[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13258

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-02792-SCB-JSS

WORTHY MCGUIRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 28, 2019)

Before MARCUS, BLACK and WALKER,

* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 * Honorable John Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting 

by designation. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 1 of 19 
2

Worthy McGuire appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to United Parcel Service (UPS) on his disability-discrimination claims 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act 

(FCRA), and the district court’s order dismissing his FCRA workers’ 

compensation retaliation claim.

1

 After review, we affirm the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

McGuire has been employed by UPS since September 1996. In March 

2010, McGuire injured his shoulder and hand while working as a package-car 

driver.2

 McGuire sought treatment from Dr. Jorge Rodriguez following that injury, 

filed a workers’ compensation claim, had shoulder surgery, and was out of work 

for approximately one year.

Dr. Rodriguez cleared McGuire to return to his position as a package-car 

driver in January 2012. Approximately one month later, in February 2012, 

McGuire reinjured his shoulder at work. Once again, McGuire sought treatment 

from Dr. Rodriguez, applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits, was 

out of work, and had shoulder surgery.

 1 McGuire does not appeal the grant of summary judgment on the race-discrimination 

claims he asserted before the district court. 

2 The service provider or casual service provider position is UPS’s official job title for 

what this opinion and the parties refer to as a package-car driver. It is a position with a heavy 

physical demand level, and it requires, among other things, both possession of a valid driver’s 

license and an ability to drive vehicles with standard transmission safely.

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 2 of 19 
3

In March 2013, Dr. Rodriguez ordered a Functional Capacity Evaluation 

(FCE) for McGuire and released him for medium to heavy duty work. Based on 

the results of that examination, UPS concluded McGuire could not perform the 

essential functions of a package-car driver, a position that required heavy lifting. 

Sharon Klinger, Occupational Health Supervisor for UPS, sent McGuire a letter on 

March 28, 2013, stating he may be eligible for an ADA accommodation based on 

his March 2013 FCE results. In April 2013, McGuire notified UPS he was not 

interested in an ADA accommodation.

McGuire completed a second FCE on May 6, 2013, which demonstrated 

improvement in McGuire’s lifting and carrying ability. Based on the results of the 

second examination, Dr. Rodriguez wrote a letter dated May 15, 2013, to 

McGuire’s attorney, stating that McGuire exceeded the strength capabilities 

required for the package-car driver job. In the concluding paragraph, however, 

Rodriguez wrote:

Based on the information of both functional capacity evaluations he is 

released to full duty with no restrictions. Mr. Worthy has informed 

me that his employer has an inside warehouse position available for 

him and I think he would be a good candidate for that position based 

on the information of his FCE’s. He can take anti-inflammatories for 

minor aches and discomfort, but cannot take narcotics while on the 

job.

After Dr. Rodriguez released McGuire “to full duty with no restrictions” 

(but not while taking narcotics), McGuire returned to UPS to report to work. On 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 3 of 19 
4

multiple occasions between May 17, 2013 and July 12, 2013, UPS told McGuire 

they had no work for him and refused to let him work.

On June 11, 2013, McGuire requested an ADA accommodation for the first 

time. UPS responded by sending him medical forms, which he then forwarded to 

Dr. Rodriguez for completion. Dr. Rodriguez checked “Yes” in response to the 

question: “Is the employee currently able to perform all of the functions of his/her 

position?”3 Beside that answer, he referenced his May 15, 2013 letter to 

McGuire’s attorney, which Dr. Rodriguez attached to the UPS questionnaire. 

Based on Dr. Rodriguez’s response, UPS informed McGuire that he could return to 

his package-car driver position and therefore denied his ADA accommodation 

request on July 17, 2013. McGuire was not permitted to return to work after July 

17, 2013, and was not provided a reason.

At some point, McGuire’s file was forwarded to UPS Risk Management. 

Risk Management Supervisor Jan Younger reviewed Dr. Rodriguez’s May 15 

letter4 and determined she needed to clarify Dr. Rodriguez’s opinion “to ensure the 

safety of Mr. McGuire.” She thus wrote a letter to Dr. Rodriguez’s office on July 

24, 2013, seeking clarification of McGuire’s work status. Younger explained that 

 3 Although the questionnaire generally asked about “his/her position,” UPS enclosed the 

essential job functions for the package-car driver position.

