FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 37 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 7- cv -0 02 90 -TJC -TEM JOHN C. TARMAS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY OF THE NAVY , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 6, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo hn Tarm as , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of hi s emplo y er, the Secr et ary of th e Nav y (Sec ret ary)in th is di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n a ndret al ia ti onact io n. Aft er a t ho ro ug h re vi ew of

th e rec or d, we af

firm . I. Back gr ou nd Tarm as , a civ il ia n e m

pl oyee wit h t he Navy for o ve r 25 y ears , beg an
ex pe rie nc in g n eu ro lo gi cal sym pt om s, s uc h a s t in gl in g a ndnu m bn es s, an d p eri od s of in so m ni a in 19 99 . He was t reat edby D r. Vict orMaque ra an d e ve ntua ll y di ag no se d wi th de la y edsl eep ph as e syndro m e an d am oo d d is or de r. In 2 00 1, Tarm as ’s in so m

ni a was ex tre m e an d b eg anin te rfer in g wi th hi s s ch edul edwork ho ur s. Aft er s pe ak in g wi th supe rv is or s J am es Ru ss eau , Ric hardReck ert , andPau l Heag ne y , he a rran ge d afle xi bl e work s ch edul e; in st eadof ade fin edst artti m e, Tarm as co ul d b eg in hi s s hi ft a t an y ti m e an d wo rk

foraneig ht -h ou r pe rio d. By 20 03 , ho wev er, Tarm as ’s di rectsupe rv is or , who was n ow An dr ew W ojty la , fou ndth atth e in co ns is te ntsch edul e was be co m in g apro bl em in term s o f
sa fet y is su es an d t eam

effe ct iv en es s. Tarm as oft endi d n otarri ve at wo rk un ti l
m id -aft ern oo n. In Ju ly, Rec ke rt m etwit h Tarm as an d i nf orm edhi m

th atth e fle xi bl e sc he du le ne ed edto be ch an ge d a ndreque st edth atTarm as subm itm ed ic al do cu m en ta ti on . Dr. Maque ra s ub m it te d an e va lu at io n i n S ep te m be r 20 03
ou tl in in g Tarm as ’s di ag no si s an d e xp la in in g tha t Tarm as ha d n o l im it at io ns in hi s ab il it ie s t o wo rk . Desp it e Tarm as ’s m ed ic al co nd it io ns an d wo rk sch edul e, he
2ro ut in el y

rece iv edpe rfo rm an ce awa rd s an d a ccep tabl e ev al ua ti on s. InJan uary

20 04 , Reck ert , Rus se au , W ojt y la , andTarm as m etag ai n t o di sc us s Tarm as ’s sch edul e. Reck ertan d R us se aupro po se d afle xi bl e sc he du le th at
wou ldpe rm itTarm as to st artworkas l at e as 10 :3 0 a .m . whenne ces sa ry , in st eadof hi s as si gn ed7: 30 a.m . st artti m e. Tarm as reject edth e p ro po sa l an d s ta te d t ha t h e
wou ldus e si ckor a nn ua l l eav e to acco un t fo r hi s h ou rs when he arri ve d l at e. Ina fo ll ow- up em ai l, Re ck ertreque st edth atTarm as pro vi de m or e m ed ic al in fo rm at io n to supp ort h is reque stforad di ti on al fle xi bi li ty in h is sch edul e. InMay 200 4, af

te r he ha d u se d a ll of h is av ai labl e le av e, Tarm as reque st ed th e fl ex ib le sch edul e p ro po se d i n J an uary , andhe subm it te d arep ort fr om Dr. Maq ue ra i nd ic at in g t ha t h is co nd it io n was ch ro ni c. Dr. Maque ra d idno t, h owe ve r, id en ti fy an y ne ces sa ry

