F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ja nua ry 1 6, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1626 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 02 28 8- CV-B- NE TO M MCA DA MS, Pl ai nti ff - Appe llant,
ve rs us FRANCIS J. HARVEY, S e c r e t a ry o f

t h e Ar my , De fendant-Appellee.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (J an ua ry 16, 200 7) ON REM AN D F ROM THE SU PREME CO UR T OF THE U NITE D S TAT ES Be fo re D U BIN A , CA RN E S a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

This appeal is before us on rem and from the Suprem e Court of the U nited St at es wit h i ns tru ct io ns to reco ns id er o urpa ne l d eci si on , McA dams v. Harvey , 141 Fed . App x. 8 02 (11 th Cir .), ce rt. gra nte d an d ju dgm en t v ac ate d by , 126 S
. Ct
. 2980 (2006), in light of B url ing ton N. & San ta F e R y. Co

. v . W

hit e , 126 S
. Ct
. 2405 (2006). A ft er r ec ei vin g th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s m an da te , w e dir ec te d th e part ie s to f ile
su pp le m en ta l b rie fs di sc us si ng th e eff ect , if an y , B url ing ton No rth ern ha s onthe present case. A fter c onsid eration of the supplem ental briefs, we once again aff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the A rm y on Mc A da m s’ s r et al ia tio n c la im s br ough t un de r T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et se q. In B url ing ton No rth ern , the S upr em e Co urt c onsi de re d th e sc ope of the a nti

retaliation provisio n of Title V II, 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-3(a)
. The C ourt held that

“ the a nti -r et al ia tio n pr ovi sio n do es not c onf ine the a ct ion s and h ar

m s it f or bid s to tho se that are r el at ed

to em plo ym en t or

oc cur at the w orkpl ac e, ” an d “ the provisi on covers thos e (and on ly those) em

ploy er a ctions th at w ouldhave been
m at eri al ly adv ers e to a reas on ab le em pl oyee orjob ap pl ic an t.” 1 26 S. Ct. at 24 09
. Inour e ar lie r de ci sio n a ff

irm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o the S ec re tary , w e he ld:3

T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y de te rm ine d th at

Mc A da m s di d no t m ak e out a prima facie ca se f

or r et al ia tio n be ca

use he f ai le d to e sta

bli sh: (1 ) a ca usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n hi s pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty a nd h is pe rf orm an ce e va luatio n, a nd; ( 2) that the e lim inatio n of his pos iti on an d hi s tr an sf

er to a ne wpos iti on c onst itu te d an a dve rs e em plo ym en t action. T hus, the district court did n ot err in granting summ ary j u d g me n tf

o r t h e A rmy o n t h o s e c l a i ms , a n dw e a f f i rm. McAda ms , 14 1 F ed . App x. at 80 3 (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d)
. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that B url ing ton No rth ern doe s no t pr ovi de aba sis f

or us t o a lte r our

de ci sio n onMc A da m s’ s pe rf orm an ce e va luatio n cl ai m . Howev er, i t i s ap pl ic ab le to McAd am s’s job eli m in at io n a nd tra ns fer c la im
. D es pit e its appl ic ab ili ty , our ult im at e de ci sio n inthi s c as e doe s no t c hange . T his
co ur t ca n a ffi rm

a di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t fo r an y reas on su pp or te d b y

th e rec or d. Lucas v. W

. W . G raing er, I

nc. , 257 F. 3d 12 49, 1256 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). W e co nc lud e fr om

the r ec or d th at

Mc A da m s’ s r et al ia tio n- ba se d j ob ab oli shm en t c la im

f ai ls b ec au se the re is no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t a bout the
ca usa l c onne ct iona nd the pr of fe re d no n- re ta liator

y r ea sons f or the e lim inatio n of Mc A da m s’ s j ob and transf er to a low er -p ay ing one . T his is suf fi ci en t f or us t o
a f f i rm th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s g r a n to f s u mm a ry ju d g men t . Ac c o r d i n g l y, notw ith standi ng the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in B url ing ton No rth ern , w e af firm t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s g r a n to f s u mm a ry ju d g men ti n f

a v o r o f t h e S e c r e t a ry. AFFIRMED.