FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11453 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -011 63 -C V -F -N T E R E S S A J A M E S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E O F A L A B A M A D E P A R T M E N T O F R E V E N U E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 31, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T e r e s s a J a m e s , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntofJ ames’s 1990 charg e alleg ed that she had been disc riminated ag ainst on the basis of her 1 rac e when she wa s removed f rom her position and g iven another job. She ultim ately

reached a settlement with ADOR and wa s returne d to her position. In 1995, she ag ain raised a charg e of dis c rimin atio n a

nd re c e ive d a

ri ght to s uele tter. Shedid no t f ilea c omp laint

fo r o ver t woye ars , h o w e v e r , an d

th ec o urtdi s m i s s e d

th ec o mp l ai nta s unti m e ly.

2 s um m a ry j udgm e nti n he re m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on f i l e d a ga i ns tthe A l aba m a D e pa r tm e ntof R e ve nue ( “ A D O R ” ) , i n w hi c h s he a l l e ge d both tha ts he w as di sc ri m i nat ed agai nston the basi s of herra ce and thatshe w as re t al i at ed agai nstfor f

i l i ng di sc ri m i nat i on char ges i n 1 99 0 and 19 95 . F or the re as on s that f o l l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I . Ba c k g r o und J a m e s ’ s c om pl a i nta l l e ge d the f ol l ow i ng: S he w or ke d f orA D O R a s a l e a ve cl erk res po nsi bl e f

or em pl oyee s’ l ea ve t i m e i n the Indi vi du al and C orpo ra t e T ax D i v i si o n . In A u g u st2 0 0 3 , C h arl i e L assi t er, th e d i rect o r o f H u m an R eso u rces, ac cu se d Ja m es o f m ak in g er ro rs in h erleav e e n tries a n d re q u es ted th at Ja m es ’s ac ce ss be l i m i t ed t o o nl y s even em pl oyee s i n the di vi si on . Ja m es as se rt ed that L a s s i t e r ’ s a c c us a t i ons w e r e f a l s e a nd tha tL a s s i t e rw a s r e t a l i a t i ng a ga i ns the rf or the di s c r i m i na t i on c om pl a i nt s s he ha d f i l e d a ga i ns tA D O R i n 1990 a nd 1995. 1 A D O R m o v ed fo r su m m ary j u d g m en t , att ach i n g , am o n g o th er th i n g s, L a s s i t e r ’ s a f

f i da vi t , i n w hi c h L a s s i t e rde ni e d a c t i ng i n r e t a l i a t i on f ora ny pr e vi ous di sc ri m i nat i on al l egat i on s. L as si t er ’ s a ff i davi texpl ai ned thatthe hu m an re source s3

de pa r tm e nti s r e s pons i bl e f orm a i nt a i ni ng pe r s onne l i nf or m a t i on, i nc l udi ng l e a ve f or m s a nd t i m e a nd a tt e nda nc e . A s a l e a ve c l e r k, J a m e s w a s r e s pons i bl e f or prepari ng em pl oyee s’ l ea ve re qu es ti nform at i on and then sub m i tt i ng i tt o h um an re source s. P ri or t o 2 00 3, thi s w as do ne m anual l y i n eac h d i vi si on of A D O R . In 20 03 , A D O R adop t ed an aut om at ed L ea ve T ra ck S ys t em (“ L T S ”) and p rovi ded tr a i ni ng t o l e a ve c l e r ks i n how t o us e the ne w s y s t e m . L a s s i t e re xpl a i ne d tha tthe l e a ve c l e r k’ s j ob i s t i m e - s e ns i t i ve a nd tha te rr or s r e s ul ti n ove rpa y m e ntor u n d erp aym en tt o em p l o yees. L as si t erst at ed thatfol l ow i ng the adop t i on of L T S , hu m an re source s r ec ei ved in co rr ec t en tries f

ro m Ja m es an d th at th er e w er e c o n ti n u o u s p ro b lem s w ith Ja m es ’s L T S entri es , and L as si t erre qu es t ed thatJa m es ’ s a cc es s be l i m i t ed. L as si t er e xpl a i ne d tha t , a l though s he w a s a w a r e tha tJ a m e s ha d f i l e d c om pl a i nt s i n 1990 a n d 1 9 9 5 , s h e d idn o t r e m e m b e rth e c o m p la in ts u n til s h e r e f r e s h e d h e rm e m o ry in c o n n e c tio n w ith th is litig a tio n . S h e d e n ie d th a t s h e a c te d to d is c r e d it, d is c r im in a te ag ai n st , o r ret al i at e ag ai n stJam es. In her r es po nse t o A D O R ’ s s um m ary j ud gm entm ot i on , Ja m es ar gu ed that s he s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on be c a us e s he w a s r e pr i m a nde d a nd the a c c e s s r e s tr i c t i on i nt e r f

