FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 19, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 11156 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -005 15 -C V -F -E P A T R I C I A A RN O L D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T U S K E G E E U N I V E R S I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , J A M E S E . W E B S T E R , D r ., e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts .

________________________ 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The facts arerec ounted in the light most favorable to Ar nold pursuant to this court’s 1 standard f or reviewinga district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgment. See Cotton v. Cracker Ba rre l Old Country

Store, Inc., 434 F .3d 1227, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 P atri ci a A rnol d app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o h er e m pl oy e r , T us ke ge e U ni ve r s i ty , i n he re m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on. F orthe r e a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e a f

f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D 1 A rnol d i ni t i a l l y w or ke d f orT us ke ge e be gi nni ng i n 1989. I n 1990, s he s ubm i tt e d a w r i tt e n c om pl a i ntof s e xua l ha r a s s m e nta ga i ns the rs upe r vi s ort o the D i re ct or of P er sonn el . In re spon se , T uskegee tra nsfe rr ed A rnol d t o ano ther p o s itio n w ith a d if

f e r e n t s u p e r v is o r . S h e c o n tin u e d to w o r k f o rth e U n iv e r s ity u n til 19 97 w hen she w as di sc harged du e t o a bu dg et ary- re l at ed w orkforce r educt i on . In J u ly 1 9 9 9 , A rn o ld w a s r e h ir e d b y T u s k e g e e w ith J a m e s W e b s te ra s h e rim m e d ia te s upe r vi s or . U pon be i ng r e hi r e d, A rnol d r e c e i ve d a c opy of T us ke ge e ’ s ha ndbook on di sc ri m i nat i on and sexual hara ss m ent , w hi ch ou t l i ned the sc ho ol ’ s s exual hara ss m entand ant i -r et al i at i on po l i ci es and adv i se d em pl oyee s t o fi l e aw ri tt en g r ie v a n c e w ith th e D ir e c to ro f P e r s o n n e l if

th e y b e lie v e d th e y h a d b e e n s e x u a lly h a r a s s e d . I n D e c e m be r1999, W e bs t e rbe ga n pr opos i t i oni ng A rnol d s e xua l l y , i nvi t i ng h e rto h is h o m e , a n d te llin g h e rth a t h e w a s h e r“b o s s ” a n d c o u ld f ir e h e rif s h e d id3

n o t s u b m it to h is s e x u a l d e m a n d s . A f te re n d u r in g m o n th s o f

s u c h c o n d u c t, A rn o ld w e ntt o W e bs t e r ’ s hom e a nd ha d s e xua l i nt e r c our s e w i th hi m i n M a r c h 2000 a nd agai n i n A pri l 20 00 . A fe w w ee ks af t erthe se cond encoun t er , A rnol d m ade athi rd v is it to W e b s te r ’s h o m e a n d to ld h im th a t s h e w o u ld n o lo n g e rh a v e s e x w ith h im . In M ar ch or A pri l of 20 00 , A rnol d spo ke w i th B arbaraW i l l i am s, the V i ce P r e s id e n t o f

H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , ab o u t tr a n s f e rr in g to a h ig h e r - p a y in g p o s itio n . Arn o l d d i d n o t , h o we v e r , d i s c l o s e th a tWe b s t e rwa s s e x u a l l y h a r a s s i n g h e r . On O c to b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , a f

te rW e b s te rr e f

u s e d to s ig n A rn o ld ’s tim e s h e e t, A rn o ld com pl ai ned t o W i l l i am s thatW ebst erhad subj ec t ed her t o u nw ant ed se xu al a dva nc e s . B a s e d on thi s c om pl a i nt , A rnol d w a s pl a c e d on pa i d a dm i ni s tr a t i ve le a v e a n d in s tru c te d to f ile a w r itte n s ta te m e n t d e ta ilin g th e a lle g e d h a r a s s m e n t. W i l l i a m s c onduc t e d a n i nve s t i ga t ory i nt e r vi e w w i th W e bs t e ron O c t obe r20, 2000, d u r in g w h ic h W e b s te rs ta te d th a t h e a n d A rn o ld h a d e n g a g e d in c o n s e n s u a l s e x . O n O c to b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , W e b s te rs u b m itte d a w r itte n s ta te m e n t d e ta ilin g h is in te r a c tio n s w ith A rn o ld . A f te rW illia m s to ld A rn o ld ab o u t W e b s te r ’s s ta te m e n t, in h e ro w n w r itte n s ta te m e n t, A rn o ld a d m itte d h a v in g s e x u a l r e la tio n s w ith W ebst er , bu tcl ai m ed she di d so b ec ause she f ea re d l osi ng her j ob . In re spon se , T us ke ge e a s s i gne d A rnol d t o a nothe rs upe r vi s or , i ns truc t e d W e bs t e rt o ha ve m i ni m al cont ac tw i th h er , and t ol d h i m no tt o ret al i at e a gai nsther. T here af t er ,4