acco m m od at io ns . In a s eco ndlet te r, Maque ra ex pl ai ne d th atTarm as ’s con di ti on was e xa cerb at edby cros s- co un try trav el , whi ch co ul d requi re al te rin g Tarm as ’s workho ur s fo ll owi ng a tr ip . There aft er, Tarm as ’s
supe rv is or s p res en te d h im wit h afle xwo rkag reem en t, s et ti ng hi s re gu la r ho ur s as 7: 15 a.m . to 3: 45 p.m ., with th e fo ll owi ng m od ifi cat io ns fol lo win g c ro ss -co un try tra ve l: Tarm as wou ldst artat 1 0: 15 a.m . th e fi rs t t wo d ay s af te r tr av el , at 9 :1 5 a .m . th e n ex t t wo d ay s, an d a t 8 :1 5 a .m . th e la stda y be fo re re tu rn in g t o h is reg ul ar
sc he du le . On Ju ly 1, 20 04 , Rus se ausen t Tarm as a m em o s et ti ng ou t t he fle xwo rk
3ag reem en t. Tarm as be li ev edth e acc omm od at io n was in su ffi ci en t b ecau se itfai le d

to ad dr es s o th er m ed ic al is su es th atco ul d i m pa cthi s s le ep di so rd er an d c au se hi m to m is s wo rk
. The fol lo win g m on th , Tarm as reque st edanimm ed ia te tra ns fer t o a n o pe n po si ti onin an ot he r de pa rtment; Ru ss eaude ni edth e reque stbe cau se th ere was no tra ns it io n p la n i n p la ce fo r Tarm as ’s curren t p os it io n. Tarm as so ug htot he r tra ns fers in Octo be r 20 04 an d F eb ru ary 20 05 , bu t ea ch was d en ie d b ecau se he la ck edth e n eces sa ry

qu al ifi cat io ns forth e n ew po si ti on s. InMay 200 5, Tarm as tra ve le d t o C al ifo rn iafora work p ro ject. In st eadof returni ng on Fri da y , he s ta y edov er an d fl ew ho m e o n S un da y . Tarm as sen t Ru ss eauanem ai l t o v eri fy th athe di d n otne edto tak e le av e fo r th e Fri da y be cau se hi s Su nd ay

tra ve l wo ul d “ can cel [] out ” th e Fri day . Rus se auadvi se d Tarm as th athe ne ed edto tak e le av e fo r th e Fri da y . By em ai l, Tarm as in fo rm ed Ru ss eauth athe di sa gr eedwit h R us se au ’s det erm in at io n t ha t h e was requi redto
subm ita le av e reque st . 1 Tarm as co nt in ue d t o e xp eri en ce d iff ic ul ty arriv in g a t wo rkon ti m e fo r hi s
m orni ng sh ift . On Aug us t 1 0, 2 00 5, Tarm as cal le d i n l at e, no ti fy in g R us se auat 9: 39 a.m . th athe was ru nn in g l at e an d wo ul d b e atworkby 11 a .m . Tarm as di d

In the end, Ta

rmas wa s not charg ed with leave for that da y . 1 4no t arriv e u nt il 11 :3 0 a .m ., at wh ic h p oi nthe subm it te d alea ve reque stfor fou r ho ur s o f le av e. Ru ss eaude ni edth e le av e reque stbe cau se Tarm as ha d n otcal le d hi s s up erv is orwit hi n t wo h ou rs of h is st artti m e, as requi redby the cal l-o ut pr oc edur es . On Aug us t 1 5, Tarm as was l at e an d s ub m it te d alea ve sl ip , cit in g he av y tra ffi c as th e cau se of h is de la y . Rus se aude ni edth e le av e reque stan d l is te d th e ab se nc e as un au th or iz ed . Then on Aug us t 1 6, Tarm as was l at e ag ai n due to he av y tra ffi c. Ru ss eaude ni edhi s l eav e reque st . Tarm as fil edanin fo rm al
co m pl ai ntwit h t he EEOC, whic h i ni ti at edanin ve st ig at io n. On Au gu st18 , 20 05 , Tarm as rece iv eda “ le tt er o f cau ti on ,” ci ti ng po ss ib le ab us e o f th e le av e syst em , un au th or iz edab se nc es , andfai lu re t o a dh ere t o t he le av e p ro cedur es . Accor di ng to th e Nav y ’s hu m anres ou rces m an ua l, a l et te r of
cau ti onis no t a d is ci pl in ary act io n. Th e le tt er i nf orm edTarm as th atitwou ldno t be pl acedin hi s p ers on ne l fi le no r wou lditbe co un te d a s a p rio r di sc ip li na ry act io n fo r pu rp os es of f

