FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 3, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 12545 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 1 6 4 7 - CV - 2 - I PJ J E A N E T T E M . G A R Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I KE HA LE , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as S h e r if f o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n ty , A la b a m a , 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 N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 3, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antJe anett e M . G ary c hal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary2

j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f th e d efen d an t , ap p el l ee M i k e H al e, w h o i s n am ed i n th i s case in h is o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity a s th e S h e r if f o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n ty , A la b a m a . O n ap p e a l, G a r y a r gue s tha tge nui ne i s s ue s of f a c tr e m a i n a s t o w he the rhe re m pl oy e r , the J e f f e r s on C ounty S he r i f

f’ s D e pa r tm e nt , tw i c e r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns the rbe c a us e s he com pl ai ned o f di sc ri m i nat i on i n t he w orkp l ac e. A cc ordi ng l y, G ary c on t ends that s um m a r y j udgm e ntw a s i m pr ope r l y gr a nt e d on the r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m tha ts he br oughtpur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964 ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) , 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D G a r y , a bl a c k f

e m a l e , ha s be e n e m pl oy e d a s a de puty s he r i f f i n the J e f

f e r s on C ou nt y S heri ff’ s D epar tm ent(“ the departm ent ”) si nce 197 7. D uri ng her t enure w i th th e d ep artm en t , G ary h as b een em p l o yed i n a n u m b er o f d i fferen tp o si t i o n s; s h e w o r k e d f

o rtw e lv e y e a r s in th e ja il, e ig h t y e a r s o n p a tr o l, a n d is c u r r e n tly em pl oyed as a c ou rtoffi ce r i n t he di vo rc e c ou rt . T he Je ff er son C ou nt y P er sonn el B o a r d o f f e r s a q u a lif

y in g te s t f

o ro f f ic e r s in te r e s te d in b e in g p r o m o te d to S e r g e a n t. G ary has t aken and p as se d t hi s t es tannu al l y s i nce 198 2. A l tho ug h she has app l i ed for a nd i nt ervi ew ed for aS er geantpo si t i on on vari ou s occ as i on s, she has never b e e n s e le c te d f

o ra p r o m o tio n to S e r g e a n t. G a r y b e g a n f

ilin g in te r n a l g r ie v a n c e s w ith h e re m p lo y e rin th e 1 9 8 0 s . Ini t i al l y hergri evances w er e genera l i ze d i n n ature, and w er e notre l at ed t o ei ther3

s e x orr a c e di s c r i m i na t i on. I n 1981, f ore xa m pl e , s he c om pl a i ne d tha ts he w a s not gi ve n a n oppor tuni ty t o r e f us e pa tr ol duty , w hi l e he rf e l l ow c o- w or ke r s ( bl a c k a nd w hi t e , m a l e a nd f

e m a l e ) w e r e gi ve n s uc h a n oppor tuni ty . G a r y ’ s s ubs e que nt gri evances beca m e m ore s peci fi c. In 19 89 , she f i l ed a c om pl ai ntsugg es t i ng that j ob a s s i gnm e nt s w e r e be i ng m a de on the ba s i s of r a c e a nd s e x. I n 1991, s he com pl ai ned t hatshe w as deni ed a j ob tra nsfe r bas ed on her r ac e. In 19 92 , she f i l ed a f orm al com pl ai ntw i th t he E qu al E m pl oym entO pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on (E E O C ), a l l e gi ng r a c e a nd s e x di s c r i m i na t i on i n vi ol a t i on of T i t l e V I I . T he r e c or d doe s not d is c lo s e th e o u tc o m e o f th e s e e a r lie rg r ie v a n c e s . In D ec em ber 200 4, the departm entanno un ce d t hati thad v ac anci es for a n u m b er o f S erg ean tp o si t i o n s, an d th ati tw o u l d b e rev i ew i n g can d i d at es fo r th ese pos i t i ons . G a ry c om pl e t e d a n appl i c a t i on a nd w a s gr a nt e d a n i nt e r vi e w by the P rom ot i on al R evi ew C om m i tt ee (“ the C om m i tt ee ”) , an i nt ernal re vi ew bo ar d c ons i s t i ng of

f ourm e m be r s of

the de pa r tm e nt . O f

f i f t e e n c a ndi da t e s , G a r y w a s the o n l y b l ack fem al e w h o i n t erv i ew ed fo r th ese p o si t i o n s. T h e C o m m itte e u s e s a s p e c if ic p r o to c o l, p r e s c r ib e d b y I n te r n a l A f f a ir s , in s e le c tin g ap p lic a n ts to b e p r o m o te d to S e r g e a n t. U n d e rth is s y s te m , th e c a n d id a te i s gi ven a nu m er i ca l po i ntsc ore i n t hree se para t e a re as . F i rs t , the C om m i tt ee e xa m i ne s the appl i c a nt ’ s pe r f or m a nc e e va l ua t i on f

or m , a doc um e nti n w hi c h the ap p l i can t ’ s su p erv i so r p ro v i d es h i s o r h er ev al u at i o n o f th e can d i d at e an d assi g n s a4

n u m er ical sc o re to th e a p p li ca n t. S ec o n d , th e C o m m ittee r ev iew s th e a p p li ca n t’ s pe r s onne l f