4 While she referenced the “May 6 letter,” Dr. Rodriguez’s letter was dated May 15, 

2013, and referred to the May 6 FCE performed by therapists at CORA Rehabilitation Clinic. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 4 of 19 
5

although Dr. Rodriguez’s May 2013 letter referenced an inside position, there was 

not an inside position open for McGuire. “Therefore, to ensure the safety of Mr. 

McGuire, so that he is not at risk of re-injury, we need to clarify what position Dr. 

Rodriguez is releasing him back to work for.” The letter then posed a series of yes 

or no questions:

Are you releasing him to an Inside Warehouse Position? 

[Answer: Yes]

Or, are you releasing Mr. McGuire to the Essential Job Functions of a 

UPS Service Provider: The [Essential Job Functions] are attached for 

your review. 

[Answer: No] 

In your letter, you also noted that Worthy McGuire was taking antiinflammatories and hydrocodone on the day of the 2[nd] FCE. 

However, once he [returns to work], he cannot take the narcotics 

while on the job. Therefore, is it your opinion that Mr. Mc[G]uire can 

[return to work] without taking any prescription narcotics while at 

work? 

[Answer: Yes]

Dr. Rodriguez then further explained his narcotics answer. “Spoke w[ith] Mr. 

McGuire and advised him he cannot work while taking narcotics. He understands 

and feels he can perform the duties of the Inside Warehouse Position without the 

use of Narcotics.”

On July 30, 2013, McGuire again requested an ADA accommodation. In the 

corresponding paperwork, specifically the August 6, 2013 Authorization for 

Release of Medical Information form, McGuire represented that he was on 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 5 of 19 
6

oxycodone, hydrocodone, and naproxen and stated: “The only way I can attempt to 

be a full time package car driver is taking meds and UPS along with my doctor 

don’t allow taking narcotics while driving.”

Dr. Rodriguez again completed the forms sent by UPS. He responded that 

McGuire was “unable to perform the following duties of a casual service provider 

while taking narcotics. He cannot ladder climb in/out of vehicle, no foot pedal use, 

no two hand controls[,] no repetitive bending or squatting, no driving.” Rodriguez 

further explained: “Patient taking narcotics for pain. Unable to operate vehicle 

while taking narcotics.” The form also stated: “This is a permanent life long 

condition. Restrictions are permanent.”

According to the record, McGuire took narcotics for pain from April to July 

2013. More specifically, McGuire took hydrocodone, a narcotic, before the May 6, 

2013 FCE. And Dr. Rodriguez testified that McGuire requested refills of 

oxycodone on: April 2, 2013 (quantity of 40, every 6 hours—a 10 day supply); 

April 23, 2013 (quantity of 40, every 6 hours—a 10 day supply); June 7, 2013 

(quantity 40 tablets, every 12 hours—a 20 day supply); and July 11, 2013 (quantity 

of 40, every 8 hours—a 13 day supply). Dr. Rodriguez had no record of a refill 

request after July 2013. McGuire acknowledges he took narcotics during the 

period, although he states he was “weaning off” of them beginning in May 2013, 

and he did not take any narcotics after his last prescription in July 2013. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 6 of 19 
7

Dr. Rodriguez testified that narcotics have a half-life, and everyone 

metabolizes them differently. Dr. Rodriguez did not know how long it would take 

for a man of McGuire’s size to metabolize the narcotics he was taking. But he 

would always advise someone taking narcotics not to drive.

In August, McGuire and UPS had an ADA “checklist meeting” and 

discussed possible ADA accommodations for McGuire. At the meeting, McGuire 

completed an accommodation checklist form and stated his ability to perform the 

essential functions of the package-car driver position was affected by a shoulder 

impingement with adhesion and his inability to drive while taking narcotics. He 

represented he was currently taking oxycodone, hydrocodone, and naproxen. 

McGuire also stated he could not (1) climb a ladder in or out of a vehicle, (2) use 

foot pedals, (3) bend or squat repeatedly, or (4) drive. He also represented that the

restrictions, including the no-driving restriction, were permanent. McGuire did not 

believe there were accommodations that would allow him to perform the essential 

functions of the package-car driver position. He listed several other positions he 

thought he could perform without accommodation. All of the options McGuire 

listed were part-time positions, but he stated he was not willing to be reassigned to 

a part-time position as he was seeking eight continuous hours of work with a break. 

McGuire also stated he was not willing to consider an accommodation to a nonunion position or a position outside the Tampa/Pinellas area.

