[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10391

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cv-00491-MCR-CJK

RODERICK BILLUPS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

EMERALD COAST UTILITIES AUTHORITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(October 26, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 1 of 19 
2

Roderick Billups appeals from the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (“Emerald Coast”) in his 

lawsuit alleging that Emerald Coast failed to provide reasonable accommodations 

for his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and retaliated against him for seeking worker’s 

compensation benefits, in violation of the Florida Workers Compensation Law, 

Fla. Stat. § 440.205. After careful review, we affirm.

I.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

“considering the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party.” Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1219 (11th 

Cir. 2016). “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). 

II.

The relevant facts, in the light most favorable to Billups, are as follows. 

Emerald Coast is a local governmental body that provides water, wastewater 

(sewer), and sanitation collection services in and around Escambia County, 

Florida’s westernmost county. Billups began working for Emerald Coast in 

September 1995. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 2 of 19 
3

At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Billups held the position of Utility 

Service Technician II (“UST-2”) in Emerald Coast’s Regional Services 

Department (the “Department”). The Department is responsible for the 

maintenance of all water and sewer infrastructure, including waterlines, sewer 

lines, manholes, valves, and water hydrants. As a UST-2, Billups primarily 

repaired water and sewer lines and the valves and equipment on those lines. 

The UST-2 position was physically demanding. Billups routinely lifted 

moderate to heavy weight and used heavy tools like jackhammers. He also 

manipulated valves, which required significant exertion. 

On December 18, 2013, Billups felt something pop in his right shoulder

while attempting to open an old air-release valve. Later that day, an examining 

physician diagnosed a probable right shoulder strain and ordered an MRI. The 

physician stated that Billups could not lift, push, or pull more than fifteen pounds. 

At a follow-up visit on January 2, 2014, the physician prescribed physical therapy 

and advised Billups to avoid lifting more than five pounds with his right arm. 

With these limitations, Billups could not perform the essential functions of the 

UST-2 position.

Billups began leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) on 

December 19, 2013. He expected to be able to return to work in about a month. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 3 of 19 
4

By late January 2014, however, his physician had determined that conservative 

treatment was unsuccessful and referred Billups to an orthopedic surgeon. 

On February 11, 2014, Billups saw the orthopedic surgeon, who scheduled 

him for surgery to repair a bicep tear around a week later. The surgery had to be 

rescheduled, however, because of issues with obtaining approval from Emerald 

Coast’s third-party administrator for workers’ compensation benefits. Once 

Billups received approval, the surgery was rescheduled for March 14, 2014, but it 

had to be called off when Billups had an adverse reaction to anesthesia. Billups’s 

shoulder surgery eventually took place on April 16, 2014. 

In the meantime, Billups’s twelve weeks of FMLA leave expired on March 

12, 2014, about a month before the surgery. On March 26, 2014, Billups’s 

supervisor emailed the Director of the Department, Ernest Dawson, about hiring a 

temporary employee to fill in for Billups until his return. Dawson responded,

I don’t mind your getting a temporary, but I want Human Resources 

to give me a status on this guy. I need to know about his FMLA 

status. I don’t plan to keep him. I will let him go. His record in the 

past is not good. This is his last chance with [Emerald Coast].

Thereafter, Dawson spoke with Human Resources, which reminded him that, as a 

matter of Emerald Coast policy, Billups was entitled to receive twenty-six weeks 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 4 of 19 
5

of leave instead of twelve because he had been injured on the job.1 No action was 

taken at that time. 

After Billups’s surgery in April 2014, the surgeon informed him that it 

would likely take six months to recover and return to work without restriction. On 

April 29, 2014, the surgeon signed a worker’s compensation form stating that 

Billups could not perform job-related activities even at a sedentary level. 

The next day, April 30, Escambia County experienced a massive storm that 

dropped around twenty inches of rain and caused severe flooding. According to 

Dawson, the flooding caused extensive damage to Emerald Coast’s water and 

sewer infrastructure, from which the Department was still recovering in December 

2014. This placed considerable demands upon personnel tasked with repairing and 

maintaining those facilities. 

 1 In particular, Emerald Coast’s policies provided, in relevant part,

Employees will return to work any time they are medically able, up to six (6) 

months from the date of injury. At that point, if unable to return to work the 

employee must retire, resign, or be terminated. The department head, after 

consultation with the Human Resources Director, may extend this time based on 

evaluation of the employee’s ability to work. 