e r e d w i th he rj ob pe r f

or m a nc e , the r e by a f

f e c t i ng he rs t a tus as an em pl oyee .Be causeJ ames doe s not argue that the district cour t erre d in finding her claim of rac e 2 discrimination untimely

or unexhausted, she ha s abandone d that claim. Rowe v. Schre iber, 139 F .3 d 1 38 1, 13 82 n. 1 ( 11 th C ir . 1 99 8) . There fo re , w einc ludenofu rt her discus sio n o f t

hat c laim in this opi nion. 4 T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof A D O R , f

i ndi ng that : (1) the al l egat i on s r el at i ng t o Jam es ’ s r es tri ct ed ac ce ss w er e t i m el y; (2) J am es ha d note xha us t e d he rc l a i m s of r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on be c a us e s he di d noti nc l ude th e a lle g a tio n in h e rE E O C c h a r g e ; a n d ( 3 ) J a m e s f a ile d to m a k e a p r im a f

a c ie s how i ng of

r e t a l i a t i on be c a us e the r e s tr i c t e d a c c e s s di d notr e a c h the l e ve l of s ubs t a nt i a l i ty ne c e s s a ry t o e s t abl i s h a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, a s i tha d no s i gni f i c a nte f f e c ton the j ob. I I . D i s c u s s i on J a m e s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm a de f a c tua l e rr or s , f

a i l e d t o vi e w the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o he r , a nd m i s appl i e d the l a w t o the f a c t s . S he also co n ten d s th at sh e m ad e o u t a p rim a f ac ie ca se o f r etaliati o n an d th at A D O R ’s s ta te d r e a s o n s f

o rr e s tr ic tin g h e ra c c e s s w e r e p r e te x tu a l. 2 W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . S kr t i c h v. T h o r to n , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te i f there i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fa ctand the m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) .T h eS u p re m eC o urt

re c e nt ly a ddre s s e d

th ere t al i at o r

y a c te l e m ento f

a T i t l eV II 3 retaliation claim in Burlington N. & Santa FeRy . Co. v. White, 548 U.S. —, 126 S.C t. 2405, 165 L .Ed.2d 345 (2006). TheCourt rejec ted the standa rds applied in this and other Circuits by holding that “the scopeof [Titl e VII ’s] anti-retaliation provision extends beyond workplac e-related or

employ ment-re lated retaliatory

acts a nd harm”and therefore, “is not limit ed to discriminatory

actions that af

fec t the terms and c onditions of employ ment.” Id. at 2412-14. Ac cording ly , a plaintiff ne ed not show that she suff ere d an “adverse employm ent action” affe ctingthe terms and c onditions of employ ment (which w as this Circuit’s pre- Burlington Nor

thern retaliatory

act standa

rd), but must show that her employer subjec ted her to actions “a

rea sonable employee w ould have f ound materially

adver se.” Id. at 2414. 5 U nd erT i t l e V II , “ [i ] tshal l be an un l aw ful em pl oym entprac t i ce for a n em pl oyert o d i sc ri m i nat e a gai nstany of hi s e m pl oyee s . . . because . . . [s ] he has m a de a c ha r ge , t e s t i f

i e d, a s s i s t e d, orpa r t i c i pa t e d i n a ny m a nne ri n a n i nve s t i ga t i on, p ro ceed i n g , o r h eari n g u n d er th i s su b ch ap t er. ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-3 (a). B ecau se Ja m es al l eges a r et al i at i on cl ai m base d o n ci rc um st ant i al evi dence, the bu rden shi ft i ng fr am ew ork i n M cD on nel l D ou gl as C orp. v. G re en, 41 1 U . S . 79 2 (19 73 ), appl i e s . H ul be r tv. S t . M a ry ’ s H e a l th C a r e S y s t e m , I nc . , 439 F . 3d 1286, 1297 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T o e s tab lis h a p r im a f

a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n , th e p la in tif

f m u s t s h o w th a t: (1) s he engaged i n st atut ori l y prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty; (2) s he w as subj ec t ed t o ret al i at ory ac t i on by her e m pl oyer ; and (3) there i s acausal conn ec t i on betw ee n the prot ec t ed 3 a c tiv ity a n d th e a lle g e dr e ta lia to ry a c tio n . S e e id . I f th e p la in tif