i l e , w hi c h de t a i l s the appl i c a nt ’ s pr of e s s i ona l hi s t or y w i th the d ep artm en t(b o th l et t ers o f co m m en d at i o n an d rep ri m an d s), an d w h i ch i s l i k ew i se a s s i gne d a num e r i c a l s c or e . F i na l l y , the C om m i tt e e i nt e r vi e w s the c a ndi da t e , a s ks a seri es o f b o i l erp l at e q u est i o n s p ert ai n i n g t o th e S erg ean tp o si t i o n , an d assi g n s a nu m er i ca l sc ore bas ed on the ca nd i dat e’ s r es po nses . T hese po i ntsc ores ar e then to ta le d a n d s c a le d , a n d th e h ig h e s t s c o r in g ap p lic a n ts a r e s e le c te d f o rp r o m o tio n to S e r g e a n t. T he C om m i tt e e tha ti nt e r vi e w e d G a r y i n D e c e m be r2004 c ons i s t e d of D e puty C hi e f

P a ul C os t a , D e puty C hi e f J a m e s A tki ns on, M a

j orA l l e n F a r l e y , a nd S er geantM i chae l L i nd on , al l of w ho m ar e w hi t e m al es . E ac h o f the C om m i tt ee m e m be r s w a s gi ve n a c opy of G a r y ’ s pe r s onne l f

i l e t o r e vi e w pr i ort o the i nt ervi ew . Incl ud ed i n G ary’ s per sonn el fi l e w er e s om e not at i on s i nd i ca t i ng that s he ha d pr e vi ous l y f

i l e d gr i e va nc e s a l l e gi ng r a c e a nd s e x di s c r i m i na t i on. S e e R 1- 31, E xh. N a t51, 53; R 1- 31, E xh. B a t45- 46. A l though i ti s unc l e a rt o w ha te xt e nt (if a n y) th e f

ac t o f th es e p rio r g riev an ce s w as co n sid er ed in re v iew in g G ar y’s appl i ca t i on , i ti s und i sput ed thatthi s e vi dence w as i ncl ud ed i n h erpers on nel fi l e. A ft eraggregat i ng G ary’ s s core on the three as se ss m entm etri cs –h er supervi sor’ s r evi ew , her per sonn el fi l e, and h eri nt ervi ew –G ary w as gi ven a t ot al s c or e of 50. 98, w hi c h w a s the s e c ond l ow e s tof the f i f t e e n appl i c a nt s . O f

the5

ap p lic a n ts c o n s id e r e d , G a r y ’s s c o r e s w e r e in th e b o tto m r a n g e w ith r e s p e c t to a ll three cr i t er i a; her i nt ervi ew sc ore w as the se cond l ow es tof al l of the appl i ca nt s, her pers on nel fi l e s core w as the thi rd l ow es t , and h ersupervi sor’ s e val uat i on sc ore w as th e th ir d lo w e s t. I n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 5 th e d e p a r tm e n t a n n o u n c e d its p r o m o tio n s to S erg ean t(“ th e Jan u ary 2 0 0 5 p ro m o t i o n s”), an d G ary w as n o tam o n g th o se sel ect ed . T h e fo u r o ffi cers w h o w ere p ro m o t ed w ere w h i t e m al es. In F ebruary20 05 G ary f i l ed a f orm al com pl ai ntw i th t he E E O C . S he al l eged r a c e a nd s e x di s c r i m i na t i on i n the m a nne ri n w hi c h the J a nua r y 2005 pr om ot i ons h a d b e e n c a r r ie d o u t b y th e d e p a r tm e n t. H e rE E O C c o m p la in t a ls o a s s e r te d a c la im o f r e ta lia tio n , c o n te n d in g th a t th e d e p a r tm e n t h a d r e f u s e d to p r o m o te h e rto S er geanti n January 20 05 beca use of the com pl ai nt s of di sc ri m i nat i on thatshe had m a d e th r o u g h o u t th e 1 9 8 0 s a n d 1 9 9 0 s . F ol l ow i ng these devel op m ent s, i n S ept em ber 200 5 add i t i on al vaca nci es be c a m e a va i l a bl e i n the de pa r tm e nt , a nd G a r y a ga i n appl i e d f ora S e r ge a nt p o s itio n . O n c e a g a in , s h e w a s th e o n ly b la c k f e m a le to in te r v ie w f

o rth e p o s itio n . T he se l ec t i on proces s w as i dent i ca l t o t he on e use d w i th res pectt o t he Ja nu ary 20 05 prom ot i on s, and t he C om m i tt ee consi st ed of the sa m e f ou r off i ce rs w ho had pr e vi ous l y e va l ua t e d G a r y . I n O c t obe r2005, G a r y w a s a ga i n de ni e d a pr om ot i on t o S er geant ; four w hi t e m al es w er e s el ec t ed for these prom ot i on s ( the “ O ct ob er 2005 pr om ot i ons ” ) . G a r y the n f i l e d a nothe rc om pl a i ntw i th the E E O C , c ont e ndi ng6

thatshe w as j ustas qu al i fi ed as tho se w ho w er e prom ot ed bu tthatshe had been di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns ton the ba s i s of he rr a c e a nd he rs e x. S he a l s o a l l e ge d tha ts he had b ee n d eni ed an O ct ob er20 05 prom ot i on i n ret al i at i on for herea rl i er c o m p la in ts o f

d is c r im in a tio n . T he pres entappeal ar i se s outof the com pl ai ntthatG ary f i l ed i n N ov em ber 2 0 0 5 i n th e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma . I n th a tc o mp l a i n t , G a r y a s s e r t e d c l a i ms f o rr a c e a n d s e x d is c r im in a tio n in v io la tio n o f T itle V I I a n d r a c e d is c r im in a tio n in vi ol a t i on of

