F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 5 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Orinda

Evans, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1260 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 9:06 -CV -80961 -D MM VINCENT C. KNIGHT , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATION, a.k .a. DOT, De fendant-Appellee .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 5, 200 8) Before BL ACK

and MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg es, and EV AN S , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M:B e c a us e the F CRAis m od e le d a ft e r T itl e VI Iand F lorida c ourt s lo ok

to T itl e VI Ic a se 1 law whe n interpre ting the F CRA, we addr ess Knight’s claims identically . See J ones v. U nited Sp ac eAl lia nc e, LLC , 494 F.3d 1306, 1310 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 2 Vincent C. Knight appeals from the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t i n f

av or of the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of T ranspo rt at ion( FD O T ) on h is allegations of retaliation un der T itle VI I and the Florida Civil Rights Act (F CR A ). K nig ht a lle ge d he w as te rminate d be ca use he pr ovi de d dam ag ing 1 de posi tio n te sti m ony

in a se xua l hara ssm en t su it fi le d a ga ins t F D O T . F D O T in tur n sa id i t ha d ale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r te rminatin g K nig ht: Knight him self w as sexually harassing a coworker . The district court granted sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of F D O T , f ind ing K nig ht h ad f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al iatio n and, a lte rn at ive ly , ha d f ai le d to c re at e a ge nui ne issue of m aterial f

act that FD OT ’ s proffer ed rea son for his term ination wa s p r e t e x tu a l . We a f

f i rm. I. BACKGROUND Sargent K nigh t wa s an 18-y ear veteran of F DO T’ s Motor Carr ier Co m pli an ce O ff

ic e (M CC O ). I n M ay

200 5, K nig ht p ro vid ed

de posi tio n te sti m ony in a di sc riminat io n c as e b ro ug htby a cowo rk er, Ci nd y Mi ll er, ag ai ns t FDOT. K nig ht d es cr ibe s hi s te sti m ony a ga ins t F D O T a s “ de va statin g” ; i n part ic ular, he testified in the Miller depositi on that an em ploy ee used derogatory

term s when3

refe rencing Miller in both h is presence and the presence of his direct supervisor, Lt. Te rry Gartner. T his directly

contradicted Gartner’ s testim ony , bec ause Gartner te sti fi ed he he ar d no suc h th ing . Am onth or

so a ft er K nig ht’ s te sti m ony , G ar

tne r inf orm ed K nig ht that a co w orke r, S hannonE ve rt , ha d a cc use d K nig ht o f se xua l hara ssm en t. A cc or din g to Eve rt’s c om

pl ai nt , Kni gh t an d Ev ertha d aco ns en su al sex ua l re la ti on sh ip in 20 04 . K nig ht c ont inu ed

to pur sue the r el at ion shi p a ft er it e nde d, unt il E ve rt

a ske d hi m

in Fe br uary 200 5 to le av e he r al one . A cc or din g to E ve rt , K nig ht b ac ke d of

f unt il June 200 5, whe n hi s unw el co m ed a dvanc es c ont inu ed . K

nig ht a dm itt ed

he and E ve rt ha d ac onse nsua l r el at ion shi p, but he ins ist ed

the r el at ion shi p w as a t a ll tim es c onse nsua l and n ev er tr an sf orm ed int o se xua l hara ssm en t. Evert filed her com

plaint with Gartner. Gartner inform ed Knight he was accused of sexual harassm ent and toldhim to “ [h] ave a nice day .” G artner fo rw ar de d th e co m

pla int f orm , on whic h he w ro te , “ K nig ht i s se xua lly

hara ssi ng Eve rt.” The Equ al Em

pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty O ffi ce (EOO), whi ch is wit hi n F DOT bu t o ut si de th e MC CO, in ve st ig at edth e co m pl ai nt . Mic ha el Klu m

p, t he EOO in ve st ig at orwho in ve st ig at edth e Mi ll er m at te r, in ve st ig at edEvert’s al le ga ti on s. K lum p in te rv ie w ed

E ve rt , K nig ht, G ar

tne r, and a

f ri en d of E ve rt . I n a ddi tio n,4

Evert provided p ages from Knight’ s journal in which he refe rred to her ro m an t i ca l l y. Kl u m

p fo u n dEv ert ’s al l eg at i o n s cr ed i b l e, an dfo u n dKn i g h t ’s statem ents–th at the relations hip was consensual and Evert w as sending him m ixed m essages–incredible. Co l. G raham

F ount ai n, the dir ec tor

of MC CO , r ec ei ve d th e co nc lus ion s of Klum p’ s investi gation. Fountain decided to term inate Knight based on th e fa ilure to r ep ort hi s c onse nsua l r el at ion shi p w ithE ve rt ( a vio latio n of