f m a k e s o u t a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e , the bur de n s hi f t s t o the de f

e nda ntt o a r t i c ul a t e al e gi t i m a t e r e a s on f orthe a dve r s e a c t i on. I d. I f the de f e nda ntdoe s s o, the pl a i nt i f f m us tthe n s how6

tha tthe de f

e nda nt ’ s pr of

f e r e d r e a s on f

orthe a dve r s e a c t i on i s pr e t e xtua l . I d. T o sat i sf y the causal conn ec t i on re qu i re m ent , a pl ai nt i ff m ustes t abl i sh that th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity a n d th e a lle g e d r e ta lia to ry a c tio n a r e n o t c o m p le te ly un re l at ed. W i dem an v. W al -M artS t ores , Inc. , 14 1 F . 3d 14 53 , 14 57 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e c as es ac ce p ti n g m er e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity b etw ee n an em p lo ye r’s know l e dge of

pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the e m pl oy e r ’ s H ul be r t , 439 F . 3d a t1297. a l l e g e d r e t a l i a t o ry a c t i o n a s s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e o f

c a u s a l i ty t o e s t ab l i s h a p r i ma fa ci e c as e uni form l y hol d thatthe t em po ra l prox i m i ty m ustbe very cl ose. C l ark C ou nty S ch. D i st . v. B re eden, 53 2 U . S . 26 8, 27 3 (20 01 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas c ite d w ith ap p r o v a l d e c is io n s in w h ic h a th r e e to f o u rm o n th d is p a r ity w a s f o u n d to be i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h a c a us a l c onne c t i on. S e e i d. ( c i t i ng R i c hm ond v. O N E O K , 120 F . 3d 205, 209 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ; H ughe s v. D e rw i ns ki , 967 F . 2d 1168, 1174- 75 ( 7th C i r . 1992) ) . I f the r e i s a s ubs t a nt i a l de l a y be tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on a nd the a l l e ge d r e t a l i a t ory c onduc t , the n, i n the abs e nc e of o th e re v id e n c e te n d in g to s h o w c a u s a tio n , th e c o m p la in t f a ils a s a m a tte ro f

la w . H i gd on v. Ja ckson, 39 3 F . 3d 12 11 , 12 20 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). H er e, th e d istrict co u rt fo u n d th at as a m atter o f law , res tricti n g Ja m es ’s ac ce ss di d n otre ac h the neces sa ryl evel of subst ant i al i ty t o sat i sf y the re t al i at ory a c t e le m e n t o f

th e p r im a f

a c ie c a s e . J a m e s , h o w e v e r , c h a lle n g e s th is c o n c lu s io n .This court may aff irm on any

adequate grounds even if those grounds differ from the 4 district court’s. Parks v. City of Warner

Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 613 (11th Cir. 1995). 7 W e nee d n otaddres s thi s c hal l enge because , w hether or notJa m es sa t i sf i ed the re t al i at ory a ctel em ent , sum m ary j ud gm entw as st i l l prop erbecause J am es f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h the r e qui s i t e c a us a l c onne c t i on. J a m e s ’ s pr i ordi s c r i m i na t i on 4 com pl ai nt s occ urre d i n 1 99 0 and 19 95 , bo th si gn i fi ca nt l y bef ore the al l eged r e ta lia to ry c o n d u c t in 2 0 0 3 . T h u s , th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t te m p o r a l p r o x im ity to es t abl i sh the re qu i si t e c ausa t i on . M oreover, al tho ug h L as si t erconceded thatat s om e poi nts he ha d know n aboutJ a m e s ’ s pr i orc om pl a i nt s , s he a ve rr e d tha ts he h a d n o r e c o lle c tio n o f

th o s e c o m p la in ts a t th e tim e s h e r e s tr ic te d J a m e s ’s a c c e s s . N orha s J a m e s of

f e r e d a ny othe re vi de nc e tha tL a s s i t e r ’ s a c t i ons w e r e c a us e d by J a m e s ’s p r io rc o m p la in ts . T h e r e f o r e , J a m e s h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h a p r im a f a c ie c a s e o f r e ta lia tio n u n d e rT itle V I I . A cc o rd in g ly, fo r th e f

o re g o in g re as o n s, w e A F F IR M th e d istrict co u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.