42 U . S . C . § 1981. I n a ddi t i on, G a r y a s s e r t e d a c l a i m f orr e t a l i a t i on unde rT i t l e V I I , c ont e ndi ng tha tthe de ni a l of a pr om ot i on, onc e i n J a nua r y 2005 a n d a g a in in O c to b e r2 0 0 5 , c o n s titu te d r e ta lia to r y p r a c tic e s f o rh e re a r lie ra tte m p ts t o c om pl a i n of

w or kpl a c e di s c r i m i na t i on. H a l e m ove d f ors um m a r y j udgm e nton a ll c o u n ts , w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S t andard of R evi ew T h e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted su m m ar y ju d g m en t i n fa v o r o f H ale o n G ar y’s r a c e a n d s e x d is c r im in a tio n c la im s , a n d , in a d d itio n , g r a n te d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f H a le o n th e r e ta lia tio n c la im th a t G a r y a s s e r te d p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) . O n ap p e a l, G a r y c h a lle n g e s th e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n ly a s to thi s l att ercl ai m . T hu s, the sol e quest i on before thi s c ou rti s w hether the di stri ct c o u r tp r o p e r l y g r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n to n th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.7

W e re vi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entun der a de no vo s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w . G ib s o n v . R e s o lu tio n T ru s t C o rp ., 5 1 F .3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 2 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 95 ). In do i ng so, w e app l y the sa m e l egal st andards as tho se thatcont rol l ed the di s tr i c tc our t . R e a l E s t a t e F i na nc i ng v. R e s ol ut i on T rus tC orp. , 950 F . 2d 1540, 1 5 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A c c o r d in g to th o s e s ta n d a r d s , a s s e t f o r th in F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) , s um m a r y j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e w he n the r e i s no ge nui ne i ssu e as t o an y m at eri al factan d th e m o v i n g p arty i s th u s en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw . “ A genu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct‘ exi st s onl y i f s uffi ci entevi dence i s pre se nt ed fa vo ri ng the no nm ov i ng party f or a j ury t o return a verdi ctfor that pa r ty . ’ ” F a r l e y v. N a t i onw i de M ut . I ns . C o. , 197 F . 3d 1322, 1336 ( 11th C i r . 1999) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). In m aki ng thi s a ss es sm ent , w e r evi ew al l fa ct s a nd i nfer ence s in a lig h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty . I d . B . G a r y ’s R e ta lia tio n C la im R et al i at i on i s ase para t e off ense un der T i t l e V II . M ee ks v. C om pu t er As s o c s . , 1 5 F. 3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 2 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t i n g 4 2 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) ) . To es t abl i sh a pri m a f

aci e ca se for i m prop erre t al i at i on , the pl ai nt i ff m ustshow three thi ng s: (1) thatshe e ng aged i n a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty; (2) thatshe s uffe re d an adverse em pl oym entac t i on ; and (3) thatthere i s s om e c ausa l re l at i on betw ee n the tw o e ve nt s . S e e S ul l i va n v. N a t ’ l R . R . P a s s e nge rC orp. , 170 F . 3d 1056, 1059 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ; M e e ks , 15 F . 3d a t1021. A f t e rthe s e e l e m e nt s a r e s how n by the8

pl a i nt i f f , the bur de n s hi f

t s t o the e m pl oy e rt o “ pr of f e ra l e gi t i m a t e , nondi sc ri m i nat ory r ea son for the adverse em pl oym entac t i on . ” M ee ks, 15 F . 3d at 10 21 . W e have s ai d t hatthe em pl oyer ’ s burden i n o ff er i ng a non -di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s on i s “ e xc e e di ngl y l i ght . ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). In the eventthe em pl oyer offe rs a non -di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son for the adverse ac t i on i n q uest i on , the pl ai nt i ff m us tthe n “ de m ons tr a t e tha t[ s he ] w i l l be abl e t o e s t a bl i s h a ttr i a l tha tthe e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f

f e r e d n o n - d is c r im in a to r y r e a s o n s a r e a p r e te x tu a l ru s e d e s ig n e d to m a s k r e t a l i a t i on. ” F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1336 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e r na l quot a t i on o m itte d ) . A p p ly in g th a t a n a ly s is , w e c o n c lu d e th a t G a r y e s ta b lis h e d th e th r e e r e q u is ite el em ent s f

or a pri m a f

aci e r e t a l i a t i on c a s e . A s t o the f i r s tr e qui r e m e nt–a s how i ng thatthe em pl oyee engaged i n a prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty–w e have hel d t hatthe fi l i ng of an E E O C c om pl a i ntof

r a c e di s c r i m i na t i on i s “ c l e a r l y ” a pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty f or p u rp o se s o f T it le V II ’s an ti -r etaliati o n p ro v isio n s. B as s v . B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m r’s of O r a nge C ounty , F l a . , 256 F . 3d 1095, 1117 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o G upt a v. F l a. B d. of R egent s, 21 2 F . 3d 57 1, 58 7 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( fi nd i ng thati nt ernal c o m p la in ts o f