W e b s te rn e v e ra g a in m a d e c o m m e n ts o f a s e x u a l n a tu r e to A rn o ld . O n D e c e m be r14, 2000, A rnol d f i l e d a c ha r ge of

di s c r i m i na t i on w i th the E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO ppor tuni ty C om m i s s i on ( “ E E O C ” ) . I n M a r c h 2002, the E E O C com pl et ed i t s i nv es t i gat i on and i ss ued A rnol d a cause det erm i nat i on . In S e pt e m be r2002, a f

t e rs e ve r a l di s a gr e e m e nt s w i th he rne w s upe r vi s orabouthe rj ob re spon si bi l i t i es and t i m e r ec ords, A rnol d rec ei ved a po or j ob eval uat i on and w as re com m ended for rea ss i gn m ent . O n D ec em ber 16, 20 02 , the D ea n i nform ed A rnol d tha ts he w a s be i ng r e a s s i gne d t o a ne w s upe r vi s or , e f f e c t i ve J a nua ry 2, 20 03 , and thatfa i l ure t o reportt o h ernew as si gn m entw ou l d res ul ti n d i sc i pl i nary ac t i on . A ft erA rnol d fai l ed t o reportas ordered, on Ja nu ary 6, 20 03 , the D ea n a ga i n or de r e d A rnol d t o r e por tt o he rne w a s s i gnm e nt . O n J a nua ry 13, 2003, A rn o ld f ile d s u it a g a in s t, in te ra lia , W ebst erand T uskegee, al l egi ng se xu al h a r a s s m e n t a n d r e ta lia tio n u n d e rT itle V I I a n d v a r io u s c la im s u n d e rs ta te la w . O n M ar ch 25 , 20 03 , af

t erA rnol d h ad re peat edl y s ub m i tt ed t i m e s heet s that f a ile d to c o n f

o r m w ith T u s k e g e e ’s r e g u la tio n s , s h e w a s s u s p e n d e d f o rth r e e d a y s . I n a w r itte n m e m o r a n d u m , h e rs u p e r v is o re x p la in e d th a t th e s u s p e n s io n w a s d u e to A rnol d’ s : i ns ubor di na t e a c t i ons r e ga r di ng he rt i m e s he e t s , di s r e ga r d f or i ns truc t i ons , c a l l i ng he rs upe r vi s ora “ l i a r , ” a nd r e f us i ng t o apol ogi z e f

orm a ki ng the s e c om m e nt s . T he m e m or a ndum a l s o a dvi s e d A rnol d tha tf ur the ri nf

r a c t i ons5

c oul d r e s ul ti n t e r m i na t i on. U pon r e turni ng f

r om s us pe ns i on on M a r c h 31, 2003, A rnol d f ound the l oc ks t o he rof f i c e ha d be e n c ha nge d. W i l l i a m s t ol d A rnol d tha tthe a c t i on w a s t a ke n f or A rnol d’ s pr ot e c t i on. W i l l i a m s the n i ns truc t e d A rnol d t o a tt e nd the E E O C tr a i ni ng s e s s i on s c he dul e d f

ortha tda y , t e l l i ng he rnott o di s c us s he rl a w s ui t . O n A pr i l 1, 20 03 , A rnol d m etw i th h ersupervi sor a nd the D ea n abo utthe st atus of a part i cul ar as si gn m ent . A ft erA rnol d ref used t o res po nd t o sever al qu es t i on s, the m ee t i ng w as te r m in a te d . O n A p r il 2 , 2 0 0 3 , A rn o ld w a s d is c h a r g e d . A f t e rdi s m i s s i ng A rnol d’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tW e bs t e ron va r i ous gr ounds , the d i s tr i c tc o u r tp e r mi tt e d A rn o l d t o p r o c e e d o n h e rTi t l e V I I a n d s t a t e l a w c l a i ms a ga i ns tT us ke ge e . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof T us ke ge e on the T i t l e V I I c l a i m s a nd di s m i s s e d the s t a t e l a w c l a i m s w i thout pr e j udi c e , de c l i ni ng t o e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o i t s di s c r e t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pa r ty oppos i ng the m ot i on. C ott on v . C r a c k e rB a rr e l O ld C o u n try S to r e , I n c ., 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to6

