FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 15, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1145 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-03703 -CV -H TW -1 JOHNN Y L . MA TH IS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us LEGGET T & PLATT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry15, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Johnny Mathi s a ppe al s hi s f

orm er e m plo y er ’ s su cc es sf

ul m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onMathi s’ s vari ous em plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n c la im s br ough t af t erh i s t er m i n at i o n . M at h i s wa s an ei g h t -yea r v et er an o f L eg g et t& P l at t ’sMathis also broug ht a claim for employ er c ontributions to hi s 401(k) plan unde r ERI SA, 1 but he has not appe aled the district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt ag ainst him on thi s claim. Although Mathis was succe ssful at summary judgme nt on his breac h of contra ct claim for acc rued va cation time, summary judgme nt was g rante d for the c ompany and ag ainst Mathis on all the claims at issue on a ppeal. 2 Monro e, G eo rg iaplant. Mathi s a lle ge d hi s te rm inatio n w as the r es ult of dis cr im inatio n be ca

use of his r ac e, a ge , se x, and p er ce ive d di sa bil ity und er the ap pr opr ia te statut or

y pr ovi sio ns. H e al so a lle ge d r et al ia tio n and s ta te lawbr ea chof
co ntr ac t and n eg lig en t hi ri ng c la im s. T he c om pany c la im s it f ir ed Mathi s f or 1 vio la tin g it s no f

au lt ab se nte e pol ic y , und er w hic h M athis a cc ru ed

f ive m onths o f le ss than 92 % a tte ndanc e w ith in s ev enm onths’ ti m e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, a dopt ing the m agistrate court’ s report and rec omm endation, held that Mathis d id not adduce evidence of sim ilarly

situated em

ploy ees w ho had been treated m ore favorably than Mat hi s u nd er t he co m

pa ny’ s at te nd an ce p ol ic y . For t he reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we fi nd M athis ’ s arg um en ts o n a ppe al to be w ith out

m er it an d th er ef

or e af fi rm the jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t. I. F AC TS Ma thi s is an A fr ic an -A m er ic anm al e w ho w as f orty y ears old a t the ti m e the
com pany term inated his em

ploym ent for ac cum

ulated viol ations of its attend ance pol ic y on J anuary

23, 200 4. U nde r the pol ic y the n ine ff

ec t, adoc tor ’ s no te statin g that the em

ploy ee w as sick and unable to work would not excuse the em ploy ee3

u n d erth e a t t en d an ce p o l i cy. Th e p o l i cy p ro v i d ed fo r t er m i n at i o n i f a n empl o yee’s atte ndanc e fe ll be low92% in an y f our m onths w ith in a

tw el ve m onth pe ri od. T he policy called for an oral w arning after the first m onth fell below 92%, a wr itten
w ar nin g a ft er the se co nd, af

ina l w ri tte n w ar

nin g a ft er the thi rd , and t er

m inatio n aft er a fo ur th m on th of b el ow 9 2% a tt en da nc e wit hi n t he twel ve m on th pe rio d. Mathis’ s attendance perce ntage fell below the r equired 92% in five of seven
m onths l ea din g up to his te rm inatio n: 8 8% a tte ndanc e in July 200 3; 8 7% in Se pte m be r 2003 ; 55 % a tte ndanc e in N ove m be r 2003 ; 78 % in D ec em be r 2003 ; and

“ unsp ecified attendance below 92%” f or the m onth of his term ination , January 2004
. B ec au se the c om

pany f el l a m onth be hin d init s w ar

nin gs whe n it

f ai le d to giv e Ma thi s af

ina l w ri tte n w ar

nin g f or his thi rd m onth of e xc es siv e ab se nc es in Novem ber of 2003, the com

pany gave him a fr ee pass for N ovem

ber, and issued th e fi na l wri tt enwarn in g i n Dec em be r, wit h t erm in at io n fo ll owi ng in Jan ua ry . Mathis does no t assert that he w as actually present on the day s he wa s counted ab se nt. I nst ea d, in or de r to m ak e out his c la im f or dis cr im inatio n, Mathi s c ont en ds that othe r sim ilarl y

sit ua te d w hit e, f

em al e co -w orke rs w er e tr eate d m or e favor ab ly
un de r th e p ol ic y . Pr ior to his te rm inatio n, Mathi s su bm itt ed ac om pla int of se xua l hara ssm en t ag ai nst his sup er vis or , Mary