utur e d is ci pl in e. On Se pt em

be r 2, 2 00 5, Wojtyla se ntTarm as anem ai l ad vi si ng hi m of i ss ue s wit h h is job pe rfo rm an ce, s pe ci fic al ly tha t t he re were tec hn ic al erro rs in so m e o f Tarm as ’s rep orts an d t ha t t he in fo rm at io n c it edwas o ut da te d, i na ccu rat e, or in co m pl et e. W ojt y laals o fo rward edhi s co nc ern s t o R us se au . Tarm as res po nd ed wit h a n e m ai l b la m in g Wojtyla fo r th e p ro bl em s. Nev ert he le ss , Tarm as rece iv ed
5anacce pt ab le pe rfo rm an ce ra ti ng in Sep te m be r 20 05
. 2 On Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 05 , Tarm as fil eda fo rm al co m pl ai ntwit h t he EEOC al le gi ng di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on . On Oct ob er 6 , 20 05 , Tarm as em ai le d Ru ss eauab ou t ad di ti on al acco m m od at io ns , reque st in g t ha t h e b e al lo wedto work up to two ho ur s a d ay

fle xt im e whe n n eed ed , recei ve li be ral ap pr ov al of l eav e ti m e fo r al l h ou rs be y on d t he fle xt im e, an d b e g iv enli be ral ap pr ov al of l eav e wit ho ut pa y if m ed ic al ly neces sa ry . Rus se auask edTarm as to pro vi de m ed ic al do cu m en ta ti on to supp ort h is reque st . In No ve m be r, Tarm as subm it te d alet te r fro m Maque ra ex pl ai ni ng th atTarm as ’s con di ti on was s tabl e with m ed ic al th erap y
an d t he acco m

m od at io ns for

westco as t t rav el . Maque ra ex pl ai ne d, h owe ve r, th at Tarm as ha d re cen tl y

de ve lo pe d b ro nc hi ti s, wh ic h h adag gr av at edhi s s le ep di so rd er. Maq ue ra i nd ic at edth atno ot he r acc omm od at io ns were g en eral ly
ne ces sa ry , exc ep t i f Tarm as su ffer edfro m ot he r il ln es se s t ha t wo ul d trig ge r th e in so m ni a. Bas edon th is m ed ic al in fo rm at io n, Ru ss eaude ni edTarm as ’s reque st ed
acco m m od at io ns , bu t re co gn iz edth atTarm as m ig htne edto rep ort t o wo rkup to two ho ur s l at e o n o ccas io n. Fo ll owi ng th e EEOC in ve st ig at io n, Tarm as rece iv eda ri gh t-t o- su e le tt er.
Notably , he would also rec eive perfor mance awards in September 2006, J une 2007, and 2 J uly 2008. 6He th enfil edth e in st an t co m pl ai ntall eg in g d is ab il it y

di sc riminat io n a nd ret al ia ti on un de r th e ADA, th e Reh ab il it at io n Act , andTit le VII. In h is pr o s e 3
co m pl ai nt , Tarm as all eg edth e fo ll owi ng sp eci fic act s o f di sc riminat io n and ret al ia ti on : (1 ) he was d en ie d l eav e o n M ay 10 , 20 05 ; (2 ) he was s ub jecte d t o st ric te r cal l-o utrequi rem en ts th anot he r em pl oyees o n M ay