i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e s a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is ent i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). W e r evi ew a di stri ct c o u r t’s r e f

u s a l to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . L u c e r o v . T r o s c h , 1 2 1 F .3 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . A . Se x ua lH a r a s s m e nt A rnol d fi rs tar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y di sm i ss i ng her s exual h a r a s s m e n t c la im . T itle V I I m a k e s it u n la w f u l f o ra n e m p lo y e rto d is c r im in a te a ga i ns ta ny i ndi vi dua l w i th r e s pe c tt o c om pe ns a t i on, t e r m s , c ondi t i ons , or pri vi l eges of em pl oym entbecause of thati nd i vi du al ’ s s ex. 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e2( a ) ( 1) . T o e s t abl i s h s e xua l ha r a s s m e ntunde rT i t l e V I I , a n e m pl oy e e m us tpr ove th a t( 1 ) s h e b e l o n g s t o a p r o t e c t e d g r o u p , ( 2 ) s h e w a s s u b j e c t e d t o u n w e l c o me s e xua l ha r a s s m e nt , ( 3) the ha r a s s m e ntw a s ba s e d on he rs e x, ( 4) the ha r a s s m e nt a l t e r e d the t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of he re m pl oy m e nt , a nd ( 5) the r e i s a ba s i s f or hol di ng he re m pl oy e rvi c a r i ous l y l i abl e . H ul s e y v. P r i de R e s t s . , L L C , 367 F . 3d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W hen the al l eged haras sm enti s a ttri bu t ed t o a supervi sor, the pl ai nt i ff m ay re l y on o ne of tw o theori es t o est abl i sh the fourth and fi fth el em ent s of herse xu al h a r a s s m e n t c la im . I d . a t 1 2 4 6 ; C o tto n , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 ( c itin g B u r lin g to n I n d u s .,Although Arnold uses the ter ms “quid pro quo” a

nd “hostile work environment” in her 2 B ri e f, a s w eob serv e d in

F re deri c k v . Sp rint/

Unite d M anag e ment C o. , 2 46 F .3 d 1 30 5, 13 11 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) , th eSup remeCourt ha s in dic ate d th at c ourt s sh ould n o lo ng e r u sethe sela be ls to analy ze whether

an employer should be he ld liable on an employee’ s Title VIIclaim conc erning a super visor’s sex-based ha

rassment. Id. (citations omitted). Thus, although Arnold has styled her ac tio n u singtheold

Ti tleVIItermino logy , w etre at her “ quid p roqu o”c laim a s a n adv e rs e “tang ible employ

ment action” c laim, and her “hostile environment”claim as onein which no adver se “ta

ng ible employ

ment action” oc curred. We also note that Tuskeg ee c ontends that Webster did no t s e xu al ly h ara s s Ar

n o l d . It contends that Ar

nold voluntarily

participated in a sexual relationship with Webster and that Webster’s sexual advanc es were not unwe lcome. We nee d not reach this issue, however, 7 I nc . v. E l l e r th, 524 U . S . 742, 753- 54, 118 S . C t . 2257, 2265, 141 L . E d. 2d 633 (1 9 9 8 )). U n d er th e fi rsto r “ t an g i b l e em p l o ym en tact i o n ” th eo ry, th e p l ai n t i ff m u st pr ove tha tthe ha r a s s m e ntc ul m i na t e d i n a n a dve r s e t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a g a in s t h e r . C o tto n , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 1 . U n d e rth is th e o ry , th e e m p lo y e ris a ut om a t i c a l l y he l d vi c a r i ous l y l i abl e f orthe ha r a s s m e nt . F r e de r i c k v. S pr i nt/U ni t e d M gm t . C o. , 246 F . 3d 1305, 1311 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . U nde rthe s e c ond or“ no t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on” the ory , the pl a i nt i f f m us tpr ove tha tthe h a r a s s m e n t w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly s e v e r e a n d p e r v a s iv e to e f f e c tiv e ly c a u s e a c h a n g e in the t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nt . F a r a ghe rv. C i ty of B oc a R a t on, 524 U . S . 7 7 5 , 7 8 6 1 1 8 S . C t . 2 2 7 5 , 2 2 8 3 1 4 1 L . E d . 2 d 6 6 2 (1 9 9 8 ). U n d er th i s th eo ry, the em pl oyerm ay avoi d v i ca ri ou s l i abi l i ty by a ss ert i ng the af fi rm at i ve defense se t f or th by the S upr e m e C our ti n F a r a ghe ra nd E l l e r th. F r e de r i c k, 246 F . 3d a t1311 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A rn o ld c o n te n d s th a t s h e is e n title d to r e lie f u n d e rb o th th eo ri es. 2be c a