Mc G ah ey . A ft er

an in ve sti ga tio n, the c om pany c oul d4

neither confirm

nor deny Mathis’ s allegations. Mathis claim s he wa s retaliated ag ai ns t fo r ha vi ng m ad e th e co m pl ai nt be cau se he was n ot pa id“ do wn t im e,”
w hic h is pay

f or ti m e w he n he is una

ble to use his m ac hin e due to m ac hin e m alfunction. Mathis also claim s he wa s not paid“ down tim e” beca use he wa s dis cr im inate d a ga ins t onthe ba sis of his r ac e. I t i s un cl ear w he n and h owMathi s wa s denied “ down tim e, ” and further, what kind of causal re lationsh ip existed b et we en th e d en i al o f “do wn t i m e” an dh i s s ex u al h ar as s m en t co m p l ai n t . M at h i s ’s

“ dow n ti m e” c la im

f ir st e m er ge d inhis r es pons e to s um m ar y j udgm en t and w as not inc or por at ed int o e ith er

of Mathi s’ s tw o c harg es w iththe E E O C, his c om pla int , am en de d c om

pla int , or j oin t pr el im inary

r ep ort, nor

a t any poi nt p ri or

to his
re spon se to the c om

pany ’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he c ourt be low declined to entertain allegations relating to nonp aym ent of “ down tim e”. II. D ISCU SSION W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, an d h ere we vie wa ll fa ct s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Mathi s, the non -m ovi ng p ar ty . P ipk ins v. City of T em ple Te rrac e, 267 F.3d 1197 , 1199 (11th Cir. 2001). “ Sum m ary j udgm en t i s on ly

pr ope r if the re are no g enuin e iss ue s of m at er ia l f

ac t and the
m ovi ng p ar

ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” F re de ri ck

v. Sp rin t/ Uni te d M gmt. Co ., 24 6 F .3d13 05 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).In his origina l char g e, Mathis only chec ked the box for discrimination on the basis of 2
“ se x.” Hi s f

a c tua l st ate me nt r e c ounte d th at he wa s te rm inate d f or e xce ssi ve a

bs e nte e ism

de sp ite possessing doc tor’s excuses for the abse nces. H e also stated that he had suff ere d sexual hara ssment at the hands of his super visor, McGa

hey , had complaine d about her behavior , but had been told that he did not have sufficie nt evidence ag ainst her. His amended c harg e included alleg ations of re taliation for havingfiled the sexual hara ssment complaint and that he wa s terminated be cause of his sex, race, a nd perc eived disability . He c hecke d the boxes for sex, race , reta liation, ag e, and disa

bility in the later f

iled amende d char g e. 5 A
. T i me l i n e s s o f

M a t h i s ’s D i s c r i mi n a t i o n C l a i ms T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as c or re ct to dis m iss Mathi s’ s r ac e dis cr im inatio n c la im unde r T itl e V II , his a ge dis cr im inatio n c la im , and h is d isa bil ity dis cr im inatio n cl ai m be cau se Mat hi s fa il edto ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s p rio r to fil in g s ui t. T he se c la im s on ly

sur fa ce d inan un tim el y

E E O C c harg e an d do not r el at e ba ck

to the ini tia l t im el y

f ili ng. Mathi s’ s am en dm en ts d id n ot “ spe ll[ ] out in gr eate r de ta il 2 fact s t en di ng to de m on st rat e” t he di sc riminat io n h e al le ge d i n h is in it ia l ch arg e. Sanchez v. Standard Br ands, Inc. , 431 F. 2d 45 5, 465 (5th Cir. 1970). Ther efore Ma thi s ha s no t e xhaust ed his a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s pr ior to fi lin g su it fo r dis cr im inatio n ona cc ount of r ac e unde r T itl e V II , a ge , or dis ab ili ty . S ee Manni ng v . C h e v r o n C h e mi c a l C o . , 3 3 2 F . 3 d8 7 4 , 8 7 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “Ge n e r a l l y, am en dm en ts that r ai se ane wle ga l the or y do n ot ‘ re la te ba ck ’ to anor igi na l c harg e of discrim ination .” ). N or are these claim s within the scope of Mathis’s tim ely filed E E O C c harg e. S ee G re gor y v. G a. D ep t. of