12 , 20 04 an d Au gu st 10 , 20 05 ; (3 ) he was d en ie d l eav e o n Au gu st15 an d 1 6, 2 00 5; (4) he rece iv eda le tt er o f cau ti on on Aug us t 1 8, 2 00 5; (5) he rece iv edanem ai l ci ti ng hi m for po or job pe rfo rm an ce o n S ep te m be r 2, 2 00 5, af

te r he fil edanin fo rm al di sc riminat io n
co m pl ai nt ; (6 ) he was d en ie d t ran sf ers in Ju ne , Aug us t, an d Oct ob er 2 00 4 a ndin Feb ru ary 20 05 ; an d (7 ) he was d en ie d re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns in Ju ly 200 4. The di stric t co urt g ran te d the Secr et ary’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Fi rs t, the co urt fo un d t ha t t he on ly clai m s o f di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n p ro pe rly be fo re i t wer e th e le av e reque st s fo r Aug us t 1 0, 1 5, an d 1 6, 2 00 5, an d t he let te r of
cau ti onbe cau se th e o th er cl ai m s fe ll ou ts id e th e 4 5- da y win do w andeach ev en t
was a di sc ret e actan d n otpart o f a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n. In reac hi ng th is
co nc lu si on , th e co urt re

jecte d Tarm as ’s cla im

th athe was u na ware t he co nduc t
was di sc riminat ory

un ti l Au gu st20 05 . On th e m eri ts , th e co urt fo un d t ha t Tarm as

Tarma s initially included ag e discrimination claims, but withdrew those claims early in the 3 litigation. 7co ul d n otsh ow a p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n b ecau se , eve n a ss um in g h e

was di sabl edan d was ot he rwis e qua li fie d, h e h adsu ffer edno adve rs e em pl oym en t act io n. Th e co urt t he n fo un d t ha t t he re was no cla im for reas on ab le
acco m m od at io n p en di ng be cau se th e Ju ly 200 4 re qu es t was ti m e-b arre d a ndth e Octo be r 20 05 reque stwas n otin cl ud edin th e co m pl ai nt . Fin al ly, th e co urt
co ns id eredTarm as ’s ret al ia ti on cla im an d fo un d t ha t the job pe rfo rm an ce l et te r in Sep te m be r 20 05 was n otanadve rs e act io n. Tarm as no w app eal s. 4 II. St an da rdof R ev ie w
The parties eng ag ed in a leng thy and contentious discovery period, during whi ch Tarma s 4 soug ht to compel the Secre t ary to complete discovery beca use Tarma s disputed 36 of the 71 response s. The mag istrate judge g rante d the Secre tary ’s motion to strike beca use the motion failed to comply with the local rules and Tarma s had failed to consult with opposing counsel in g ood faith prior to filing the motion. Tarma s filed additional 90-pag e motions to comp el d i s covery . The mag istrate judge revie wed the disputed interrog atories and g rante d, rele vant to this appea l, Tarma s’s reque st for resumes of those hir ed for the positions Tarma s soug ht. There afte r, Tarma s filed a motion to hold the Secre tary in contempt for failing to comply with the motion to compel. The mag istrate judge declined to hol d t h e S ecretar y in contempt but did order compliance with the motion to compel. After the Secre tary ag ain failed to respond to Tarma s’s satisfac tion, Tarma s filed another motion for contempt for f ailure to c omply

with the court’s order
. The Secre tary moved to compel Tarma s to submit to an independe nt medical examination. Tarma s opposed the motion and moved in limine to exclude the Secre tary ’s medical expert. Tamra s appea led each ru l i n g to the district court. At a subsequent status hearing, the court admonished both parties t o end needle ss filings and urg ed them to g et t o the m erits of the case. The c ourt order ed the Secre tary to comply with the pending discovery order s and denied Tarma s’s motions seeking discovery of bonuses g iven to supervisors b ec au se the supervisors wer e not rele vant compar ators. The court also denied Tarma s’s appea l of the denial in part of the m o t i o n t o compel, and the denial of the motion for contempt, but kept the sanctions issue open. The court also inst ru ct ed Tarma s to underg o an independe nt medical examination. Stil l dissatisfied with the Secre tary ’s discovery res p o n s e , T a r mas filed another motion to compel and motions for sanctions, citing discovery violations and spoilation of evidenc e. The court denied the motion t o compel and later denied the motion for sanctions. Tarma s now appea ls the district court’s discovery ruling s. After a thorough revie w of the rec ord, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre tion and aff irm without further discussion. 8W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g a ll of t he fact s i n t he reco rdin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g pa rty. Bro ok

