[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11157

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DOLORES BRACERO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF ORLANDO, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-01657-WWB-GJK

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11157

Before LUCK, LAGOA and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dolores Bracero appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to her former employer, the City of 

Orlando (“the City”), on her claims of discrimination pursuant to 

the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title 

VII, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, and her claim of retaliation 

for filing a workers’ compensation claim under federal law and 

Florida Statute § 440.205. Bracero does not challenge the district 

court’s disposition of her discrimination claims or her federal retaliation claims on appeal. Bracero appeals only the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment as it relates to her retaliation claim under Florida law. Bracero argues that the district court erred in concluding that she failed to show a causal relationship between her 

protected expression and her termination. She also argues that the 

district court erroneously failed to consider adverse employment 

actions other than termination when those actions, if adverse, 

would fill the temporal gap between her filing her workers’ compensation claims and her termination. After reviewing the record 

and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the City.

I.

We review summary judgment orders de novo, viewing all 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Slaughter, 958 F.3d 1050, 1056 (11th Cir. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 2 of 6
21-11157 Opinion of the Court 3

2020). Summary judgment is proper if “there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Grange Mut. Cas. Co.,

958 F.3d at 1057. “If a party fails to . . . properly address another 

party’s assertion of fact,” the district court may (1) provide an opportunity to do so; (2) consider the fact undisputed; (3) grant summary judgment if the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other 

appropriate order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). However, the district 

court must review the evidentiary materials on file when considering even an unopposed motion for summary judgment to “ensure 

that the motion itself is supported by evidentiary materials” and 

indicate that it addressed the merits of the issue. United States v. 

One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 

363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). Similarly, even when the 

statements in a party’s statement of material facts are deemed admitted, we “must still review the movant’s citations to the record 

to determine if there is, indeed, no genuine issue of material fact.” 

Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). Even 

when the motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the movant must identify the evidence that “demonstrates the absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact.” Id.

In general, we will not consider an issue “not raised in the 

district court and raised for the first time in an appeal.” Access 

Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(quotation marks omitted). “This rule, however, is not jurisdictional and may be waived by this court in certain exceptional 

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11157

circumstances” that do not apply in this case. Blue Martini Kendall, 

LLC v. Miami Dade Cty. Fla., 816 F.3d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 2016) 

(quotation marks omitted). Additionally, we “may affirm a judgment on any legal ground, regardless of the grounds addressed and 

relied upon by the district court.” Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 

381 F.3d 1230, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004).

II.

Under Fla. Stat. § 440.205, “[n]o employer shall discharge, 

threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to 

claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law.” Fla. 

Stat. § 440.205. Retaliation claims brought pursuant to § 440.205 

require a plaintiff to show that: (1) she engaged in protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there 

is a causal connection between the expression and the adverse action. Ortega v. Eng’g. Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 528 (Fla. Dist. 

Ct. App. 2010). To satisfy the causal connection requirement, the 

plaintiff must show, “at a minimum, . . . that the defendant was actually aware of the protected expression at the time the defendant 

took the adverse employment action.” Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 

887 So. 2d 372, 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). The plaintiff cannot 

establish this requirement with merely “curious timing coupled 

with speculative possibilities.” Id. The plaintiff only has a prima 

facie case if the protected activity and adverse employment action 

“are not completely unrelated.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 4 of 6
21-11157 Opinion of the Court 5

After the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that she engaged in protected activities and suffered adverse employment action as a result, “the burden then shifts to the defendant to proffer 

a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action.” Id. at 

379-80. If the employer meets its burden, the plaintiff then must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stated reason 

was a pretext for retaliatory conduct. Id. at 380.

III.

A review of the record shows that Bracero made claims for 

workers’ compensation on October 27, 2015, and December 7, 

2017. The City terminated her employment 18 months after she 

filed her second workers’ compensation claim. Thus, the filing of 

her claims was too attenuated from her termination for a causal 

connection to exist. Moreover, the undisputed facts, adopted by

the district court, demonstrate that the City fired Bracero pursuant 

to the pre-existing collective bargaining agreement, precluding her 

arguments that the City fired her or took other adverse employment actions against her in retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims. Record evidence supports this admitted fact because 

the collective bargaining agreement specifies that a person who applied for and was denied a disability pension and did not report for 

duty, like Bracero, would be fired. 

Further, her argument that the district court should have 

considered the City’s other actions as adverse employment actions 

for purposes of her retaliation claim is not properly before us because she did not assert this argument in the district court. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-11157

Regardless, the City gave non-retaliatory reasons for each of its alleged adverse actions, all of which Bracero failed to rebut by failing 

to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, for

the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the City.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-11157 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 6 of 6