MC CO ’ s r

ule s) and h i s s ex u al h ar as s m en to f E v ert . F o u n t ai nad m i t t edh e w as aw ar e o f Kn i g h t ’s deposit ion testim ony

in the Miller case and thou ght Knight ’ s testim ony had hurt FD OT ’ s case. K nig ht s ue d un de r T itl e V II and F lor ida law , a lle gin g hi s te rminatio n w as in retaliation for his testim ony in the Miller case. FD OT filed a m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, which the dist rict court granted. T he district court found Knigh t had fa ile d to m ak e out

apr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al iatio n and, in any

e ve nt, ha d f

ai le d to co m e f o rw ar dwi tha g en u i n e i s s u e o f mat er i al fa ctas t o wh et h erFD OT’s pr of fe re d r ea son fo r his te rminatio n w as pr et ex tua l. K nig ht a ppe al s. II. DISCUS SION W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. M izev . J ef fe rso n City Bd. of Educ. , 93 F . 3d 7 39, 742 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s5

ap pr opr iate whe n, vie w ing the f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng pa rty, the re i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact . Id . O n a ppe al , K nig ht arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in fi ndi ng h e fa ile d to present a prim a fa cie ca se of re taliation and failed to dem onstrate the proffer ed re as on f or his te rminatio n w as pr et ex tua l. T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of retaliation under Title V II, the plaintiff m ust sh ow (1) a protected ac tivity ; (2) an ad ve rs e act io n t ak enby the em pl oyer; an d (3 ) a cau sa l co nn ect io n. Clov er v . T ota l Sys. Servs. , I

nc. , 176 F . 3d 1 346, 135 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . I f the e m plo y er r es pond s by providin g a legitim ate, non-dis crim inatory rea son for the adverse action, then the bur de n r em ai ns o n th e pla int if f to r eb ut the pr of

fe re d r ea son an d de m onstrate it is m ere p ret ex t. O lm ste d v . T ac o B el l C

orp. , 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 th Cir19 98 ). W e as sum e, w ith out

de ci din g, that K

nig ht h as suc ce ssf

ull y se t f orth the pr im a fa ci e ca se . H av ing tho ro ughl y r ev ie w ed the r ec or d e vid en ce and the ar gum en ts i n th is c as e, how ev er , w e co nc lud e K nig ht h as f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a genuin e issue of m aterial f act that FD OT ’ s stated reason for his term ination wa s pr et ex tu al . Prete xt can be shown either by directly persuading a court that dis cr im inator

y m oti ve m or e lik el y

m oti vate d th e em

plo y er or by ind ir ec tly de m on st rat in g t he pro vi de d re as on was u nwo rth y of c red en ce. Sweat v. Miller6

B re wi ng C

o. , 70 8 F .2d65 5, 6 56 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Se e als o H arr is v . She lby County Bd. Of E

duc. , 99 F . 3d 1 078, 108 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( “ T he f oc us o f the c as e af t erth e d ef

en d an th as m etth e b u rd en o f p ro du ct i o ni s o nth e d ef en d an t ’s subj ec tiv e int en t and the m oti vatio n be hin d th e de fe ndant’ s a dve rs e em plo ym en t ac tio ns d ir ec te d at the pla int if f. ”) . Apla int if

f m ust do m or e than c ri tic iz e the busi ne ss j udgm ent of

his e m plo y er , and h e cannot

sim ply quarr el w iththe w isd om of th e d eci si on . Ch apm an v . A I Transp ort , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 30 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Moreover, the inqui ry

is not whether K

nigh t actually

sexually harassed E ve rt . R athe r, the inquir y is w he the r the e m

plo y er ha d agoo d- fa ithba sis f

or it s be li ef an d t he be li ef ac tu al ly m ot iv at edit s d eci si on . Elrod v. Sears, R oebuck & Co . , 939 F . 2d 1 466, 147 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) . I n r ea ch ing an e m plo ym en t de ci sio n, ane m plo y er is fr ee to w ei gh the c re dib ili ty of dif fe re nt w itn es se s: “ Whe n th e re sul tin g e m

plo y er ’ s inve sti gatio n . . . pr oduc es c ontra dic tor y a cc ount s of sig nif ic an t hi sto ri ca l e ve nts , the e m plo y er c anlaw fu lly

m ak e a ch oic e be tw ee n th e conflicting versio ns . . . , a s long as the choice is an honest choice.” EE OC v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc. , 221 F. 3d 11 71, 1176 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). In this case, Fountain was the decisionm aker who term inated Knight. A fter Evert com

plained, the com

plaint was ref

erre d to the inv estigators at the EO O, an office independent of the MCCO . They investig ated the case and determ ined7