s v. C nt y. Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C nt y., Ala

. , 44 6 F .3d11 60 , 11 61 -6 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ Su m

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when ‘ th ere i s n o g en ui ne is su e as to an y

m at eri al factan d . . . th e m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a
m at te r of law.’” W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 85 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ) (quo ti ng Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (c)) . “ A gen ui ne factua l d is pu te ex is ts if t he jury
co ul d re tu rna ve rd ic t fo r th e n on -m ov in g p art y .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d)
. III. Di sc us si on A. Tim el in es s o f Tarm as ’s cla im s Tarm as arg ue s t ha t al l o f hi s cl ai m s wer e ti m el y un de r th e Lil ly L edbe tt er Fai r Pay A ctof 2 00 9 b ecau se he was d en ie d wag es an d c om pe ns at io n i n t he form of accrue d l eav e, an d t he de ni al s co nt in ue d o n ada il y ba si s u nt il he fil edhi s EEOC com

pl ai nt . Alth ou gh he co nc ed es th athe di d n otrai se th is is su e b el ow, h e
as se rts th atth e co urt m ay co ns id er i t b ecau se itrai se s a q ue st io n o f law. The Reh ab il it at io n Actpro hi bi ts fed eral ag en ci es fro m di sc riminat in g i n
em pl oym en t ag ai ns t i nd iv idua ls wit h d is ab il it ie s. Mul li ns v. Cr ow el l , 22 8 F .3d 13 05 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e a ls o 29 U.S.C. § 7 94 (a); 42
9U.S.C. § 1 98 1a (a)( 2) . A pla in ti ff as se rti ng a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n u nd er the

Reh ab il it at io n Actm

us t s at is fy

th e ex haus ti on of a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s requi rem en t i n t he m an ne r pr es cri be d b y Tit le VII. 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-5 , 20 00 e-1 6; 29 U.S.C. § 7 94 a; Doe v. Gar re tt , 90 3 F .2d14 55 , 14 59 -6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 90 ). Und er the se reg ul at io ns , th e em pl oyee “ m

us t i ni ti at e co nt actwit h a Co un se lo r wit hi n 4 5 d ay s o f th e d at e o f th e m at te r al le ge d t o b e d is cri m in at ory or, in th e cas e o f pe rs on ne l ac ti on , withi n 4 5 d ay s o f th e eff ect iv e d at e o f th e act io n.” 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .10 5( a)(1 ). “ Gen eral ly, whe n t he cla im an t d oe s n otin it ia te
co nt actwit hi n t he 45 -d ay ch arg in g p eri od , th e cl ai m is barredforfai lu re t o
ex haus t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s.” Sh iv er v. Ch er to ff , 54 9 F .3d13 42 , 13 44 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). If th e em

pl oyee sh ows th athe was n otno ti fie d o r ot he rwis e aware of th e ti m e li m it s, t he n h e m ay see k a n e xt en si on of the 45 -d ay pe rio d. 2 9 C .F.R. § 1 61 4.1 05 (a)( 2) . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth at“ fil in g ati m el y ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n wi th th e EEOC is no t a ju ris di ct io na l p rere qu is it e to su itin fed eral
co urt, b uta pr erequi si te th at , li ke a st atut e o f li m it at io ns , is subjec t t o wai ve r,
es to pp el , andequi tabl e to ll in g.” Zi pe s v. Tr an s Wor ld

Air li ne s, In c. , 45 5 U.S. 5
To the extent that Tarma s claims he is entitled to equitable tolling beca use he was unawa

re 5 of the discrimination until August 2005, that claim fails. Tarma s had been experiencing difficulties with the call-out require ments and reque sts for acc ommodations as early as 2003. Be gi n n i n g i n 2003, Tarma s routinely challeng ed his superv i s o r’s decisions reg arding his leave , his reque sted t ra n s fer s, and his reque sted flexibl e schedule
. He cannot now claim that he was unawa re that he might have a cla im for discrimination. 1038 5, 3 93 (19 82 ).

