[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10466

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LAURIE MCCORMICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01617-SDM-AAS

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10466

Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Laurie McCormick appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment against her on her retaliation and failure to accommodate claims under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12203(a), and her retaliation and interference claims under the Family Medical Leave 

Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a), against Defendant-Appellee 

Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI). First, McCormick argues 

that the district court erred in failing to review the record in her 

favor. Second, she argues that the district court erred by concluding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA or ADA 

retaliation. Third, she asserts that the district court erred by concluding that she did not present a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence for her retaliation claims. Finally, she argues that 

the district court erred by concluding that she did not present a 

prima facie case of FMLA interference or ADA failure to accommodate.

After careful review, we affirm. For ease of reference, we 

will address each point in turn.

I. 

McCormick was employed with SPLI for two years as a payroll technician when she was terminated for allegedly poor performance and unprofessionalism. She alleges that her termination 

constituted FMLA and ADA retaliation, FMLA interference, and 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 2 of 8
22-10466 Opinion of the Court 3

ADA failure to accommodate because she had requested FMLA 

forms to take leave for a disabling knee injury. The district court 

granted SPLI’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the record conclusively demonstrates that SPLI terminated McCormick 

for reasons unrelated to her FMLA and ADA rights.

II. 

McCormick first argues that the district court failed to view 

the evidence in her favor. We review a district court’s grant of 

summary judgment de novo. Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 

F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate 

where, viewing the movant’s evidence and all factual inferences 

arising from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 

there is no genuine issue of any material fact. Id. A court should 

give credence to the evidence supporting the movant that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence 

comes from disinterested witnesses. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000). Unrebutted evidence from the 

defendant can be a basis for summary judgment. See Martin v. Fin. 

Asset Mgmt. Sys., 959 F.3d 1048, 1054–58 (11th Cir. 2020).

Here, the court referenced uncontested SPLI factual assertions in the record. McCormick contends that this contravenes the

court’s obligation to draw all inferences in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party. However, McCormick failed to raise a 

factual dispute and as such the court accurately relied on the record 

as a whole. Further, relying on uncontradicted or undisputed 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10466

evidence in the record is not a credibility evaluation, and therefore 

it does not circumvent the standards for summary judgment. 

Therefore, the district court did not fail to apply the correct standard with respect to any of the summary judgment-related points 

McCormick raises. 

III. 

Second, McCormick argues that the district court erred in 

finding that she failed to establish the prima facie elements of 

FMLA and ADA retaliation.1 A prima facie case of retaliation under the FMLA or ADA requires a showing that (1) the employee 

engaged in statutorily protected conduct, (2) the employee suffered 

an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal connection 

between the two. Todd v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F.3d 1203, 

1219 (11th Cir. 2021). However, when an employer contemplates 

an action before an employee engages in protected activity, temporal proximity between the protected activity and the subsequent 

adverse action does not suffice to show causation. Drago v. Jenne, 

1 Under the McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),

framework applicable to ADA and FMLA retaliation cases, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation to survive summary judgment. Todd 

v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F.3d 1203, 1219 (11th Cir. 2021). If the plaintiff 

does so, the employer has the burden to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory 

reason for its employment decision. Id. If the employer carries that burden, 

then the plaintiff must show that the proffered nondiscriminatory reasons are 

pretextual. Id. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 4 of 8
22-10466 Opinion of the Court 5

453 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Whatley v. Metro. 

Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 632 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir. 1980)2

(concluding that even though the plaintiff engaged in protected expression in close temporal proximity to the adverse action, there 

was no causal connection because the evidence demonstrated that 

the dismissal was actually caused by “a culmination of problems 

growing out of appellant's manner of handling his job, his lack of 

cooperation within his office, his mismanagement of his staff, his 

refusal to comply with the terms of his job description, and his refusal to follow instructions from his supervisor”).

Here, McCormick failed to show that the undisputed temporal proximity establishes causation. SPLI’s unrebutted testimony shows that although McCormick’s supervisors fired her on 

Friday, May 31, 2019, the same day she requested FMLA paperwork, McCormick’s supervisors decided to fire her on Tuesday, 

May 28, 2019. Further, unrebutted testimony from McCormick’s 

supervisors established that they did not need approval from SPLI’s 

human resources department, and the human resources director 

was not involved in decisions to fire employees. Thus, without 

further evidence of a causal connection, McCormick failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See Drago, 453 F.3d at 1308. 

IV. 

2 We are bound by decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before 

October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 

1981) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10466

Third, McCormick argues that the district court erred in 

finding that she failed to present a “convincing mosaic” of evidence. Despite a claim failing under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff may survive summary judgment if she presents circumstantial evidence that creates 

a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent by 

introducing evidence sufficient to show, when viewed in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker. Smith v. Lockheed-Martin 

Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff may establish a “convincing mosaic” by pointing to evidence that demonstrates, among other things, (1) suspicious timing, ambiguous 

statements, or other information from which discriminatory intent 

may be inferred; (2) superior treatment of similarly situated workers; and (3) pretext. Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 

2022).

In civil cases, we generally will not review issues not raised 

in the district court. Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1352 

(11th Cir. 2017). We can, however, notice plain error if the issue is 

a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would result in a 

miscarriage of justice. Id.

Here, McCormick did not raise a “convincing mosaic” argument before the district court, so we decline to consider her argument in this respect. See Burch, 861 F.3d at 1352. Even if we did 

consider it, we conclude that the circumstantial evidence 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 6 of 8
22-10466 Opinion of the Court 7

McCormick points to does not establish a “convincing mosaic” of 

retaliation. 

V. 

Finally, McCormick argues that the district court erred in 

finding that she failed to establish a prime facie claim for her FMLA 

interference claim and the ADA failure to accommodate claim. To 

succeed on an FMLA interference claim, a plaintiff must show that 

(1) she was entitled to a benefit under the FMLA and (2) that her 

employer denied her that benefit. White v. Beltram Edge Tool 

Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015). If a dismissal 

would have occurred regardless of a request for FMLA leave, an 

employee may be dismissed notwithstanding that her termination 

would prevent her from exercising her right to leave or reinstatement. Krutzig, 602 F.3d at 1236.

Under the ADA, an employer may not discriminate against 

a qualified individual with a disability because of her disability. 

Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1262 (11th Cir. 

2007). Discrimination includes failing to make reasonable accommodations. Id. The duty to provide a reasonable accommodation 

is not triggered unless a specific demand for an accommodation has 

been made. Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 

1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

Here, the record shows that McCormick failed to establish 

elements of both claims. First, as to her FMLA interference claim, 

she was not denied the FMLA paperwork she requested, and 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 22-10466

unrebutted evidence established that SPLI would have fired her regardless of her request for FMLA paperwork. See White, 789 F.3d 

at 1191; Krutzig, 602 F.3d at 1236. Second, as to her ADA failure to 

accommodate claim, she failed to proffer any evidence that her request for FMLA paperwork established either a demand for an accommodation or that she was seeking an accommodation. See 

Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1363. 

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

on behalf of SPLI. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10466 Date Filed: 09/26/2022 Page: 8 of 8