

that evidenc e which c an be r educe d to an admissible form.” Rowell v. BellSouth Corp. , 433 F.3d 794, 800 ( 11th Cir. 2005). And though Racha l enjoyed super

visory responsibilities at the Br anch a nd her initial statement may thus have be en reduc ible to admissible testim ony as the a dmission of a party opponent, J ones’ state ment is rank hear say that would not have so qua lified bec ause it did not conce rn a matter within the scope of her a g ency . See Fe d. R. Evid. 801(c); W ilkinson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. , 920 F.2d 1560, 1565 (11th Cir. 1991); Miles v. M .N.C. Corp. , 750 F.2d 867, 874–75 ( 11th Cir.1985) (explaining that the admissibility

of evide nce c oncer

ning a n alleg ed ra cial slur as vic arious admission of employer hing ed on the nature of supe rvisory positions held by

the dec lara

nt in a Title VI Icase ). Fur ther, be cause J ones denie s ever havingmade a

ny such statement, ther e is no possibili ty that Gra y might have eliminated the hea rsay problem by

callingJ ones at trial to testify as to what she hear d Racha l say . The district cour t was there fore corr ect to discount this alleg ed stateme nt, leavingthe horse bridle incident without evidentiary support. See M

acuba , 193 F.3d a

t 1323–25. 2 2 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 22 of 23natura lly

oc ca sio n a

group of in div idu al s work ingtog et he r in c los e qua

rte rs—i s ine vit ab le . Se e Co tto n , 434 F.3d a t 12 34 (“ Tit leVII[] i s ne ith er a ge ne ralc ivi lit

y co de nor a

sta tut e m akinga ct ion ab le the ordin ary trib ulatio ns o f the worki ng p la ce . (al te rnat ion

in origi na l) (int erna l qu otatio n m arks om itt ed)). On t his rec ord, Gra

y ha s fa ile d to tra

nsm utetha t c onfli ct from e ve ry da y stri fe i nto a

Tit le VII vio latio n suffic ie nt t o su

rvive sum m ary jud gm ent. T he refore , th e jud gm ent of t he dis tric t co urt i s a ffirm ed . AFFIRM ED.

2 3 Case: 12-10974 Date Filed: 10/09/2012 Page: 23 of 23