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 7 of 19 
8

McGuire is a member of the Teamsters Union (Union) which has a 

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with UPS. Consequently, McGuire’s 

employment is governed by the CBA, which addresses providing accommodations 

under the ADA for disabled employees. Under the CBA, UPS is required to 

negotiate with the Union before it can provide a reasonable accommodation to a 

qualified bargaining-unit employee like McGuire. The CBA allows for part-time 

jobs as a reasonable accommodation if the employee is qualified and can perform 

the essential functions of the job in the event UPS cannot provide a full-time 

position.

UPS determined McGuire was eligible for an ADA accommodation. UPS

told McGuire they did not have full-time work for him and offered him part-time 

work as an ADA accommodation. McGuire, UPS, and the Union entered into a 

full-time to part-time accommodation agreement in November 2013. Both 

McGuire and the Union representative, Brian Rothman, signed the full-time to 

part-time accommodation agreement, but they wrote “under protest” with their 

signatures. The Union believed UPS could find eight hours’ worth of work for 

McGuire at that time, but not an eight-hour, full-time position or a 22.3 position.

5

 

UPS stated there were no full-time positions available that McGuire could bid into 

based on his seniority. McGuire took a part-time “small sort” position instead. 

 5 22.3 positions are two part-time jobs that have been combined into a full-time position. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 8 of 19 
9

In July 2014, McGuire requested a note from Dr. Rodriguez releasing him to 

work an air driver position for UPS. After reviewing the job functions for the 

position, Dr. Rodriguez felt McGuire would be a good candidate based on the May 

2013 FCE and the fact McGuire was no longer on narcotics. At some point after 

Dr. Rodriguez’s July 2014 note, McGuire spent time working as an air driver. But 

by January 2016, McGuire was working eight hours a day in the car wash by 

working two part-time positions. He was still not in a full-time or 22.3 position, 

and he was not receiving the same benefits he would receive if he had a full-time 

position.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Disability Discrimination

McGuire asserts the district court erred in granting summary judgment on 

his disability-discrimination claims and those claims should have gone to the jury 

because there are triable issues of fact. He asserts that, after he recovered from his 

second job-related injury and was medically cleared to return to his full-time 

position as a package-car driver, UPS continued to regard him as disabled and 

discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to return to his prior position 

and coercing him to accept, as an accommodation, a part-time position with fewer 

benefits. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 9 of 19 
10

We review the “grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all the 

evidence, and drawing all reasonable factual inferences, in favor of the nonmoving 

party.” Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2017)

(quotations omitted). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant 

demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and [he] is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Id. 

When an ADA claim is based on circumstantial evidence, courts generally

apply the burden-shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 

Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).6

 See Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 

F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 2004). “Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a 

plaintiff must first create an inference of discrimination through [his] prima facie

case.” Trask v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 822 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 

2016). “Establishing a prima facie case under the ADA requires a plaintiff to show 

that, at the time of the adverse employment action, [he] had a disability, [he] was a 

qualified individual, and [he] was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of 

[his] disability.” EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333, 1343 (11th Cir. 

2016). 

 6 Disability-discrimination claims under the FCRA are analyzed under the same 

framework as ADA claims. D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1224 n.2 (11th 

Cir. 2005).

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 10 of 19 
11

1. The Period of May to July 2013

During the period of May to July 2013,7 McGuire’s theory is that UPS 

regarded him as disabled and would not allow him to return to work even though 

his second FCE in May 2013 showed he was able to return to his job as a packagecar driver. A thorough review of the evidence, however, shows there is no genuine 

issue of material fact as to whether McGuire was at the time a “qualified 

individual” for his job as a package-car driver. The ADA defines a “qualified 

individual” as one “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform 

the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or 

desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). An employee who is unable to perform an 

essential function of his job even with an accommodation is not a “qualified 

individual” and not covered under the ADA. Davis v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 205 

F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000).

The evidence is undisputed that (1) McGuire was weaning off of narcotics 

from May to July 2013, and (2) McGuire was not allowed to work while on 

narcotics. Dr. Rodriguez testified that McGuire requested oxycodone refills in 

April, June, and July 2013, and McGuire admits he was weaning off narcotics 

 7 To the extent McGuire argues he should have been returned to his package-car driver 

job after his first FCE in March 2013, the evidence shows he was not qualified to perform the job 

both because he could not meet the physical demands of the job and because he was using 

narcotics.