s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t, f

o llo w e d b y th e f

ilin g o f a n E E O C c o m p la in t, c ons t i tut e d e nga gi ng i n a pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty ) . I n thi s c a s e , G a r y r e pe a t e dl y m a de i n t ern al co m p l ai n t s o f w o rk p l ace d i scri m i n at i o n i n th e l at e 1 9 8 0 s an d earl y 1 9 9 0 s, a nd s he f i l e d tw o f

or m a l c om pl a i nt s of

di s c r i m i na t i on w i th the E E O C , one i n 1992Hale a rgues that Ga

ry ’s complaints of discrimination did not constitute eng ag ement in a 1 protec ted ac tivity

beca use those complaints lac ked leg al merit. Specific ally , Hale hone s in on Ga ry ’s 19 81 c omp laint , in

wh ic h s hec omp laine d th at her c oll e a gue s (bo th whit eand blac k, male and female) w ereg iven workplace advantag es that she wa s not. Hale a rgues that bec ause G ary ’s 1981 grieva

nce w as base less–and bec ause theconduct c omplained of wa s not discrimination un der t helaw–Ga

ry c ann ot b esaid to h avee ng a g e d in a “prote c te d ac tiv ity”fo r pur po se s o f T itl e VIIretaliation. Th e sec ontenti on s aree a sily ans were d. F ir st, Hale ’s brie f c ite s G ary ’s 19 81 c omp laint , as if that were theonly

complaint she filed, when in fac t she filed a number of grieva nces alleg ing raceand sex discrimination. S ee R1-31, Ex h. A at 33-36 ( discussing thepanoply of “grieva nces”that Gar

y filed prior to her beingdenied a promotion). In fac t, the complaints that Gar y filed in 1991, 1992, and 2005 much morespecific ally alleg ed discrimination on the basis of sex and race , a fact that Haleelides in his brief. Second, wehave he ld that a plaintiff may eng ag e in a protected activity for pur poses of a Title VIIretaliation case, even if the underlying grieva nces a re not actually

cognizable as dis c rimin atio n und e r t

helaw, so longa s th ec omp lainingpa rt y ha s a “ g oo d f aith , re a so na

ble belief”that the employer ha s eng ag ed in unlawf ul conduct. Clover v. Total Sy s. Serv, Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1351 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Gupta, 212 F.3d at 586-87 (stating that a per son may

complain of c onduct to the EEOC and thereby establish that she eng ag ed in a protec ted ac tivity

for pur poses of retaliation, even if it turns out that the underlying c onduct was not hara ssment); Taylor v. Runyon, 175 F.3d 861, 869 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (same) . Here, wehave no rea son to doubt that Gary had a g ood faith, re asonablebelief that the depar tment had been actingunlawfully

when shefiled an EE OC claim in 1992 (and ag ain in 2005) and alleg ed discrimination. This determination is sufficient to constitute eng ag ing in a protec ted ac tivity

for purposes of a

retaliation claim. 9 a nd a nothe ri n F e brua r y 2005 ( s ubs e que ntt o the J a nua r y 2005 pr om ot i ons , but pr i ort o the O c t obe r2005 pr om ot i ons ) . I n s hor t , w e f i nd tha tG a r y e nga ge d i n a p ro t ect ed act i v i ty fo r p u rp o ses o f T i t l e V II’ s an t i -ret al i at i o n p ro v i si o n s. 1 A s t o the s e c ond e l e m e nt , w e ha ve he l d tha ta n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on i nc l ude s a n e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on tha t“ de pr i ve s [ a pe r s on] of e m pl oy m e nt o p p o rtu n i t i es. ” G u p t a, 2 1 2 F . 3 d at5 8 7 . W e h av e st at ed th atan ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on w ou l d i ncl ud e the cont i nu ou s deni al of a s al ary i ncre as e, despi t e abo ve-s at i sf

ac t ory j ob eval uat i on s. Id. at59 0. In G ary’ s c as e, the re peat ed10

de ni a l of a j ob pr om ot i on, de s pi t e be i ng s e e m i ngl y qua l i f i e d f orthe pos i t i on s o u g h t, c o n s titu te s a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n f o rp u rp o s e s o f

T itle V I I . A c c or di ngl y , G a r y ha s e s t a bl i s he d tha ts 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. F in a lly , w ith r e s p e c t to th e th ir d e le m e n t– c a u s a tio n – a p la in tif f is r e q u ir e d to es t abl i sh a c ausa l conn ec t i on betw ee n t he pl ai nt i ff’ s e ng agem enti n a prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty a nd the adverse em pl oym entac t i on . S ee , e. g. , M ee ks at10 21 (s t at i ng that the pl a i nt i f

f m us ts how “ s om e c a us a l r e l a t i on be tw e e n the tw o e ve nt s ” ) . W e ha ve i nd i ca t ed thatthe re qu i re m entof ca usat i on i n a re t al i at i on ca se i s t o b e i nt erpret ed br oa dl y ; tha ti s , the pl a i nt i f f “ m e r e l y ha s t o pr ove tha tthe pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the ne ga t i ve e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a r e notc om pl e t e l y unr e l a t e d. ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons a nd i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) . Mo r e i m p o r t a n t , a n d m o r e g e r m a n e t o th i s c a s e , we ha ve r e pe a t e dl y i ndi c a t e d tha ta pl a i nt i f f m a y s a t i s f