Here, Tarm as fir stco nt act edanEEOC cou ns el oronAug us t 1 5, 2 00 5. Thu s, an y em pl oym en t ac ti onth atoc cu rredm or e th an45 da y s p rio r to Aug us t 1 5, 20 05 is un ti m el y . To ci rcu m ve ntth is 45 -d ay

requi rem en t, Tarm as all eg es th atth e di sc riminat ory

act s wer e o ng oi ng vi ol at io ns . Butth is cla im fai ls ; the act s o f whi ch Tarm as co m

pl ai ns were al l s in gl e an d d is cret e act s an d d idno t co ns ti tu te
co nt in ui ng vi ol at io ns . Dav is v. Co ca -Co la Bot tl in g C o. , 51 6 F .3d95 5, 9 70 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Inan ot he r effo rt t o c irc umve ntth e ex haus ti on ti m e p eri od , Tarm as arg ue s th athi s cl ai m s wer e ti m el y un de r th e Lil ly L edbe tt er Fa ir P ay Act o f 20 09 (th e Act) , Pub . L. 111 -2 , 12 3 S ta t 5 (2 00 9) . The Actwas i nt en de d t o “ cl ari fy th ata di sc riminat ory

co m pe ns at io n d eci si on or o th er p ract ic e th atis un la wfu l u nd er s uc h Acts oc cu rs each ti m e co m pe ns at io n i s p ai d p ur su an t t o t he di sc riminat ory
co m pe ns at io n d eci si on or o th er p ract ic e, an d fo r othe r pu rp os es .” Pub. L. 11 1- 2, 12 3 S ta t. 5 (20 09 ). The Actwas adi rectres po ns e to th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Led be tt er v. Goo dy ea r Ti re &Rub be r C o. , 55 0 U.S. 6 18 (20 07 ), whi ch im po se d
a m or e res tri ct iv e in te rp ret at io n o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r ch al le ng in g di sc riminat io n i n p ay . “ The Act am en ds [th e Reh ab il it at io n Act ] by pro vi di ng th at th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns for fil in g a n EEOC ch arg e al le gi ng pa y di sc riminat io n 11res et s wi th each pa y ch eckaffe ct edby a dis cri m in at ory de ci si on .” Gro es ch v. Cit y of Sp ri ng fi eld, Il l. , 63 5 F .3d10 20 , 10 24 (7t h C ir. 2 01 1) . Und er the Act, an

“ un la wfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic e” o ccu rs in th e fo ll owi ng si tu at io ns : (1 ) “ whe n a di sc riminat ory

co m pe ns at io n d eci si on or o th er p ract ic e is ad op te d,” (2) “ whe n a n in di vi du al be co m es subjec t t o adi sc riminat ory co m pe ns at io n d eci si on or o th er pr act ic e,” an d (3 ) “ whe n a n i nd iv idua l i s af fect edby app li cat io n o f a di sc riminat ory

co m pe ns at io n d eci si on or o th er p ract ic e, in cl ud in g e ach ti m e wag es , ben efi ts , or o th er co m pe ns at io n i s p ai d, re su lt in g i n wh ol e o r in pa rt f ro m
su ch a de ci si onor o th er p ract ic e.” Id