After one (1) year from the date of the injury, if the employee is continuing to 

have intermittent disability from the injury, the department head and Human 

Resources Director would review the case to determine if there is cause for 

extension of time. If there is none, the employee must retire, resign, or be 

terminated. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 5 of 19 
6

On May 27, 2014, the surgeon signed a worker’s compensation form 

identifying Billups’s post-surgery restrictions as “sedentary only” and stating that 

he was likely to return with no restrictions in six weeks.

In early June 2014, Emerald Coast sent Billups notice that he would likely 

be terminated due to his continuing inability to perform the essential functions of 

his job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The letter stated that, as of 

June 18, 2014, it would be six months since the date of his injury, and it informed 

him of the policy that employees who suffer an on-the-job injury generally must 

return to work within six months or retire, resign, or be terminated. The letter 

stated that Billups could attend a “predetermination” hearing on June 19, 2014.

Billups appeared at the hearing on June 19 before Dawson and Cindy 

Sutherland, the Human Resources Director. Billups summarized the history of his 

injury and stressed that the surgery had been delayed through no fault of his own. 

He also presented some medical records, including the surgeon’s report from May 

27, 2014, which reflected that he could be cleared for duty by July 15, 2014. Even 

on that date, however, Billups indicated that he would have to do most work with 

his arms close to his body. Sutherland noted that Billups’s next appointment was 

on July 8, 2014, but that Emerald Coast had no information showing that he could 

return to work full duty “today,” the date of the hearing. Sutherland also stressed 

that Emerald Coast needed a release slip from his doctor before he could return to 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 6 of 19 
7

work. Billups was given until the end of the following day to obtain a more 

definitive statement of a return date from his physician or physical therapist. 

Also at the hearing, Sutherland and Dawson asked Billups about his prior 

on-the-job injuries. Dawson noted that Billups had suffered more on-the-job 

injuries than most employees. Before the events giving rise to this case, Billups 

had experienced four on-the-job injuries: a thumb sprain, a left-bicep strain, an eye 

injury, and a left shoulder injury. After a series of questions about the injuries, 

Dawson summarized that most of the injuries were to the left part of Billups’s 

body, while the recent injury was to his right. When Billups agreed, Dawson 

responded, “Okay. That answered my question.”

The next day, June 20, Billups produced a letter from his physical therapist 

stating that Billups “continue[d] to progress through strengthening exercises” and 

that he could return to work as a UST-2 without restrictions when he completed his 

physical therapy. The letter noted, however, that only Billups’s physician could 

clear him to return to work. At that time, Billups was not projected to be 

discharged from physical therapy until July 21, 2014. 

On June 23, 2014, a Monday, Billups received notice that his employment 

had been terminated. The letter explained that Billups’s “continuing inability to 

perform the essential requirements of [his] job, with or without accommodation, 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 7 of 19 
8

[created] a substantial hardship and impair[ed] [Emerald Coast’s] ability to 

properly fulfill its public mission.” 

Billups continued to attend physical therapy sessions after his termination. 

On July 22, 2014, his physician limited him to lifting no more than twenty pounds 

overhead and advised him to complete all work with his arms close to his body. 

He was discharged from physical therapy on August 13, 2014, but he was not 

cleared to return to work without restrictions until October 23, 2014. Billups 

received worker’s compensation benefits until October 23. 

III.

Billups filed a complaint in state court against Emerald Coast, which 

removed the action to federal district court. In his complaint, Billups brought two 

claims. First, he alleged that Emerald Coast violated the ADA by failing to 

provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Second, he alleged that 

Emerald Coast violated the Florida Workers Compensation Law, Fla. Stat. 

§ 440.205, by retaliating against him for seeking worker’s compensation benefits. 

After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to Emerald 

Coast. The court concluded, in relevant part, that Billups had not identified a 

reasonable accommodation that would have allowed him to perform the essential 

functions of his position, and that no reasonable jury could conclude that Billups 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 8 of 19 
9

was retaliated against for obtaining worker’s compensation benefits. Billups now 

appeals.

IV.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against “qualified 

individual[s] on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A “qualified 

individual” is a person who, with or without reasonable accommodations, is able to 

perform the essential functions of the job she holds or desires. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12111(8). To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under 

the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he had a disability, that he was a “qualified 

individual,” and that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of his 

disability. Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.2d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 

2014). 

“An employer unlawfully discriminates against a qualified individual with a 

disability when the employer fails to provide ‘reasonable accommodations’ for the 

disability—unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the employer.” 

Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001). An 

accommodation is “reasonable” only if it allows the employee to perform the job’s 

essential functions. Id. The employee bears the burden of identifying an 

accommodation that would allow him to perform the essential functions of his job. 

Id.; Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1367 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 9 of 19 
10

On appeal, Billups contends that Emerald Coast should have accommodated 

his disability by offering a limited period of unpaid leave while he recovered from 

surgery.

2

 The district court did not directly address this argument. Regardless, we 

affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment because Billups has not 

shown his requested accommodation would have allowed him to return to work “in 

the present or in the immediate future.” Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309, 1314 

(11th Cir. 2003); see Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1256 (stating that we may affirm the 

district court’s judgment on any grounds supported by the record). 

This Circuit has recognized that a “leave of absence might be a reasonable 

accommodation in some cases.” Wood, 323 F.3d at 1314. We first addressed this 

issue in Duckett v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 120 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1997), where we 

held that an employer was not required to allow an employee to stay on medical 

leave under a salary continuation program. See id. at 1225–26. Relying on the 

Fourth Circuit’s decision in Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 1995), we 

 2 Before the district court, Billups also argued that he should have been given light-duty 

work or reassigned to another position as a reasonable accommodation. But he has abandoned 

these issues on appeal by failing to address them in his initial brief. See Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not raised on appeal are 

abandoned). In any case, we would affirm the district court even if these issues had been 

properly raised. In providing reasonable accommodations under the ADA, employers are not 

required to change the essential functions of a position or to reassign an employee when no 

positions are available. See Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2016) 

(“Defendant was not required by the ADA to create a permanent light-duty position especially 

for Plaintiff.”); Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 284 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that 

reassignment is only a reasonable accommodation if a position for which the plaintiff is qualified 

was available). Emerald Coast presented uncontradicted evidence that there were no open and 

available light-duty positions at the relevant time. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 10 of 19 
11

explained that an employer does not violate the ADA “by refusing to grant an 

employee a period of time in which to cure his disabilities where the employee sets 

no temporal limit on the advocated grace period, urging only that he deserves 

sufficient time to ameliorate his conditions.” 120 F.3d at 1225–26 (brackets and 

internal quotation marks omitted). We quoted with approval the following 

reasoning of the Myers court regarding leave as a reasonable accommodation:

Significantly, these provisions [42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 45 C.F.R. § 

1232.3(i)] contain no reference to a person’s future ability to perform 

the essential functions of his position. To the contrary, they are 

formulated entirely in the present tense, framing the precise issue as to 

whether an individual “can” (not “will be able to”) perform the job 

with reasonable accommodations. Nothing in the text of the 

reasonable accommodation provision requires an employer to wait for 

an indefinite period for an accommodation to achieve its intended 

effect. Rather, reasonable accommodation is by its terms most 

logically construed as that which, presently, or in the immediate 

future, enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the 

job in question.

Id. (quoting Myers, 50 F.3d at 283). 

Because the plaintiff in Duckett “had already been on medical leave for ten 

months . . . and had no way of knowing when his doctor would allow him to return 

to work in any capacity,” we concluded that his requested accommodation of 

additional medical leave was not reasonable. See id. at 1226. Nevertheless, we

noted that more compelling facts might lead to a different result, such as “if an 

employee was terminated immediately upon becoming disabled without a chance 

to use his leave to recover.” Id. n.2.

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 11 of 19 
12

After Duckett, we held in Wood that a plaintiff’s request for a leave of 

absence to recover from cluster headaches was not reasonable. 323 F.3d at 1314. 

We explained that Duckett had held “that an accommodation is unreasonable if it 

does not allow someone to perform his or her job duties in the present or in the 

immediate future.” Id. at 1313. Thus, “a leave of absence might be a reasonable 

accommodation in some cases” if it would allow an employee to continue work “in 

the immediate future.” Id. at 1314. But an accommodation is unreasonable if it 

would only allow an employee to “work at some uncertain point in the future.” Id. 

Based on these standards, we held that Wood’s requested accommodation 

was not reasonable because he was essentially requesting indefinite leave. Id. 

Even with a leave of absence, “he could be stricken with another cluster headache 

soon after his return and require another indefinite leave of absence.” Id. Thus,

Wood was not requesting an accommodation that would have allowed him to 

continue to work presently, “but rather, in the future—at some indefinite time.” Id. 

