F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 9, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 07- 1023 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00193 -CV -W -N CE CIL IA TH OMA S, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us COOPER LIGHTING, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (N ove m be r 9, 200 7) Before MAR CUS and PRY OR, Circuit Judges, and HA NCO CK, * District Judge. PE R C U RI A M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ *Honora ble J ames Hughes Ha

ncock, Senior

United States District J udg e for th e Nor thern District of Alaba

ma, sitting by

desig nation.2

Ce ci lia T hom as ap pe al s the de ci sio n of the U nit ed St at es D istri ct Co urt f or the Middle District of A labam a dism issin g her T itle VI I re taliation cl aim on summ ary j u d g me n t . A f

t e r r e v i e w a n do r a l a r g u me n t , w e a f f i rm. I. B ac kgr ound C e c i l i aT h o ma s w o rk e da tC o o p e r L i g h t i n g , I n c . ( “C o o p e r ” ) o n af u l l t i me ba sis a s an a sse m

ble r an d f

lo at er fr om

F eb ru ar y 200 4 un til Jul y

200 5 un de r the supe rv isi on o f E ddi e Ca in. O n the ev en ing of Apr il 8, 2005 , T hom as ac cu se d C ai n of s e xu a l h a r a ss m e nt . O n Apr i l 1 1, 2 00 5, T ho m a s pr e se nt e d t he H um a n R esource Mana ge r of

the f ac ili ty , Ja m es D av is, w itha w ri tte n c om

pla int of se xua l hara ssm en t. Th atco m p l ai n to u t l i n e dt w o s p e c i f

i c s e x u a l l y- t i n g e dc o mme n t s a n ds t a t e dt h a tC ai n ’s
co m m un ic at io n was “ se xu al ly nas ty.” T hom as ’ s e m

plo ym en t w ithCo ope r w as te rm ina te d e f f e c t i v e Jul y

7, 200 5. T he
re as on g ive n by Co ope r fo r the se pa ra tio n wa s exc es siv e abs en te ei sm co nsi ste nt w ith th e co m pa ny’ s “ no fau lt ” Abs en te e Po li cy an d P ro ced ur e. O n M ar ch1, 200 6, T hom as c om m en ce d th i s e m p l o y m e n t di sc ri m ina tio n a ct ion ag ai nst Co ope r, al le gin g host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t se xua l hara ssm en t and r et al ia tio n in vio lation o f Ti t l e V II of the Civil Rights Ac t of 1964, as am ended, 42 U. S. C. sections 20 00e et seq . In he r O ct obe r 24, 2006 Re spon se to D ef en da nt' s M oti on t o Com pel Discovery of Plaintiff' s He alth Records and Rule 35 Exam ination , T hom as3

vo lu ntari ly

dis m iss ed

the se xua l hara ssm en t c au se of a ct ion , le av ing onl y

the retaliation claim
. She con tends that Cooper retaliated against her b y term inating her
em pl oym en t o n J ul y

7, 2 00 5. A t the c los e of dis co ve ry , Co ope r fi le d a m oti on for sum m ar y j udgm en t on the
re m ai n i n g cl ai m . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt g r a n t e d t h at m o t i o n , f i n d i n g t h at Th o m as ’s allegations di d not com e close to the threshold of a hostile work environm ent required by Title V II, and therefore Thom as did not have an obje ctively rea sonable belief that the com plained-of conduct v iolated Title V II.

II. Standard of R eview W e r e v i e w ag r a n to f

s u m m a ry j u d g m e nt de novo
. Se e D am on v . F le m ing Supermarkets of Fla., Inc. , 196 F. 3d 13 54, 1357 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). Sum m ary j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no ge nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l fa ct a nd .
. . the
m ovi ng p ar

ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t as a m at te r of law . ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 56( c) ; see Ce lot exCo rp. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U
. S. 317 , 322, 106 S
. Ct
. 254 8, 255 2, 91 L
. E d. 2d 2 65 (1 986)
. A ge nui ne f

ac tua l di sput e ex ist s “ if th e j ur y c oul d r et ur n ave rd ic t f

or the
non-m ovin g party .” D am on , 196 F
. 3d a t 13 58 ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v. F

our P arc el

s of R ea l Prope rty , 941 F. 2d 1428, 1437 (1 1th Ci r. 199 1) ( enbanc ))
. I n e xa m ini ng the
r e c o r d , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r ab l e t o t h e n o n - mo v i n g p a rt y. Se e D am on , 19 6 F .3d at 1 35 8.4 II I. D isc uss ion T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al ia tio n un de r T itl e V II , “ the pla int if f m ust show (1) that she engaged in statuto rily protected expression; (2) th at s he suffere d an ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th at th ere is so m e cau sa l rel at io n be twee n th e two events.” Mee ks v. Computer A ssocs. Int’l , 15 F
. 3d 1 013, 102 1 ( 11th Ci r. 1994 ) (in t e rna l c i t a t i on s om i t t e d)
. T he part i e s ho t l y c on t e st w he t he r T ho m a s held an obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble be lie f tha t the co m