. at 1 02 4- 25 (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e –5 (e)( 3) (A)). The Act d idno t, h owe ve r, al te r th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r di sc ret e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s. Se e No el v. Th e Boe in g C

o. , 62 2 F .3d26 6, 2 71 (3d Ci r. 20 10 ). Alt ho ug h t hi s co urt h as y etto ad dr es s the is su e, we co nc lu de th atwe ne ed
no t d o s o h ere b ecau se Tarm as fai le d t o ra is e th e is su e o f di sc riminat io n i n p ay be fo re the di st ric t co urt. A rev ie w of Tarm as ’s com pl ai ntsh ows th athe all eg ed th ateach de ni al of l eav e ti m e an d e ach refu sa l t o t ran sf er h im was an u nl awfu l
em pl oym en t ac ti on un de r th e Reh ab il it at io n Act ; h e d idno t ar gu e th ateach de ni al im pa ct edhi s co m

pe ns at io n o r be ne fit s. Se e, e.g . Noe l , 62 2 F .3dat 2 72 -7 3 (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e Actdo es no t ap pl y to fai lu re-t o- pr om ot e cl ai m s) . There fo re, 12be cau se Tarm as rai se s t hi s ar gu m en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we dec li ne to

ad dr es s i t. Acco rd in gl y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atan y

6 act io ns ou ts id e th e 4 5- da y win do w were u nt im el y . B. Dis cri m in at io n C la im s Whe n, as he re, s umm ary jud gm en t i s g ran te d b as edon cir cu m st an ti al
ev id en ce, we an al y ze the cas e u si ng th e sh ift in g fr am ewo rksetou t i n McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp . v. Gree n , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 (19 73 ); se e W ri gh t v. S ou th la nd Co rp . , 18 7 F.3 d 1 28 7, 1 30 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (ho ld in g t ha t the McDo nn el l Do ug la s an al yti c fram ewo rk

ap pl ie s t o re ta li at io n c la im s)
. Und er thi s an al y si s, the pl ai nt iff be ars 7 th e in it ia l b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng a pr im a fac ie cas e. Pen ni ng to n v . Cit y o f Hun ts vi ll e , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Once a pl ai nt iff ha s es tabl is he d a p rima facie cas e, th e em pl oyer th enha s an op po rtu ni ty to arti cu la te a le gi ti m at e,
We note that other circ uits to addre ss the issue have not applied Tarma s’s interpre tation. 6 See Noel , 622 F.3d at 273, n.6 (holding that the Ac t was designed to addre ss discrimination in compensation but not other ty pes of employ

ment discrimination); s ee a l s o Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP , 595 F.3d 370, 375 ( D.C. Cir. 2010); Galera v. Johanns , 612 F.3d 8, 12 n.8 (1st Cir. 2010) (discussing the timeliness of discrete act s o f d i s cr imination such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfe r, and ref usal to hire). Notably , the Eleventh Circuit has al s o d ef

ined “discrimination in compensation” in the same manner as the D.C. Circuit, MacPhe rson v. Univ. of Montev al l o , 9 2 2 F. 2 d 766, 774 (11th Cir. 1991), implying that the Act would not apply

to Tarmas’ s claims. We apply the same standards under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Title VI I and uses 7 the same fra

mework to analy

ze these claims as it does for a claim under Title VI I
. Ellis v. England , 432 F.3d 1321, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005); Sutton v. Lader , 185 F.3d 1203, 1207 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999). T h u s, case s involving the ADA are prece dent for those involving the Rehabilitation Act. Cash v. Smith , 231 F.3d 1301, 1305 ( 11th Cir. 2000); see also 29 U.S.C. § 794(d). 13no n- ret al ia to ry reas on for

th e ch al le ng edem

pl oym en t ac ti on . Id

. If th e em

pl oyer pr of fers su ch anex pl an at io n, t he bu rd ensh ift s b ackto th e p la in ti ff t o p ro ve by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t t he de fen da nt ’s exp la na ti onis m erel y a pr et ex t. Id