H um anRe sour ce s, 355 F . 3d 1 277, 12 79 -8 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Mat hi s’s cl ai m of r ace d is cri m in at io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. §6

1981 sur viv es de spi te Mathi s’ s un tim el y T itl e V II r ac e dis cr im inatio n c harg e be ca use § 19 81 a ct ion s are not sub j ec t t o th e adm ini str at ive e xhaust ion requirem ent. W e w ill assum e ar guendo that Mathis’ s retaliation claim relate s back to hi s o rig in al ch arg e. B . M a t h i s ’s R e ma i n i n g D i s c r i mi n a t i o n C l a i ms In order to survive summ ary j udgm ent on Mathis’s re m aining claim s for sex dis cr im inatio n and r et al ia tio n un de r T itl e V II and r ac e dis cr im inatio n un de r 42 U. S. C. § 198 1, Mathis m ust dem onstrate that there is a genuine issue of m aterial fa ct a s to w he the r his e m

plo y er a ct ed w ithdis cr im inator

y or r et al ia tor y int en t i n hi s te rm in at io n. Hawk in s v . Ceco Co rp ., 88 3 F .2d97 7, 9 80 -8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9)
. Be ca use dir ec t e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n r ar el y

e xis ts, pla int if

fs or din ar ily de m onstrate dis cr im inator y int en t by e sta bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e ca se und er

the fram ew ork set out in itially in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. G reen, 411 U.S
. 792, 802 , 93 S
. Ct
. 181 7, 182 4 ( 1973 ). H oli fi el d v. Re no, 115 F . 3d 1 555, 156 1- 62 (1 1thCi r. 199 7)
. H er e, Mathi s ha s no t a lle ge d th at he ha s di re ct

e vid en ce of dis cr im inator

y int en t; he ha s pr oc ee de d un de r a pr im a fa ci e ca se f ram ew ork on each of h is cla im s.

1. Mathi s’ s se x di sc ri m inatio n c la im Mathis asserts that he was discrim inated against on the basis of his sexThere are other wa y s to establish a prima fa cie c ase of discrimination, but Mathis has 3 c ho se n to pr oc e e d und e r t he “ sim ila

rl y sit uate d” c omp arator s p ri ma fa c ie ana ly sis . Se e Ha

wk ins , 883 F.2d at 982, 984-85 (discussingalternate methods of esta blishing a pr ima fac ie ca se, including the “similarly

situated” a

naly sis, use of statistical proof of a patter n of discrimination, and by de mon str atin gthat th e pla int if f w a s f ir e d a nd wa s r e pla c e d b y

a pe rs on outsi de of

his protec ted class)
. 7 because he w as disciplin ed for exce ssive absences when other, fem ale co-w orkers
re ce ive d e xc use d a

bse nc es and w er e not

sim ilarl y pun ish ed
. I n or de r to e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se f

or se x di sc ri m inatio n un de r T itl e V II , Mathi s m ust de m onstrate that: (1 ) he is a m em

be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss; ( 2) he suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em ploym ent action; (3) he w as qualified for the j ob in q uestion ; and, (4) he wa s tr eate d le ss f

av or ab ly than othe r “ sim ilarl y

sit ua te d” e m

plo y ee s ou tsi de of

his pr ote ct ed c la ss. H oli fi el d, 115 F . 3d at 15 62. The only prong in th is analy sis that 3 the part ie s arg ue d onappe al is the la st: w he the r Mathi s w as tr eate d le ss f av or ab ly th an ot he r “ si m il arl y

si tu at ed ” fem al e em

pl oyees. Whe n e va luatin g “ sim ilarl y sit ua te d” c om

parator s inthe dis ci pli nary c ont ex t, the “ m ost im portant f ac tor s” are “ the na tur e of the of fe nse s c om

m itt ed and the
na tur e of the pun ish m en ts i m

pose d. ” Jon es v. Be sse m er Carr aw ay

Me d. Ctr. , 137 F. 3 d1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 1 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ), m o d i fi ed b y 1 5 1 F. 3 d1 3 2 1 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ). We agree with the m agistrate court’ s well r easoned analy sis and sim ilarly find that Mathis has not point ed to sim ilarly situated com