y the c a us a l l i nk i n a r e t a l i a t i on ca se by es t abl i shi ng that“ the em pl oyerw as ac tual l y a w ar e of the prot ec t ed expres si on atthe t i m e i tt oo k t he advers e e m pl oym entac t i on . ” C l ov er17 6 F . 3d at 13 54 ; R aney v. V i nson G uard S erv. , 12 0 F . 3d 11 92 , 11 97 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). T hat i s , the c a us a t i on thr e s hol d m a y be s a t i s f i e d i f i tc a n be s how n “ tha tthe pe r s on t a ki ng the a dve r s e a c t i on w a s a w a r e of the pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on. ” B a s s , 256 F . 3d a t1119. S uc h a w a r e ne s s m a y be e s t a bl i s he d e i the rby di r e c te vi de nc e , orby c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , C lo v e r , 1 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 4 , s u c h a s p r o x im ity in tim e . B e c h te l C o n s tr . C o . v . S e c ’y o f L a b o r , 5 0 F .3 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) .11

I n thi s c a s e , G a r y s uc c e s s f ul l y e s t a bl i s he d, vi a di r e c te vi de nc e , tha tthe m e m be r s of

the C om m i tt e e w e r e a c tua l l y a w a r e of he re a r l i e rc om pl a i nt s of di s c r i m i na t i on w he n the y m a de the i ra dve r s e e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. W e c onc l ude thatthi s s ho w i ng w as suff i ci entt o m ee tthe ca usat i on thres ho l d for pu rposes of a pri m a f aci e r e t a l i a t i on c a s e , both a s t o the J a nua r y 2005 pr om ot i ons a nd a s t o the O ct ob er20 05 prom ot i on s. B ec ause the fa ct s a nd chrono l og y s urroun di ng ea ch r ound of pr om ot i ons a r e di s t i nc t , how e ve r , w e a ddr e s s e a c h of the m i n tur n. F irst, as to th e J an u ar y 2 0 0 5 p ro m o ti o n s, th es e p ro m o ti o n s p re ce d ed G ar y’s f or m a l E E O C f

i l i ng i n F e brua r y 2005. C ons e que nt l y , G a r y bor e the bur de n of s h o w in g c a u s a tio n b y e s ta b lis h in g th a t th e C o m m itte e m e m b e r s w e r e a c tu a lly aw ar e of herea rl i er p r o te c te d a c tiv itie s – th a t is , h e rd is c r im in a tio n c o m p la in ts in the 19 80 s a nd 19 90 s–w hen t hey m ade thei r a dv er se em pl oym entdeci si on . G ary sa t i sf i ed thi s burden. In fa ct , the C om m i tt ee m em bers m ade c l ea r duri ng di sc ov ery thatthey w er e a ctual l y a w ar e of G ary’ s e ar l i erdi sc ri m i nat i on fi l i ng s a nd thatthey consi dere d t hem i n rea chi ng a dec i si on on G ary’ s prom ot i on . S er geantM i chae l L i nd on , w ho prepare d G ary’ s per sonn el fi l e f or re vi ew by the C om m i tt ee , in d ic a te d in h is d e p o s itio n th a t b e c a u s e th e e a r lie rg r ie v a n c e s c o n s titu te d “a c tiv ity i n he rc a r e e rtha toc c ur r e d, ” a l i s t i ng of the s e c om pl a i nt s “ e nde d up i n . . . a l l of the e va l ua t or ’ s ha nds ” a tthe t i m e the y e va l ua t e d he r . R 1- 31, E xh. N a t51- 53. M a j or A l l en F ar l ey confi rm ed thi s a cc ou nt , st at i ng i n h i s deposi t i on thatG ary’ s per sonn elAlthough D eputy Chief Atkinson indicated that hedid not know how much weight 2 would be g iven to Gar

y ’s ea rlier c omplaints of discrimination, he conce ded that such information would havebeen c onsidered. R1-31, Ex h. B. At 46. The district cour

t concluded tha

t Gary ’s re taliation claim concerningthe J anuar y 2005 3 promotions failed on the c ausation prong , since Ga ry ’s protec ted ac tivity

(her discrimination filings of the 1980s and the 1990s) was not suffic iently close in time to the dec ision to deny her a p ro mo ti o n . T h ec o urt re li e d o no ur h o ldingin

H ig d o nv . Ja c k s o n , in

wh ichw es tate d

th at “ [i ]f thereis a substantial delay between the protec ted expression and the adverseaction in the absenc e of other evidence tending to show c ausation, the [retaliation] complaint fails as a matter o f l aw . ” 3 9 3 F. 3 d