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 11 of 19 
12

during this period. While Dr. Rodriguez’s May 2013 letter to McGuire’s lawyer 

states that McGuire “is released to full duty with no restrictions,” it also states that 

he would be a good candidate for an inside warehouse position. The letter explains 

that while McGuire could take anti-inflammatories for minor aches and discomfort, 

he could not take narcotics while on the job. When UPS requested further 

information “clarifying” the May 2013 letter, Dr. Rodriguez explained that he 

released McGuire to an inside warehouse position, not to a package-car driver 

position.8

 Dr. Rodriguez clarified that McGuire felt he could perform the duties of 

an inside warehouse position without the use of narcotics. 

Thus, because it is undisputed McGuire was using narcotics at the relevant 

time, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether McGuire was a 

“qualified individual” for his desired package-car driver position in May to July 

2013. As he was not a qualified individual, McGuire cannot make out a prima 

facie case of disability discrimination.9

 See St. Joseph’s Hosp., 842 F.3d at 1343.

 8

 UPS’s denial of McGuire’s first request for an ADA accommodation was before it 

received clarification from Dr. Rodriguez regarding his May 15, 2013 letter. After receiving 

clarification, UPS granted McGuire’s second ADA accommodation request. Regardless of the 

denial of the first ADA request, there is no dispute of material fact as to whether McGuire was 

on narcotics during the relevant time period. 

9

 Why UPS did not explicitly base its denial of work to McGuire in the May through July 

time period on McGuire’s narcotics use is a mystery. However, we need delve no further into 

that question because his narcotics use disqualified him from working at that time. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 12 of 19 
13

2. August 2013 Onward

As an initial matter, while McGuire brings his ADA case under a “regarded 

as” disabled theory,10 McGuire cannot proceed under such a theory on the 

evidence from August 2013 onward. While McGuire asserts UPS “coerced” him 

into signing the full-time to part-time accommodation agreement, the fact remains 

it was McGuire who initiated the ADA accommodation process, and in August 

2013, McGuire represented that he was disabled and still on narcotics. Indeed, 

both Dr. Rodriguez and McGuire represented to UPS that McGuire was unable to 

return to the package-car driver position in August 2013. The record evidence 

therefore supports only one conclusion—that McGuire was actually disabled, not 

regarded as disabled. We will thus analyze whether UPS’s accommodation was a 

reasonable one. 

Unless making a reasonable accommodation would pose an undue hardship, 

the ADA requires an employer to make a reasonable accommodation to an 

otherwise qualified employee with a disability. Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 

1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2016). “What constitutes a reasonable accommodation 

depends on the circumstances, but it may include ‘job restructuring, part-time or 

 10 A disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one 

or more major life activities,” “a record of such an impairment,” “or being regarded as having 

such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 13 of 19 
14

modified work schedules, [and] reassignment to a vacant position’ among other 

things.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B)). 

Once the accommodation process began, McGuire was not entitled to a job 

of his choosing. See Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 

1278, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining a qualified individual with a disability 

is not entitled to the accommodation of his choice). UPS provided McGuire with a 

reasonable accommodation of a part-time position, which was negotiated and 

accepted in writing by both McGuire and the Union, even if the acceptance was 

“under protest.”

A plaintiff protesting an employer’s list of available accommodations that, at 

least in part, is restricted by the employer’s or union’s seniority system bears the 

burden of showing special circumstances that would require an exception from the 

seniority system. U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 405-06 (2002). 

“[T]he plaintiff must explain why, in the particular case, an exception to the 

employer’s seniority policy can constitute a ‘reasonable accommodation’ even 

though in the ordinary case it cannot.” Id. at 406. McGuire has not met this 

burden. 

The evidence shows that when McGuire completed the ADA 

accommodation process in 2013, there were no full-time positions available on 

which he could bid based on seniority, and UPS could not create a 22.3 position 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 14 of 19 
15

without violating the seniority rights of other employees. UPS would either have 

had to create a new position for McGuire or violate the terms of the CBA to give 

McGuire the position he desired. McGuire does not explain why his circumstances 

required an exception to UPS’s policy. And neither McGuire’s conclusory 

statement that UPS could have found eight hours of work for him, nor similar 

speculation from his union representative, created a triable issue as to whether 

UPS’s offer of part-time employment was reasonable under the circumstances. 

Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.