parators w ho were treate d m ore favorably under the attendance policy than he. Mathis relies on the attendance8

re co rd s of

thr ee w hit e, f

em al e co -w orke rs to supp ort hi s c la im s: A m y S te w ar t, Tam m y Tiller , and Rhon da Scr

uggs . How ever, the m agistrate court found that
none of the se w om envio la te d th e pol ic y in fi ve of tw el ve m onths l ike Mathi s, and therefore they

cannot not serve as “ sim ilarly situated” com

parators. Mathis has failed to dem onstrate that any other fem ale co-w orker ac crued sim ilar absence vio la tio ns and y et

r ec ei ve d di ff

er en t punis hm en t. H e the re fo re ha s no t c re at ed a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact to pre cl ud e su m m ary jud gm en t. 2. Mathi s’ s r et al ia tio n c la im Ma thi s a lso a sse rt s th at

he w as f ir ed in re ta liatio n f

or c om pla ini ng a

bout the sexual harassm ent he experienced fr om his sup ervisor. To prove re taliation un der Title V II, Mathis m

ust dem onstrate that (1) he “ engaged in statu torily protected activity , ( 2) an adverse e m ploym ent action occurred, and (3) the adverse action was
ca usa lly r el at ed to the pla int if

f’ s pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi tie s. ” G re gor

y , 355 F . 3d at 12 79 (quot ing L itt le v. U nit ed

T ec hnol ogi es , Carr ie r T ransi co ld D iv. , 103 F . 3d 9 56, 959 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) ). The only one of these prongs at issu e here is the third, w hether the re is a ca

usa l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty –c om pla ini ng a

bout McGa he y –a nd Mat hi s’s t erm in at io n o ve r fi ve m on th s l at er. Ma thi s do es not

have to es ta

bli sh a c au sa l r el at ion shi p th at

w oul d r ise to the le ve l of dir ec t e vid en ce , but

he m ust de m onstrate that hi s in te rn al c om pla int and h isTo the extent that Mathis raises his “down time” c laim as evidenc e of r etaliation, we 4 reje ct this argument beca

use it was untimely

befor e the district cour

t and there is no evidence of any causa l relationship betwee n withheld down time and Mathis’s sexual hara ssmen t co m pl ai nt . 9 ult im at e te rm inatio n are “ not w hol ly unr el at ed
. ” S im

m ons v. Cam de n C ounty

Bd
. of E duc
. , 757 F . 2d 1 187, 118 9 ( 11th C ir
. 198 5)
. T em por al pr oxi m ity

m ay e sta bli sh a causal r elationshi p between protecte d activity and an adverse ac tion, but here
m or e than f

ive m onths e la

pse d be tw ee n M athis ’ s c om pla int on Augus t 17 , 200 3
an d hi s te rm inatio n onJanuary 23, 200 4. T he re c anbe no i nf er en ce of c au sa tio n on the ba sis of

the se tw o di stant e ve nts a lon e. S ee W as cura v. Ci ty of S outh Mi am i, 257 F . 3d 1 238, 124 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) ( thr ee and a ha lf m onth ga

p to o re m ote to pr ove c au sa tio n th ro ugh te m por al pr oxi m ity ). F urthe rm or e, the r ea son fo r fi ri ng M athis is cl earl y his sub se que nt, pos t- co m pla int vio la tio ns o f the
c o mp a n y’s a t t e n d a n c e p o l i c y. 4

3. Mathi s’ s r ac e dis cr im inatio n c la im und er § 19 81 Mat hi s’s fi na l cl ai m

is forrace di sc riminat io n u nd er § 19 81 , whi ch fol lo ws th e sa m e fra m ewo rkas d is cu ss edab ov e fo r a d is cri m in at io n c la im un de r Tit le VII. How ard v. B.P . O il Co., 32 F.3d 520, 524 n.2 (11th Cir. 1994). T o the extent that Ma thi s’ s r ac e dis cr im inatio n c la im r el ie s onthe sam e se t of

a lle ge dly sim ilarl y situated com

parators used to establish his claim for sex discrim ination , his ra ceMathi s a lso c onte nd s th at he wa s o we d a no the r w e e k’ s w or