us e , a s discus se d b e low , w ec on c ludethat a re a so na blefac t- finde r c ould

not find a c ausal connec tion between thealleg edly sexually-harassingconduct a nd a tang ible employ

ment action and that Tuskeg ee ha s established the F aragher- Ellerth af firmative de fense . 8 1. H ar as s m e n t R e s u l t i n g i n a T an gi b l e E m p l oy m e n t A c t i on “A ta n g ib le e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n c o n s titu te s a s ig n if ic a n t c h a n g e in e m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s , s u c h a s h ir in g , f ir in g , f a ilin g to p r o m o te , r e a s s ig n m e n t w ith s ig n if ic a n tly d if

f e r e n t r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , o ra d e c is io n c a u s in g a s ig n if ic a n t c h a n g e in be ne f i t s , ” a nd, “ i n m os tc a s e s [ , ] i nf l i c t s di r e c te c onom i c ha r m . ” C ott on, 434 F . 3d at12 31 (quo t i ng E l l erth, 52 4 U . S . at76 1-62 , 11 8 S . C t . at22 68 -69). T o rec ov er un der the “ t angi bl e e m pl oym entac t i on ” theory of s exual hara ss m ent , the pl ai nt i ff m us tpr ove a c a us a l l i nk be tw e e n the t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a nd the i nc i de nt ( s ) of

s e xua l ha r a s s m e nt . I d. W he n the a l l e ge d ha r a s s e ri s the deci si on m akerfor the t angi bl e e m pl oym entac t i on , thi s gi ves r i se t o an i nfer ence tha tthe ha r a s s e r ’ s a c t i on w a s t a ke n be c aus e of the pl a i nt i f

f’ s s e x. L l a m pa l l a s v. M i ni -C i rc ui t s, L ab, Inc. , 16 3 F . 3d 12 36 , 12 47 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). W hen the haras se r i s not the deci si on m aker , ho w ever , the pl ai nt i ff m ay no tbenefi tfr om the i nfer ence of c a us a t i on tha tw oul d a r i s e f r om the i rc om m on i de nt i ty . S t i m ps on v. C i ty of T usca l oo sa , 18 6 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 31 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). In thi s s i tuat i on , the pl ai nt i ff m us te s t abl i s h the r e qui s i t e c a us a l l i nk by s how i ng tha tthe de c i s i onm a ke r , w i thout h a v in g in d e p e n d e n tly e v a lu a te d th e p la in tif f’s s itu a tio n , a c te d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith9

th e h a r a s s e r ’s w is h e s in ta k in g th e ta n g ib le e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n a g a in s t th e p la in tif f . L la m p a lla s , 1 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A lth o u g h te m p o r a l p r o x im ity be tw e e n the t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a nd the ha r a s s m e nt“ c a n gi ve r i s e t o a ge nui ne i s s ue of

f a c ta s t o c a us a t i on, ” C ott on, 434 F . 3d a t1232, a nd m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e , G upt a v. F l a . B d. of R e ge nt s , 212 F . 3d 57 1, 59 0 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ), such an i nfer ence m ay be negat ed by un re bu tt ed e vi de nc e s how i ng tha tthe t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on w a s ba s e d on gr ounds in d e p e n d e n t o f

th e a lle g e d h a r a s s m e n t. F r e d e r ic k , 2 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 2 . H er e, A rn o ld co n ten d s th at b ec au se sh e r ef u se d to su b m itto W eb ster ’s s e xua l de m a nds , W e bs t e rs ubj e c t e d he rt o num e r ous “ t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on s, ” i ncl ud i ng : ye l l i ng ather, t el l i ng her t o fi nd another j ob , re qu es t i ng se xu al f a v o r s , a n d d e n y in g h e rr e q u e s ts f o rc o u r s e w o r k , s u p p lie s , a n d o f f ic e f u rn itu r e . B utde s pi t e A rnol d’ s s ubj e c t i ve opi ni on, unde rourc a s e l a w , no r e a s onabl e pe r s on w o u ld co n clu d e th at th es e a ctio n s c o n stitu ted a s ig n ifican t ch an g e in A rn o ld ’s em p l o ym en tst atu s. S ee E l l erth , 5 2 4 U . S . at7 6 1 . T h u s, ev en assu m i n g th atth ese a c t i ons w e r e t a ke n be c a us e of A rnol d’ s s e x, the s e a c t i ons , i nde pe nde nt l y or c ol l e c t i ve l y , di d notc ons t i tut e a t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on w i thi n the m e a ni ng of T itle V I I . A rn o ld a ls o c o n te n d s th a t s h e w a s s u b je c te d to a d d itio n a l “ta n g ib leAs thedis tric t c ourt no te d, thereis n othingin t here c ord f