B. Workers’ Compensation Retaliation

McGuire also contends the district court erred in dismissing his FCRA 

retaliation claim because he stated a claim under Florida law for workers’ 

compensation retaliation. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a 

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “accepting the complaint’s 

allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 

Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2012). “To survive a 

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when 

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Threadbare 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 15 of 19 
16

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

Florida’s retaliatory discharge statute provides that “[n]o employer shall 

discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of 

such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation 

under the Workers’ Compensation Law.” Fla. Stat. § 440.205. In order to state a 

claim for discriminatory retaliation, a plaintiff must plead facts giving rise to a 

reasonable inference that: “(1) he engaged in statutorily protected conduct; (2) he 

was adversely affected by an employment decision; and (3) there was a causal 

connection between the statutorily protected conduct and the adverse employment 

decision.” See Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006). 

At issue here is the third element—whether McGuire sufficiently pled facts 

giving rise to a reasonable inference that there was a causal connection between his

statutorily protected conduct and an adverse employment decision. A plaintiff may 

plead the causation element by alleging facts that show a statutorily protected 

activity and an adverse employment action were temporally proximate, but 

temporal proximity alone is insufficient unless the events are “very close.” 

Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). Relevant 

to this issue, the district court dismissed McGuire’s retaliation claim in his original 

complaint because McGuire “fail[ed] to provide dates to support this claim, and 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 16 of 19 
17

without a connection between his application for workers’ compensation benefits 

and the alleged adverse employment actions of no work or less than full-time 

work, his workers’ compensation retaliation claim fails . . . .” The district court 

granted leave to amend “because it [was] unclear when [McGuire] applied for 

workers’ compensation benefits.” 

In the Amended Complaint, McGuire alleged that he was first 

injured on or around March 10, 2010, that he was again injured on or around

February 17, 2012, and that he applied for and received workers’ compensation 

benefits, but he did not specify when he applied for or received workers’ 

compensation benefits, or whether he applied for and received such benefits for 

one of his injuries or both. He further alleged he was cleared to return to full duty 

on or around May 16, 2013, but was not allowed to return. McGuire alleged he 

“has been retaliated against on account of filing a valid worker’s compensation 

claim, as [UPS] has treated him as disabled, though he is not, and has not given 

him full time employment, nor for a period of time, any employment.” Further, 

UPS allegedly “retaliated by attempts to intimidate [McGuire] by demanding 

repetitive tests and assurances concerning his abilities to return to full time 

employment, and in so doing has coerced him into accepting part time work 

instead.” In his response to UPS’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, 

McGuire requested the district court consider two additional allegations, which the 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 17 of 19 
18

court considered. First, McGuire alleged “[a]s a part time employee, [he] does not 

receive benefits as he would have if he were full time.” Second, he alleged that 

“[t]he failure of [UPS] to return him to full time status, and the many forms and 

other documents requested were, and continue to be coercion to cause him to quit 

working for [UPS].”

McGuire nevertheless again failed to plead facts sufficient to establish the 

causation element of an FCRA retaliation claim, even after the district court had 

already dismissed the claim once, explained the pleading deficiencies, and allowed 

McGuire to constructively amend the complaint when he opposed the motion to 

dismiss. McGuire’s amended complaint included only conclusory allegations that 

UPS retaliated against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim by treating 

him as disabled and refusing to allow him to return to full duty. From these 

conclusory allegations, one cannot reasonably infer that UPS considered McGuire 

disabled because he had filed a workers’ compensation claim, or that McGuire’s 

workers’ compensation claim was causally related to UPS’s refusal to allow him to 

return to full-duty work. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Most importantly, McGuire again 

failed to specify the dates that he applied for and received workers’ compensation 

benefits for either of his injuries, making it impossible to determine whether the 

alleged adverse action and his application for benefits were temporally proximate. 

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 18 of 19 
19

While McGuire asserts that a workers’ compensation retaliation claim can 

be continuing, and thus the failure to plead the exact dates of his workers’ 

compensation claim filings was not material, the dates were necessary to determine 

whether temporal proximity alone could be enough to state a claim in this case,

because McGuire pled no other allegations to connect his workers’ compensation 

claims with the alleged adverse employment actions. Because McGuire relied only 

on temporal proximity to allege causation, his failure to plead those dates was fatal 

to his claim. Because McGuire failed to adequately plead causation, the district 

court did not err in granting UPS’s motion to dismiss McGuire’s FCRA workers’ 

compensation retaliation claim. 

III. CONCLUSION

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to UPS on 

McGuire’s disability-discrimination claims and did not err in dismissing 

McGuire’s FCRA workers’ compensation retaliation claim. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-13258 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 19 of 19