E ve rt ’ s ve rs ionw as c re dib le , whe re as K nig ht’ s ve rs ionw as not . F ount ai n, review ing th e re port uph oldin g Evert’ s claim s of sexual harassm ent, ter m inated K nig ht. K nig ht h as of

fe re d no e vid en ce e ith er

that ( 1) the de te rminatio n by the E O O inv es tig at or s th at

E ve rt w as c re dib le w as not

m ad e in g ood fa ith , or (2) Fountain’ s decision to term inate Knight based on th e sexual harassm ent was not hi s actual rea son for the decision. He therefor e cannot survive summ ary j udgm en t. K nig ht p re se nts se ve ra l f

ac ts h e be lie ve s are suf

fi ci en t t o ge t hi m

pa st sum m ar y j udgm en t. N one of

the m a ct ua lly a ddr es s th e que sti ons re le vant t o th e inquir y . F ir st, K

nig ht arg ue s G ar

tne r’ s “ de te rminativ e langua ge ” an d “ fe rv or ” to pur sue E ve rt ’ s c om

pla int are e vid en ce that r et al iator y anim us a ct ua lly f ue le d th e de ci sio n to te rminate K

nig ht. B ut G ar

tne r w as not

ade ci sio nm ak er ; he w as not inv olv ed in ei the r the inv es tig at ionof the c om pla int or F ount ai n’ s de ci sio n to te rminate K

nig ht. T he re fo re , the f

ac ts K nig ht p re se nts are not

suf fi ci en t t o surv ive sum m ar y j udgm en t. Se co nd, K

nig ht s tate s he ha s e vid en ce that E ve rt ’ s a cc ount of the ir relationship is not credible. H e say s the evidence dem onstrates Evert c ontacted K nig ht s ev er al ti m es and s en t hi m m ixe d m es sa ge s, c ontra dic tin g th e sto ry she tol d th e E O O inv es tig at or s. B ut this is the sor t of inquir y –whe the r the c om

pla int8

was ge nu in e– ex pr es sl y

di sc la im edby ourpre ced en t. Se e E lro d , 93 9 F .2dat 1 47 0. T he que sti on i s whe the r the inv es tig at ionand d ec isi on w er e co nduc te d ingoo d faith, not whether E vert is a liar. Third, Knight argues the EO O’ s investi gation o f E vert’ s com plaint was handl ed dif fe re ntl y f ro m oth er inv es tig at ion s. N o do ubt e vid en ce an inve sti gatio n wa s perfunctory

or capric ious in com

parison to o ther investigatio ns would ind eed be evidence the investigatio n was not conducted in g ood faith. In this case, however, Knight onlystates the investig ation of Evert’ s com plaint was shorter than the Miller investig ation and in volv ed few er w itnesses. H e has no evidence sugg esting hi s investi gation sh ouldhave been longer or m ore thorough . The m ere fact that diff

erent investigation s require diffe rent treatm ent is not, absent further ba sis f or c om pari son, suf

fi ci en t t o r ai se age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t. W ith out pr ovi din g f

urthe r de ta il on h owhis sit uatio n sh oul d have be entr eate d si m ilarl y to the Mi lle r inv es tig at ion , K nig ht c annot

sur viv e sum m ar y j udgm en t onthi s ba sis . Fi na lly , K

nig ht p oin ts o ut that F ount ai n–the ult im at e de ci sio nm ak er in thi s ca se –kne wabout

K nig ht’ s pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty . A lth oughm er e know le dge of pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty by ade ci sio nm ak er

c anbe suf

fi ci en t t o surv ive the pr im a fa ci e cas e, see R aney v. Vinson Guard Serv., Inc. , 120 F. 3d 11 92, 1197 (11t h Cir. 1997 ), know le dge a lon e is n ot n ec es sari ly suf fi ci en t on ce the ana ly sis m ove s to the9

pretext stage. Ther efore, Fountain’s knowledge that K nigh t engaged in protected ac tiv ity is not e vid en ce suf

fi ci en t onit s own to sho wthe a ct ua l m oti vatio n f

or the t e rmi n a t i o nwa s r e t a l i a t o ry. III. CONCLUSION Insum , F D O T pr es en te d w ithale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r t e rmi n a t i n g K

n i g h t( h i s h ar a s s me n to f

E v e rt ) , an dK

n i g h th a s f

a i l e dt o c o me fo rw ar d w ithe vid en ce c re at ing age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t a s to w he the r the te rminatio n w as a ct

ua lly m oti vate d by

anothe r re as on o r w he the r the inv es tig at ion was no t co nduc te d i n g oo d fa it h. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i s AFF IRM ED.