1 2 1 1 , 1 2 2 0 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ). Ob s erv i n g th atGary ’s earl i er gri ev an ce fi l i n gs were over a dec ade old, the district c ourt conc luded that they were too remote in time to have been a causeof the denial of a promotion in J anuar y 2005. This conclusion was in er ror. Indeed, thedistrict court’s inquiry into the temporal p ro x i m i ty b e tw e e nth ep ro t e c t e d a c t i v i ty an d

th ea dv e r s ee mp l o ym e ntd e c i s i o nw a s unn e c e s s ar y, g iven the facts of Ga

ry ’s ca se. Our de cisions have madeclea r that a c loseness in time between the protec ted ac tivity

and the adversedecision may be re lied upon as circumstantial evidenceof 12 f i l e i nc l ude d a l i s tof

a l l of the gr i e va nc e s tha ts he ha d pr e vi ous l y f i l e d, R 1- 29, E x h . 2 a t 5 1 - 5 3 , a lth o u g h h e s ta te d th a t h e d id n ’t k n o w w h e th e rit w a s ap p r o p r ia te f o rth e C o m m itte e to c o n s id e rth o s e g r ie v a n c e s in m a k in g its e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n . I d . a t 5 3 . D e p u ty C h ie f J a m e s A tk in s o n w a s m o r e e x p lic it o n th is la tte rp o in t, s t a t i ng tha the “ c ons i de r e d e ve r y thi ng” i n G a r y ’ s f i l e i n e va l ua t i ng he rf

orthe S er geantpo si t i on , and t hathe “ prob abl y r evi ew ed” the l i stof the ea rl i er di s c r i m i na t i on f

i l i ngs i n de t e r m i ni ng he rs ui t a bi l i ty f orthe pr om ot i on. R 1- 31, E xh. B at45 -46. In sum m ary, G ary provi ded d i re ctevi dence thatthe C om m i tt ee

2 m em bers w er e a ctual l y a w ar e of herea rl i ergri evance f i l i ng s w hen t hey i n t erv i ew ed h er an d d ecl i n ed h er fo r a p ro m o t i o n i n Jan u ary 2 0 0 5 . A cco rd i n g l y, w e c o n c lu d e th a t G a r y s u c c e e d e d in e s ta b lis h in g th e r e q u is ite c a u s a tio n n e e d e d to m ake outa p r im a fa c ie c a s e of r e t a l i a t i on. 3awa

rene ss so as to show causation. See Ba ss, 256 F.3d at 1119 ( stating that to establish a causal connec tion, the decision maker ’s awa rene ss of the protec ted ac tivity might be e stablished by circumstantial evidence , such as “ close temporal prox imity between the protec ted ac tivity and thea dv e rs ea c tio n” ). Put ano ther w ay , wheree vide nc eof thede c isi on -m aker’ s a

wa rene ss i s otherwise lackingin a ca se, a c lose temporal prox imity between the protec ted ac tivity and the adver se ac tion might sometimes serve a s circumstantial evidence , thereby cre atingthe inference that the dec ision-maker w as aw areof the prote cted activity . See id. (“ [C ]l ose temporal proxi mity between the protec ted ac tivity and the adverseaction may be suff icient to show that thetw o w e reno t who lly

unre late d. ” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . H ow e ver, wehavestate d wherethereis actual and direc t evidenceof the de cision-maker ’s awa rene ss, there is no nee d to rely upon circumstantial evidence , such as temporal proxim ity ; indeed, the languag e from Higdon on which the district cour

t relied stated that “in the absence of other evidencetendingto show causation” a par

ty might esta

blish causation by

showinga temporal prox imity between the protec ted ac tivity

and the adverseaction. Hig don, 393 F.3d at 1220 (emphasis adde d). Here, in contra st, Gary

provided ample direc t evidenceof the de cision-maker ’s awa rene ss of her e arlier

discrimination filings; various members of the promotion C ommitt ee admitted in discovery

that they were aw areof her

earlier filing s, and that they considere d them in reachinga dec ision on her promotion. This evidenceis sufficient to establish that “the e mpl oye r w a s a c tually

awa reof theprote c te d e xpre ssi on

at th etim eit too k th ea dv e rs e employ ment action.” Clover

176 F.3d at 1354; Raney , 120 F.3d at 1197. Be causeGar y established “somecausal relation betwe en the two events,” Meeks at 1021, we c onclude that she has shown ca

usation for purpose s of a prima facie case . This is especially so g iven our admonition that causation is to be interpreted broadly and that a plaintiff alleg ing retaliation “merely has to prove that the protec ted ac tivity and the ne g ative employ ment action are not completely

unrelated.” Id. (citations and inter nal quotation omitted). 13 D es pi t e thi s det erm i nat i on , ho w ever , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vorof the de f e nda ntH a l e a s t o the Ja nu ary 200 5 p rom ot i on s, si nce H al e proff er ed l egi t i m at e non -di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s ons f orthe a dve r s e e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. S e e S ul l i va n, 170 F . 3d a t1059 (“ O nce the pl ai nt i ff

m akes ou ta pri m a f

aci e c a s e , the bur de n s hi f t s t o the de f e nda ntt o r e butthe pr e s um pt i on of r e t a l i a t i on by pr oduc i ng l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f o rth e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n .” ( c ita tio n a n d in te r n a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ) . T he e vi de nc e H a l e pr e s e nt e d c onc e r ni ng the J a nua r y 2005 pr om ot i ons i s s uf f i c i e nt14