pla ine d- of co nduc t co nst itu te d an un law fu l
em plo ym en t pr ac tic e an d thus, ne ce ssari ly , w he the r T hom as e sta bli shed the f

ir st el em en t o f he r pr im a fac ie cas e fo r th e ret al ia ti on cla im
. See B erm an v . O rk in Ex terminating Co., I

nc. , 160 F. 3d 69 7, 702 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 8) (“ In order to state a retaliati o n cl ai m , the plaintiff nee d onlyshow that he had a ‘ reasonable belief’ that
anunl aw fu l e m

plo ym en t pr ac tic e w as oc curr ing , an d is not r equir ed to showtha t the
em plo y er a ct ua lly e nga ge d ina n un l aw f

u l e m p l o y m e n t p r ac tic e. ”) ; se e als o L ipp hard t
v. Duran g o Steakhou se of Brandon, Inc. , 267 F
. 3d 1 183, 118 7 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) (explaining that the plaintiff is required to show that a “ good faith, reasonable belief” of hara ss m en t le d her

to re port the c ondu ct ). H ow ev er , thi s c ourt ne ed not de ci de whether T ho m a s he l d su c h a“ go od f a i t h, r e a so na

bl e b e l i e f ” b e c aus e t he r ecord reveals that T hom as has failed to produce ev idence from which a r easonable j ury co uld fi nd a causa l conn ec tio n betw ee n the A pr il 8 and 11, 2005 c om pla int s and the5

J u l y 7 , 2 0 0 5 t er m i n at i o n . Th e c au s at i o n i s s u e w a s ex p re s s l y ra i s ed i n Co o p er ’s Me m or an dum

of L awin Su

ppor t of D ef en da nt’ s M oti on f

or S um m ar y Jud gm en t, a nd the part ie s ha d th e oppo rt uni ty to tho ro ughl y

br ie f this i ssu e. W e m ay a ff irm the district court's j udgm ent on any ground th at appears in the re cord, whether or not that gr ou nd was re li edup on or ev en co ns id ered by the co ur t b el ow. See P owers v. United States , 99 6 F .2d 11 21 , 11 23 -2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
. T he bur de n of cau sa tio n c anbe m et by sho w ing c los e te m

por al pr oxi m ity be twee n t he st at ut or il y

pro te ct edact iv it y

an d t he ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . See Brungart v. B ellSout h Telecom m. , I nc. , 231 F
. 3d 7 91, 798 -9 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)
. B ut
m ere tem poral proxim ity , w ithou t m ore, m ust be “ very

close.” Clark

Co unt y Sc h. Dist. v. Bre eden , 532 U
. S. 268 , 273 , 121 S
. Ct
. 150 8, 151 1, 149 L
. E d. 2d 509 ( 2001 ) (i nte rn al c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). A thr ee to fo ur m onth di spari ty

be tw ee n th e sta tut or ily p r o t e ct edex pr es si on an d t he ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on is no t en ou gh
. S e e id. (c iti ng R ic hm ond v. ONEOK, 1 20 F. 3d 2 05, 209 ( 10th C ir
. 199 7) ( 3 m onth pe ri od ins uf fi ci en t) a nd Hughes v. De rwinski , 967 F. 2d 11 68, 1174-75 (7th Cir. 1992 ) (4
m onth pe ri od i nsuf

fi ci en t) ). T hus, in the ab se nc e of oth er ev ide nc e te ndi ng t o sh ow ca usa tio n, if

the re is a subs tanti al de lay be tw ee n th e prote ct ed

e xpr es sio n and the ad ve rs e act io n, t h e c o mp l a i n t o f ret al ia ti on fai ls as a m at te r of law. See H

igdo n v. Jackson , 393 F
. 3d 1 211, 122 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( ci tin g W asc ura v. Ci tyof Sout

h6

Mia mi , 257 F. 3d 12 38, 1248 (11t h Cir. 2001 )). In oppos ing su m

m ary j udgm ent, T ho m a s f

a i l ed to present evidence from which
a re as ona

ble j ur y c oul d f ind a ny cau sa l conne ct ionbe tw ee n he r Apr il 2005
co m pla int (s ) of

se xua l ha ra ssm en t an d the te rm ina tio n of he r em plo ym en t thr ee ( 3)
m onths l at er

in Jul y 200 5. T ha t thr ee (3 ) m onth pe ri od, w ith out m or e, doe s no t r ise to the level of “ very close.” Se e Clark Co unt y Sc h. D ist
. , 532 U
. S. a t 27 3. Acco rd in gl y , we AFFIRM th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t.