ro m which a

re a so na blefac t- 3 find e r c ould c on c ludethat Webs ter p laye d a ny ro lein de nyingAr

no ld a salary incre a se . Arn old presented no evidenc e that Webster madeany statements re g ardinghis ability to influencehow much she wa s paid or conne ctinga sala ry incre ase to her willingne ss to submi t to his sexual demands. Indeed, it is undisputed that Webster had no c ontrol over Ar nold’s salary

and that the Offic e of Human Resourc es Manag ement wa s responsible for establishing thesalary

for staf f positions s uch as Arnold’s. 10 e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons ” w he r e i n, unl i ke the a c t i ons de s c r i be d above , W e bs t e rw a s not the c l e a rde c i s i onm a ke r . T he s e a c t i ons i nc l ude : de ny i ng he rpr om ot i ons , de ny i ng he ra pr om i s e d $11, 000 pa y i nc r e a s e , r e a s s i gni ng he rt o a n unde s i r abl e j ob, gi vi ng 3 her a dv er se and i nsuffi ci entj ob as si gn m ent s, gi vi ng her negat i ve performance eval uat i on s, changi ng the l ocks t o h eroffi ce do or, t am peri ng w i th h ercom pu t er , suspendi ng her, and fi ri ng her. B ec ause these ac t i on s w er e t aken by som eone other than W ebst er , A rnol d h ad the bu rden of prov i ng thatthese ac t i on s w er e t aken be c aus e of

he rs e x. L l a m pa l l a s , 163 F . 3d a t1248. B utthe r e c or d c ont a i ns no e v id e n c e f

r o m w h ic h a r e a s o n ab le f a c t- f in d e rc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e r e q u is ite c a us a t i on e xi s t s ( e ve n a s s um i ng, w i thoutde c i di ng, tha tthe s e a c t s , i ndi vi dua l l y or c ol l e c t i ve l y , c ons t i tut e d a “ t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on” ) . T hus , w e a f f i r m the d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is r e g a r d .

2. H ar as s m e n t w i t h N o A d ve r s e E m p l oy m e n t A c t i on T o pr e va i l on a c l a i m of s e xua l ha r a s s m e ntw he n no “ t a ngi bl e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on ” has been t aken, the pl ai nt i ff m ustpres entsuff

i ci entevi dence t o sho w that th e h a r a s s me n ts h e s u f

f e r e d w a s s u f

f i c i e n t l y s e v e r e o rp e r v a s i v e t o a l t e rth e t e r ms11

a nd c ondi t i ons of

e m pl oy m e nta nd c r e a t e a di s c r i m i na t or i l y abus i ve w or ki ng e nvi r onm e nt . G upt a , 212 F . 3d a t582- 83. I f the pl a i nt i f

f s a t i s f i e s he rbur de n, the de f e nda nt - e m pl oy e rm a y a voi d vi c a r i ous l i abi l i ty f orthe s upe r vi s or ’ s c onduc tby r a is in g a n d p r o v in g th e a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e d e s c r ib e d in F a r a g h e ra n d E lle r th . F r e de r i c k, 246 F . 3d a t1311 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T o e s t abl i s h thi s de f e ns e , the em pl oyerm ustprov e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence that(a ) i texer ci se d r e a s onabl e c a r e t o pr e ve nta nd c orr e c tpr om pt l y a ny s e xua l l y ha r a s s i ng be ha vi or and ( b) the pl a i nt i f