We also distinguished Duckett’s “parenthetical[] not[ation] that more compelling 

facts might lead to a different result,” stating that Wood had not been “terminated 

immediately upon becoming disabled,” but rather “had been granted years of 

discretionary leave and had been on a discretionary leave for over one month at the 

time of his termination.” Id. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 12 of 19 
13

Here, Billups’s situation is different from that of the plaintiffs in Wood and

Duckett because his disabling condition was temporary, not chronic.3

 Cf. Wood, 

323 F.3d at 1312 (fourteen-year history with cluster headaches); Duckett, 120 F.3d 

at 1223–24 (ten-year history with high blood pressure). In other words, Billups’s 

condition was likely to be fully corrected, or nearly so, at some point in the future. 

Nevertheless, we cannot say, on this record, that the requested accommodation was 

reasonable under the legal standards set out in Wood and Duckett. 

As explained above, an accommodation is unreasonable under our precedent 

unless it would allow the employee to “perform the essential functions of their jobs 

presently or in the immediate future.” Wood, 323 F.3d at 1314. It is undisputed 

that Billups was unable to perform the essential functions of his position as of the 

date of his termination. And the record shows that Billups was essentially 

requesting a leave of absence that would allow him to work “at some indefinite 

point” in the future. See id. 

At the predetermination hearing on June 19, 2014, Billups did not request a 

specific period of time in which to recover, nor would it have been reasonable to 

expect him to. He was still participating in physical therapy and it was unclear 

when he would be cleared to return to work without the limitations that rendered 

 3 We assume, as the district court did, that Billups’s temporary restrictions on lifting, 

pushing, and pulling constitute a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1630.2(j)(1)(ix) (noting that an impairment lasting or expected to last less than six months can 

in some circumstances qualify as a disability). 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 13 of 19 
14

him unable to perform the essential functions of the UST-2 position. While the 

surgeon indicated in late May 2014 that Billups might be able to return in midJuly, Billups was not scheduled to see the surgeon again until July 8. And 

according to his physical therapist, Billups was not projected to be discharged from 

physical therapy until July 21, 2014. Thus, at best, there was a possibility, but no 

certainty, that Billups could return to work by mid-July 2014.

The record also shows, however, that Billups likely still would not have 

been able to perform the essential functions of the UST-2 position at that time. As 

Billups foreshadowed at the hearing, his physician in mid-July 2014 limited him to 

lifting no more than twenty pounds overhead and advised him to complete all work 

with his arms close to his body. According to Dawson, those limitations would 

have prevented Billups from performing the essential functions of the UST-2 

position. Although Billups believed he could perform the job with those 

limitations, his testimony reflects that he could only perform “most” of the work, 

but not all of it. And even a “relative[ly] infrequen[t]” inability to perform a job’s 

essential functions is enough to render a plaintiff not a “qualified individual” under 

the ADA. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522, 1528 (11th Cir. 1997). 

Nor would Emerald Coast have been required to “reallocate . . . an essential part of 

his job” to another employee. Id. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 14 of 19 
15

Thus, Billups’s request for additional leave was essentially an open-ended 

request for “sufficient time to ameliorate his conditions” following the surgery. 

See Duckett, 120 F.3d at 1226. Indeed, the record shows that he continued to 

attend physical therapy until August 13, 2014, and that he was not cleared to return 

to work without restriction until October 23, 2014. We also note that Billups was 

not “terminated immediately upon becoming disabled,” see id. at 1226 n.2, but 

rather received over six months of medical leave to allow recovery. That period of 

time ultimately was not sufficient, largely as a result of the surgery’s delay through 

no fault of Billups’s own. Nevertheless, in light of Emerald Coast’s allowance of 

six months of leave and the uncertainty about when Billups could perform the 

essential functions of his position in the future, Billups has not shown that a 

reasonable jury could conclude that he was denied a reasonable accommodation 

that would have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his job either 

presently or in the immediate future. See Wood, 323 F.3d at 1314.

Billups’s argument that Emerald Coast applied a general rule without 

conducting an “individualized assessment” of his needs is off the mark. See Holly 

v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Allowing 

uniformly-applied, disability-neutral policies to trump the ADA requirement of 

reasonable accommodations would utterly eviscerate that ADA requirement.”). 