th o f a c c ru e d v a c atio n ti me 5 un de r t he c omp any ’s c oll e c tiv e ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt; he c la ims he wa s o we d thre e we e ks , ins te a d o f t

wo we e ks tim e . T his argume nt i s w ith out me ri t be c a us e Mathi s n e ith e r c umu lativ e ly no r c on se c uti ve ly

wo rk e d at th e c omp any

fo r t e n ye ars , th e re qu ir e d ti me fo r a n e mpl oye e to acc rue thre e we eks of va cation time. Mathi s’ s “ do wn

c la im” c la im r a ise d h e re a s p a rt of his § 1 98 1 c la im w a s n ot t ime ly 6 broug ht before the district and mag istrate cour ts and we similarly

do not addre ss it here. 10 discrim ination claim

also fails for the r easons discu ssed above. Mathis also argues that be ca use he w as not

pr om ptl y pa id h is a cc ru ed

va catio n ti m e uponte rm inatio n that he was discrim inated against on the basis of his race. H owever , any delay 5 Ma thi s su ff

er ed in re ce ivi ng h is a cc ru ed

va catio n ti m e w as not

asuf fi ci en tly adve rs e ac tio n to state ac la im f or r ac e dis cr im inatio n un de r § 19 81. S ee G upt a v. Fl a. Bd . o f R eg en t s , 2 1 2 F. 3 d5 7 1 , 5 8 9 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o l d i n g th at empl o yer’s de lay in pr oc es sin g e m

plo y ee ’ s vi saappl ic at ionw as not a dve rs e ac tio n)
. T hus, Ma thi s’ s § 1 981 va catio n pay c la im a lso f ai ls. 6 C
. M a t h i s ’s S t a t e L a wC l a i ms L as tly , Mathi s c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t on his state lawne gli ge nt h ir ing and r et en tio n c la im and i ts e ntr

y of j udgm en t onhis
accrue d v acat io n t im e cl ai m wit ho ut co ns id erat io n o f co ns eq ue nt ia l d am ag es . Be ca use Mathi s de m onstrate d no e vid en ce of dis put ed f ac t tha t the c om

pany did not f oll owit s in te rn al pol ic y

to pr om ptl y inv es tig at e his se xua l hara ssm en t com plaint, and because again Mathis relies on his unt im ely “ down tim e” cla im

asMathis argues that he is entitled to $15.92 per hour ac crue d vacation tim e, instead of 7 $1 3. 42 , b ut h is b ri e f a

rt ic ulate s n o b a sis fo r t

his inc re a se d h ourl y

rate . We a ssume that th is incre ased r ate is base d on Mathis’s asser tion that he had wor

ked at the c ompany

for ten year s, but this assertion was disprove d by Mathis’s own admission.

11 ev i d en ce o f c o n t i n u ed h ar as s m en t , we ag re e w i t h th e mag i s t ra t e c o u rt ’s
re co m m en da tio n to gr an t sum

m ar y j udgm en t onpla int if

f’ s ne gli ge nt r et en tio n cl ai m . See As hm or e v . J.P. Th at ch er Co ., Inc ., 30 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 35 9, 1 37 5 (M .D. G a. 200 4)
. L as tly , be ca

use und er G eo rg ialawthe pr ope r m ea sur e of dam ag es f

or de lay in pe rf orm an ce w oul d be the int er es t onuse of the pr ope rty

w ith he ld and because Mathis wa s paid the interest owed him , he has no further rem edy under G eo rg ialawon h is v ac at ionpay c la im
. S ee S an de rs v. Ro be rt son, 196 G a. App.

7 739, 739 , 397 S
. E . 2d 2 6, 27 ( 1990 ) (“ [F ] or de lay in the pe rf

orm an ce of

ac ontra ct , da m ag es usu al ly

are f or los s of the use of

the pr ope rty

inv olv ed , f

or w hic h th e inj ur ed party m ay r ec ove r da m ag es ba se d onint er es t onthe va lue of the pr op ert y .”). III. C ONC LUS ION For the fore goin g reasons the judgm ent of the district court, which adopt ed the m ag istrate c ourt’ s r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n, is AFFIRMED.