f unr e a s onabl y f

a i l e d t o t a ke a dva nt a ge of a ny pr e ve nt i ve or c o rr e c tiv e o p p o r tu n itie s p r o v id e d b y th e e m p lo y e ro rto a v o id h a r m o th e rw is e . I d . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tT us ke ge e t ook r e a s onabl e c a r e t o pr e ve nt a nd c orr e c tthe ha r a s s m e nta nd tha tA rnol d unr e a s onabl y f a i l e d t o t a ke a dva nt a ge of T us ke ge e ’ s r e m e di a l m e c ha ni s m s . W e e xa m i ne e a c h of the s e i s s ue s i n turn. a . R ea so n a b le Ca re to Pr e v e nt a nd Co r r e c t t he H a r a s s m e nt A n e m pl oy e rm a y de m ons tr a t e r e a s onabl e c a r e t o pr e ve nts e xua l ha r a s s m e nt by show i ng the devel op m entof “ an ef fe ct i ve and com prehensi ve ant i -s exual ha r a s s m e ntpol i c y , ” w hi c h i s “ thor oughl y di s s e m i na t e d, ” a nd t o w hi c h the e m p lo y e r“d e m o n s tr a te [ s ] a c o m m itm e n t to a d h e r in g .” F arl ey v . A m eri can C ast Ir on P i pe C o. , 11 5 F . 3d 15 48 , 15 54 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). A n em pl oyerm ay dem on stra t e r ea sonabl e c ar e t o correc thara ss m entby t aki ng subst ant i ve m ea sure s12

t o s t op the ha r a s s m e nta nd e ns ur e tha tthe r e i s no r e oc c urr e nc e . S e e W a l t on v. J ohns on & J ohns on S e r v. , I nc . , 347 F . 3d 1272, 1288 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A l though a n e m pl oy e rne e d nota c ti ns t a nt a ne ous l y , i tm us ta c ti n a r e a s onabl y pr om pt m a nne rt o r e s pond t o the e m pl oy e e ’ s c om pl a i nt . F r e de r i c k, 246 F . 3d a t1314. H ere, i ti s u n d i sp u t ed th atT u sk eg ee h ad a co m p reh en si v e p o l i cy ag ai n st se xu al hara ss m ent . A rnol d adm i tt ed re ce i vi ng a c op y of thi s pol i cy w hen she w as h ir e d in 1 9 9 9 , a n d s h e p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t th e p o lic y w a s n o t s im ila r ly di s s e m i na t e d t o othe re m pl oy e e s . D ur i ng A rnol d’ s pr e vi ous t e r m of e m pl oy m e nt w i th T us ke ge e , s he s uc c e s s f ul l y ut i l i z e d the r e por t i ng m e c ha ni s m s out l i ne d i n the po l i cy t o l od ge a s exual hara ss m entcom pl ai ntagai nsther s up ervi sor. A rnol d argues, ho w ever , thatw hen she i ni t i al l y c om pl ai ned abo utW ebst er , T us ke ge e f

a i l e d t o t a ke appr opr i a t e a c t i on t o c orr e c tthe ha r a s s m e nt . B utthe re cord show s thati n h eri ni t i al com pl ai nt s, A rnol d fai l ed t o exp l i ci t l y a ss ertthat she w as bei ng se xu al l y har as se d. O nce A rnol d exp l i ci t l y t ol d W i l l i am s that W ebst erw as se xu al l y har as si ng her, T uskegee i nv es t i gat ed the com pl ai nt , as si gn ed he rt o a nothe rs upe r vi s or , i ns truc t e d W e bs t e rt o ha ve m i ni m a l c ont a c tw i th he r , a nd o r d e r e d h im n o t to r e ta lia te a g a in s t h e r . T hu s, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thatT uskegee has sa t i sf i ed the fi rs tel em entof the F ar agher-El l erth aff i rm at i ve defense .13 b . U n rea so n a b le Fa ilu re to A vo id t h e H a rm A n e m p lo y e r ’s s h o w in g th a t th e p la in tif f - e m p lo y e e u n r e a s o n ab ly f a ile d to fol l ow the em pl oyer ’ s c om pl ai ntprocedures w i l l oft en be suff i ci entt o p rove that th e e mp l o y e e f

a i l e d t o f u l f i l l h e ro b l i g a t i o n o f

r e a s o n ab l e c a r e t o a v o i d th e h a r m, there by es t abl i shi ng the se cond el em entof the F ar agher-El l erth d ef ense . F ar agher, 5 2 4 U .S . at 8 0 7 -0 8 , 1 1 8 S .C t. at 2 2 9 3 . In so m e c as es , an em p lo ye e’s non- c om pl i a nc e m a y be r e a s onabl e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s . F r e de r i c k, 246 F . 3d at13 14 . B utsubj ec t i ve fe ar s of r epri sa l , st andi ng al on e, do no texcuse an e m pl oy e e ’ s f