While Emerald Coast’s policy provides, as a general rule, six months for an 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 15 of 19 
16

employee who suffered an on-the-job injury to return to employment, it also 

expressly incorporates an individualized assessment of the employee’s ability to 

work: “The department head, after consultation with the Human Resources 

Director, may extend this time based on evaluation of the employee’s ability to 

work.” In addition, at the hearing, Emerald Coast considered the specifics of his 

situation and allowed him to submit medical records and other evidence. Emerald 

Coast then terminated him because he could not perform the essential functions of 

the position. For the reasons explained above, that decision did not violate the 

ADA. 

Because we conclude that Billups was not a “qualified individual” under the 

ADA, we do not address whether Emerald Coast has presented sufficient evidence 

of undue hardship. We also do not address Billups’s arguments regarding pretext, 

which are not, in any event, directly relevant to a reasonable-accommodation 

claim.4

 See Holly, 492 F.3d at 1262 (explaining that there is no “additional 

burden” to show pretext when proving a reasonable-accommodation claim). 

 4 Billups’s argument appears to be that Emerald Coast terminated him because it regarded 

him as disabled based on his record of on-the-job injuries, and that its proffered reason for his 

termination—his inability to perform the essential functions of the position—is pretextual. But 

as he concedes, there is no requirement to provide reasonable accommodations where an 

employee is only regarded as disabled, see 42 U.S.C. § 12201(h), and it is undisputed that 

Billups was unable to perform the essential functions of his position at the time of his 

termination. Accordingly, Billups’s regarded-as claim fails at the prima facie stage because he is 

not a “qualified individual” under the ADA. See Mazzeo, 746 F.2d at 1268. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 16 of 19 
17

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on 

Billups’s ADA claim. 

V.

Finally, we address Billups’s state-law claim alleging unlawful retaliation 

for pursing worker’s compensation benefits. Under Fla. Stat. § 440.205, “[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.” However, “[t]he statute 

cannot be interpreted to prohibit the discharge of an employee for any reason once 

the employee has filed or pursued a workers’ compensation claim.” Pericich v. 

Climatrol, Inc., 523 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). 

Retaliation claims brought pursuant to § 440.205 require a plaintiff to show 

the following: (1) he engaged in protected expression; (2) he suffered an adverse 

employment action; (3) a causal connection exists between the expression and the 

adverse action. Ortega v. Eng’g. Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. 

App. 2010). Billups met the first two elements. As to the third element, for 

purposes of establishing a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that “the 

protected activity and the adverse action are not completely unrelated,” which can 

be satisfied through close temporal proximity. Id. at 529. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 17 of 19 
18

If the plaintiff establishes these elements as a prima facie matter, the burden 

shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate reason for the adverse employment 

action. Id. At that point, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the 

employer’s reason is pretext for retaliation. See id.

Here, the district court properly granted the Authority’s motion for summary 

judgment on Billups’s retaliation claim. First, we agree with the court that the 

temporal proximity between Billups worker’s compensation claim and his 

termination—over six months—was not sufficiently close to establish a causal 

connection. See Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 

2007) (“A three to four month disparity between the statutorily protected [activity]

and the adverse employment action is not enough.”) (Title VII case). 

Second, even assuming arguendo that Billups made out a prima facie case, 

he has not shown that Emerald Coast’s stated reason for his termination is 

unworthy of credence.5

 While Billups’s evidence indicates that Dawson was 

concerned about Billups’s record of on-the-job injuries, the record evidence is 

undisputed that, at the time of his termination, and following an extended period of 

medical leave, Billups simply was unable to perform the essential functions of his 

job. Billups’s termination was consistent with Emerald Coast’s express policy. 

 5 The district court did not reach the issue of pretext, but the record is sufficiently 

developed for us to decide the issue. See Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230, 1236 

n.5 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating that we may address the issue of pretext in the first instance if the 

record is sufficiently developed). 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 18 of 19 
19

And on appeal Billups does not point to any comparator evidence showing that 

Emerald Coast retained an employee who did not have a history of on-the-job 

injuries, after six months of medical leave despite an inability to perform the 

essential functions of the position. Thus, despite Dawson’s comments about 

Billups’s injuries, Billups has not “has demonstrated such weaknesses, 

implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s 

proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could find 

them unworthy of credence.” See Ortega, 30 So. 3d at 529 (quotation marks 

omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

on Billups’s retaliation claim. 

VI.

For the reasons stated, the district court properly granted summary judgment 

in favor of Emerald Coast on Billups’s claims of discrimination in violation of the 

ADA and retaliation in violation of the Florida Workers Compensation Law. 

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

Case: 17-10391 Date Filed: 10/26/2017 Page: 19 of 19