t o r e butG a r y ’ s c l a i m of r e t a l i a t i on. H a le p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e th a t th e p r o m o tio n p r o to c o l w a s th e s a m e f o ra ll ca nd i dat es , and p rovi ded t he m ea surabl e f ac t ors by w hi ch al l ca nd i dat es w er e s c or e d. T he c r i t e r i a by w hi c h the c a ndi da t e s w e r e a s s e s s e d w e r e i nnoc uous , a nd, despi t e s om e s ubj ec t i ve com po nent s ( a s up ervi sor’ s e val uat i on , the C om m i tt ee i nt ervi ew ), they w er e genera l l y quant i fi abl e. H al e pl ai nl y e st abl i shed that , base d o n th e ev al u at i o n m eth o d u sed fo r al l ap p l i can t s fo r th e Jan u ary 2 0 0 5 p ro m o t i o n s, G ary’ s c um ul at i ve sc ore r anked h erfourt ee nt h o utof the fi ft ee n app l i ca nt s. E ven w i tho utthe i nt ervi ew i ng C om m i tt ee ’ s app ar entaw ar enes s of herea rl i er d is c r im in a tio n c o m p la in ts , it is c le a rth a t G a r y w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a lik e ly ca nd i dat e f

or a prom ot i on ; the se para t e j ob re vi ew she r ec ei ved from her supervi sor ( w ho w as no ta m em ber of the C om m i tt ee ) r anked h erw i th t he thi rd lo w e s t s c o r e , o u t o f

a to ta l o f

f if te e n ap p lic a n ts . T h e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d s u g g e s ts tha tthe de c i s i on nott o pr om ot e G a r y t o S e r ge a ntw a s ba s e d on “ appr opr i a t e a nd re as on abl e c ri t er i a. ” G up t a, 21 2 F . 3d at59 0. In sum , w e c on cl ud e thatH al e m et h i s b u rd en o f p resen t i n g l eg i t i m at e, n o n -d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n s fo r th e ad v erse e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. I n r e s pons e , G a r y pr oduc e d no e vi de nc e t o s how tha tH a l e ’ s e xpl a na t i on f or the f a i l ur e t o pr om ot e he rt o S e r ge a ntw a s i n a ny w a y pr e t e xtua l . T o w i ths t a nd s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, G a r y w o u ld h a v e to d e m o n s tr a te “th a t [ s h e ] [ w o u ld ] b e a b le15

es t abl i sh attri al thatthe em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons ar e a pr e - t e xtua l rus e de s i gne d t o m a s k r e t a l i a t i on. ” F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1336 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e r na l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . G a r y pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e t o s how tha tthe p r o m o tio n s y s te m u s e d b y th e d e p a r tm e n t w a s a m e r e p r e te x t f o ra n o p p o r tu n ity to r e t a l i a t e a ga i ns the r , othe rtha n he row n s t a t e m e ntdur i ng he rde pos i t i on tha ts he “ju s t f e lt” th a t th e d e p a r tm e n t’s tru e m o tiv e s w e r e r e ta lia to r y . R 1 - 3 1 , E x h . A a t 3 7 . I n f a c t , G a r y i ndi c a t e d dur i ng he rde pos i t i on tha ts om e f e m a l e of f i c e r s w ho c o m p la in e d o f

d is c r im in a tio n w ith in th e d e p a r tm e n t w e r e la te rp r o m o te d to S e r g e a n t. T h a t e v id e n c e f u r th e rw e a k e n s G a r y ’s c la im th a t th e d e p a r tm e n t u s e d its ost ensi bl y neutra l prom ot i on sy st em as a ruse t o actagai nsttho se w ho com pl ai ned of di s c r i m i na t i on. G a ry f a i l e d t o s how “ s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o de m ons tr a t e the ex isten ce o f a g en u in e iss u e o f f ac t as to th e tru th o f e ac h o f th e e m p lo ye r’s pr of f e r e d r e a s ons f

ori t s c ha l l e nge d a c t i on. ” F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1337 ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). B ec ause there w as no evi dence thatthe re as on abl e e xp l anat i on s gi ven for the Ja nu ary 200 5 p rom ot i on s w er e aruse desi gn ed t o m as k a re t al i at ory m ot i ve, su m m ary j u d g m en tw as p ro p erl y g ran t ed i n fav o r o f H al e as t o th o se p ro m o t i o n s. T ur ni ng t o the O c t obe r2005 pr om ot i ons , G a r y a l l e ge d tha tthos e pr om ot i ons we r e r e t a l i a t o r y , i n th a tth e C o m m i tt e e m e m b e r s we r e a wa r e o f th e E E OC c om pl a i nttha ts he f

i l e d i n F e brua r y 2005 ( a s w e l l a s he rothe rc om pl a i nt s of di sc ri m i nat i on ) a nd thatas a r es ul tthey r et al i at ed agai nsther by a gai n d enyi ng her16

a p r o m o t i o n t o S e r g e a n ti n Oc t o b e r . As wi th th e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 5 p r o m o t i o n s , we concl ud e thatG ary e st abl i shed a p r im a fa c ie r e ta lia tio n c la im , b u t th a t s h e f a ile d to cr ea t e a ny genu i ne i ss ue of fa ctas t o w hether the re as on s gi ven for the O ct ob er 20 05 prom ot i on s w er e apre- t extual ruse desi gn ed t o m as k a re t al i at ory m ot i ve. L i ke the Ja nu ary 200 5 p rom ot i on s, G ary e st abl i shed a pri m a f aci e c a s e of r e t a l i a t i on c onc e r ni ng the O c t obe r2005 pr om ot i ons . A s di s c us s e d i n the pr i or s e c t i on, G a r y ’ s E E O C f i l i ng i n F e brua r y 2005 ( a s w e l l a s he re a r l i e rc om pl a i nt s of di s c r i m i na t i on thr oughoutthe 1980s a nd 1990s ) c ons t i tut e d pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi t i e s f or p u rp o ses o f T i t l e V II, an d th e d en i al o f a p ro m o t i o n t o S erg ean tw as an ad v erse e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. A s t o the c a us a t i on pr ong, G a r y e s t abl i s he d c a us a t i on by show i ng thatthe m em bers of the C om m i tt ee w er e “ ac tual l y a w ar e of the prot ec t ed e xpr e s s i on a tthe t i m e [ the y ] t ook the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. ” R a ne y , 120 F . 3d a t1197; C l ove r176 F . 3d a t1354. W hi l e G a r y f a i l e d t o s how tha tthe C o m m itte e m e m b e r s w e r e a w a r e o f h e rF e b ru a r y 2 0 0 5 f