a i l ur e t o r e por ta s upe r vi s or ’ s ha r a s s m e nti n a c c or da nc e w i th the e m p lo y e r ’s p o lic y . W a lto n , 3 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 0 . H e r e , de s pi t e he rpe r s ona l know l e dge a nd pr i ors uc c e s s f ul ut i l i z a t i on of T u s k e g e e ’s a n ti- h a r a s s m e n t p o lic y , A rn o ld d id n o t r e p o r t W e b s te r ’s c o n d u c t u n til a f t e rs he ha d tw i c e e nga ge d i n s e xua l i nt e r c our s e w i th hi m . A rnol d pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e t o s how tha the rf a i l ur e t o pr om pt l y r e por tthe a l l e ge d ha r a s s m e nt p u r s u a n tt o T u s k e g e e ’ s p o l i c y wa s r e a s o n ab l e u n d e rth e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h u s , we c o n c lu d e th a t T u s k e g e e e s tab lis h e d th e s e c o n d e le m e n t o f its a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha t , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , the F a r a ghe r - E l l e r th a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e e nt i t l e d T us ke ge e t o a voi d vi c a r i ous l i abi l i ty f orW e bs t e r ’ s a l l e ge d s e xua l ha r a s s m e ntof A rnol d.T h eS u p re m eC o urtre c e nt l y

a d dre s s e d

th ea dv e r s ea c t i o ne l e m e nto f a T i t l eV II 4 retaliation claim in Burlington N. & Santa FeRy . Co. v. White, 548 U.S. —, 126 S.C t. 2405, 165 L .Ed.2d 345 (2006). TheCourt rejec ted the standa rds applied in this court and other circuits by holding that “the scopeof [Titl e VII ’s] anti-retaliation provision extends beyond workplac e-related or

employ ment-re lated retaliatory

acts a nd harm”and therefore, “is not limit ed to discriminatory

actions that af

fec t the terms and c onditions of employ ment.” I d. at 24 12 -1 4. Ac c ording ly, th eplaintif f n e e d n ot s ho w that sh esu ff e re d a n ac tio n a ff

e c tingtheterm s and conditions of her

employ ment (which w as this court’s standa rd bef ore B urlington Northern) , but must show that she was subjecte d to action(s) that a “reasona ble employee w ould have f ound materially

adver se” suc h that a re asonableemployee w ould have be en dissuaded f rom “making or supportinga cha

rg e of discrimination.” I d. 14

B . R e t al i at i on A rnol d a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng he rr e t a l i a t i on cl ai m . T i t l e V II proh i bi t s a n em pl oyerfr om re t al i at i ng agai nstan em pl oyee because “ [s ] he has m ade achar ge, t es t i fi ed, as si st ed, or part i ci pat ed i n any m anner i n an i n v est i g at i o n , p ro ceed i n g , o r h eari n g . ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-3 (a). T o est ab l i sh a p r im a f a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n , th e p la in tif

f m u s t s h o w th a t ( 1 ) s h e e n g a g e d in st atu t o ri l y p ro t ect ed act i v i ty, (2 ) sh e su ffered an ad v erse acti o n , an d (3 ) th ere i s a 4 c a us a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the a dve r s e a c t i on. H ul be r tv. S t . M a ry ’ s H e a l th C a r e S y s . , I nc . , 439 F . 3d 1286, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I f the p la in tif f e s tab lis h e s h e rp r im a f

a c ie c a s e , th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to a r t i c ul a t e a l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on f orthe a dve r s e a c t i on. I d. I f the de f e nda ntdoe s s o, t o avo i d sum m ary j ud gm ent , the pl ai nt i ff m ustprod uce s uffi ci entevi dence for a r e a s o n ab le f

a c t- f in d e rto c o n c lu d e th a t e a c h o f th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f

f e r e d r e a s o n s is pret extual . C hapm an v. A I T ra nsp. , 22 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 37 (11th C i r. 20 00 ).In both her Complaint and her Amended Complaint, Arnold alleg ed several additional 5 retaliatory

acts in support of her retaliation claim. The district cour t held that these acts did not constitute “adverse actions” within the meaningof Title VII . Arnold v. Tuskeg ee Univ., No. 3:03CV-515-F ., 2006 WL47507, at *13 n.11 (M.D. Ala . J an. 9, 2006). In her A ppellate B rief, however, Arnold doe s not discuss these ac ts in her arguments reg ardingthe retaliation claim, and sh edo e s n ot a

rguethat th edis tric t c ourt e rre d in findingthat th e sea c ts did n ot c on stitut ea dv e rs e actions. Thus, on appe al, Arnold ha s waived a rguments that these ac ts wereadver se ac tions for purposes of her retaliation claim, and wedo not consider them. Ta nner A dver. Group, LL C v. Fa yette County , Ga., 451 F .3d 777, 786-87 (11th Cir. 2006); F lanig an’s Enters., Inc. of G a. v. Fulton County , Ga., 242 F .3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001). 15 I n h e rA p p e lla te B r ie f

, A rn o ld c o n te n d s th a t a f te rs h e f ile d th is la w s u it in Jan u ary 2 0 0 3 , T u sk eg ee ret al i at ed ag ai n sth er b y su sp en d i n g h er fo r th ree d ays, r e f us i ng t o pr ovi de he rw i th tr a i ni ng a nd s uppl i e s t o c r e a t e a da t aba s e f ol l ow i ng he rs us pe ns i on, t e l l i ng he rnott o s pe a k i n a n E E O C tr a i ni ng s e s s i on, a nd te r m in a tin g h e re m p lo y m e n t. T h e f ir s t e le m e n t o f

th e p r im a f

a c ie c a s e is n o t in 5 di sput e— A rnol d’ s f

i l i ng the i nst antl aw sui tconst i tut ed a prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty und er th e f i r s tp r o n g o f

h e rp r i ma f

a c i e c a s e . Bu te v e n i f

w e w e r e t o c o n c l u d e th a ts o me o r al l o f th e act s al l eg ed b y A rn o l d co n st i tu t ed ad v erse acti o n s an d th atth ere w as a causal conn ec t i on betw ee n h erprot ec t ed ac t i vi ty a nd the adverse ac t i on s, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thata r ea sonabl e tri erof fa ctcoul d n otfi nd that T u s k e g e e ’s n o n - d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s f o rth e s e a c tio n s w e r e p r e te x tu a l. A c c o r d in g to T u s k e g e e , th e a c tio n s a g a in s t A rn o ld w e r e ta k e n b e c a u s e s h e : ha d a l ong hi s t ory of

f a i l i ng t o f

ol l ow U ni ve r s i ty pol i c y , a c c us e d he rs upe r vi s orof ly in g ab o u t h e rm is c o n d u c t, r e p e a te d ly s u b m itte d in a c c u r a te tim e s h e e ts , r e f u s e d to16

r e s pond t o he rs upe r vi s or ’ s que s t i ons r e ga r di ng the s t a tus of he rw or k, a nd c o n tin u e d to e n g a g e in in s u b o r d in a te c o n d u c t a f te rb e in g a d v is e d th a t f

a ilu r e to m od i fy her c on du ctcoul d res ul ti n h ert erm i nat i on . A rnol d p re se nt ed no evi dence t o d em o n strat e th atT u sk eg ee’ s p ro ffered reaso n s w ere p ret ex tu al . A cco rd i n g l y, w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our ti n thi s r e ga r d. C. S u p p l e me n t a lJ u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e S t a t e L a w Cl a i ms A l though the di s tr i c tc our tde c l i ne d t o e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on o v er A rn o l d ’ s st at e l aw cl ai m s, A rn o l d n o n eth el ess arg u es th e m eri t s o f th ese cl ai m s w i th o u tex p l i ci t l y ch al l en g i n g th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s refu sal t o ex erci se s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on the s e c l a i m s . P ur s ua ntt o the s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on st atut e, a di stri ctcourtm ay decl i ne t o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov era s ta te la w c la im if

, in te ra lia , the di stri ctcourthas di sm i ss ed al l cl ai m s over w hi ch i thas ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on . 28 U . S . C . § 1 36 7(c) (1). W hen the di stri ctcourthas d is m is s e d a ll f

e d e r a l c la im s f

r o m a c a s e , th e r e is a s tr o n g a r g u m e n t f o rd e c lin in g to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e r e m a in in g s ta te la w c la im s . C a rne gi e - M e l l on U ni v. v. C ohi l l , 484 U . S . 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S . C t . 614, 619 n. 7, 98 L . E d. 2d 72 0 (19 88 ). A c c or di ngl y , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vor of T us ke ge e on A rnol d’ s f e de r a l c l a i m s , i tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de c l i ni ng17

t o ex erci se su p p l em en t al j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er h er st at e l aw cl ai m s. I I I . CONCL US I ON F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.