ilin g w h e n th e y m a d e th e ir prom ot i on deci si on s i n O ct ob er , i ti s und i sput ed thatthe O ct ob er20 05 C om m i tt ee consi st ed of the sa m e f

ou r i nd i vi du al s w ho eval uat ed G ary pursuantt o t he Ja nu ary 2005 r ound of

pr om ot i ons . I f

, a s di s c us s e d pr e vi ous l y , the m e m be r s of the C om m i tt ee w er e a ctual l y a w ar e of G ary’ s e ar l i erdi sc ri m i nat i on com pl ai nt s w hen the y e va l ua t e d he ri n J a nua r y 2005, the n pr e s um a bl y the y r e m a i ne d a w a r e of theSee United States v. Ga rza, 608 F.2d 659, 666 ( 5th Cir. 1979) (stating , in another 4 context, that “one ca

nnot unringa bell”) (citation and inter nal quotation omitted). 17 pr i orc om pl a i nt s w he n the y r e - e va l ua t e d he ri n O c t obe r2005. T hus , r e ga r dl e s s of 4 w hether they w er e a w ar e of the F ebruary20 05 E E O C fi l i ng , G ary a l re ady had es tab li sh ed , v ia d irec t ev id en ce , th at th e C o m m ittee m em b er s w er e a w ar e o f G ar y’s m yr i ad di sc ri m i nat i on fi l i ng s w hen t hey a ss es se d h erfor aprom ot i on i n O ct ob er 20 05 . B ec ause such ac tual aw ar enes s by the C om m i tt ee sugg es t s thatthe prot ec t ed a c tiv itie s a n d th e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n w e r e “n o t c o m p le te ly u n r e la te d ,” M ee ks at10 21 , w e c on cl ud e thatG ary e st abl i shed a pri m a f aci e re t al i at i on cl ai m as t o th e O ct o b er 2 0 0 5 p ro m o t i o n s. H o w e v e r , a s w ith th e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 5 p r o m o tio n s , H a le s u c c e s s f u lly

“ r e but [ t e d] the pr e s um pt i on of r e t a l i a t i on by pr oduc i ng l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f orthe a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on” i n O c t obe r2005. S ul l i va n, 170 F . 3d a t1059 ( c i t a t i on an d i n t ern al q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). N o to n l y w ere th e cri t eri a th atw ere u sed t o assess the ca nd i dat es base d o n “ approp ri at e a nd re as on abl e” fa ct ors, G up t a, 21 2 F . 3d at 5 9 0 , b u t , as w i th th e Jan u ary 2 0 0 5 p ro m o t i o n s, G ary ag ai n w as am o n g th e l o w est cum ul at i ve sc ores base d o n al l of the cr i t er i a. H al e e st abl i shed thatG ary w as r a n k e d f if te e n th o u t o f

th e s e v e n te e n ap p lic a n ts f o rth e O c to b e r2 0 0 5 p r o m o tio n s . O nl y the t op si x w er e a w ar ded t ho se prom ot i on s. In re spon se t o t hese fa ct s, G ary di d n otpo i ntt o any evi dence thatthe ost ensi bl y r ea sonabl e c ri t er i a by w hi ch G ary18

w as as se ss ed i n O ct ob er20 05 w er e, i n eff ec t , pre- t extual ruse s f

or a r et al i at ory m ot i ve . B e c a us e G a r y ha s f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt“ s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o de m ons tr a t e the ex isten ce o f a g en u in e iss u e o f f ac t as to th e tru th o f e ac h o f th e e m p lo ye r’s pr of f e r e d r e a s ons f

ori t s c ha l l e nge d a c t i on, ” F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1337 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) , w e c onc l ude tha ts um m a r y j udgm e ntw a s appr opr i a t e l y gr a nt e d i n f a vor o f H a le a s to th e O c to b e r2 0 0 5 r o u n d o f p r o m o tio n s . I I I . CONCL US I ON G ary app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entconcerni ng her r e ta lia tio n c la im b r o u g h t u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) . W e h a v e c a r e f u lly r e vi e w e d the r e c or d i n G a r y ’ s c a s e a nd the pa r t i e s ’ r e s pe c t i ve br i e f s . H a vi ng done so, w e c on cl ud e thatal tho ug h G ary di d est abl i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se of re t al i at i on as t o t he Ja nu ary 200 5 p rom ot i on s a nd the O ct ob er20 05 prom ot i on s, sum m ary ju d g m e n t w a s n e v e r th e le s s p r o p e r ly g r a n te d in f a v o ro f H a le , s in c e G a r y f

a ile d to e s t a bl i s h a ny ge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c t . A c c or di ngl y , the j udgm e ntof the d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.