. A clai m an t ca nn otest ab li sh pre te xtby sim pl y de m on st rat in g fa ct s t ha t s ug ge st di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on , bu t m us t s pe ci fic al ly resp on d t o e ach of t he
em pl oyer’s exp la na ti on s an d re bu t t he m . Cr aw fo rd v. Cit y o f Fa ir bu rn , Ga. , 48 2 F.3 d 1 30 5, 1 30 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . A reaso n i s n otpre te xtua l u nl es s i t i s s ho wn bo th th atth e rea so n was fal se , andth atdi sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on was t he real
reas on . Bro ok

s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 3. If “ th e p ro ffer edreas onis on e th atm ig ht
m ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, an e m

pl oyee m us t m eetth atreas on he adon an d reb utit , andth e em

pl oyee can no t s uc ceedby sim pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of th atreas on ,” or

sh owi ng th atth e d eci si on was b as edon erro ne ou s fa ct s. Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns

po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 30 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ). “ To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the [Reh ab il it at io n] Act, an in di vi du al m

us t s ho w th at(1) he ha s a d is ab il it y ; (2 ) he is ot he rwis e qu al ifi edforth e p os it io n; an d (3 ) he was s ub jecte d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n a s th e res ul t o f hi s d is ab il it y .” Su tt on v. La de r , 18 5 F .3d12 03 , 12 07 -0 8 (1 1t h C ir. 19 99 ). To es tabl is h t he th irdele m en t, an in di vi du al m us t s ho w th athe ha s
su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on be cau se of h is di sabi li ty. Doe v. Deka lb

14Cn ty . Sch . Dis t. , 14 5 F .3d14 41 , 14 45 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). It i s n oten ou gh for a pl ai nt iff to de m on st rat e th atanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on was b as edpa rtl y on hi s di sabi li ty. Se e McNe lyv. Ocal a Sta r- Ban ne r C or p. , 99 F.3d10 68 , 10 74 (11 th Cir
. 19 96 ). Rat he r, un de r th e Reh ab il it at io n Act , a pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve th athe
su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on “ so le ly by reas on of” hi s h an di cap . 29 U.S.C. § 7 94 (a). Anadve rs e act io n i s o ne th atcau se s a “ se rio us an d m at eri al ch an ge in th e te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t,” a ndis vi ewedfro m whe th er a re as on ab le em

pl oyee wou ldfin d the act io n t o c on st itut e a s eri ou s an d
m at eri al ch an ge . Dav is v. To wn of La ke Pa rk , 24 5 F .3d12 32 , 12 38 –3 9 (1 1th C ir. 20 01 ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atTarm as ha d n otsh own di sc riminat io n i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e cal l-o utrequi rem en t o n Au gu st10 , 20 05 , th e de ni al of l eav e o f Aug us t 1 5 and16 , 20 05 , andth e le tt er o f cau ti on . Even 8
as su m in g t ha t Tarm as ha s a d is ab il it y , th e ev en ts of wh ic h Tarm as co m pl ai ns 9
We may aff

irm on any g rounds supported by the rec ord, even if those g rounds differ from 8 those g iven by the district court. CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City , 3 2 5 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 2003). Under the ADA, a person is disabled if, inter alia , he suffe rs from a phy sical or mental 9 impairment that substantially limit s a major life activity
. 29 U.S.C
. § 705(9)( B) ; Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees , 507 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). The statute does not define major life activity , but the EEOC reg ulations list tasks such as walking , talking, seeing , hearing, speaking , breathing, lear ning, and wo rk i n g. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). In 2009, Congr ess passed amendments to the ADA, known as t h e AD AA A, which expanded cover ag e. 42 U.S.C. § 12102. Although Tarma s urg es this court to apply the ADAAA ’s definition of disability , this court 15were n otadve rs e act io ns or we re n otba se d o n h is di sabi li ty. The re co rdsh ows

th atth e Sec ret ary ga ve Tarm as li be ral lea ve to acco m m od at e h is m ed ic al
co nd it io n, b utth atTarm as was d is sa ti sf ie d wi th th e sc he du le im

po se d. Tarm as ’s
supe rv is or s ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he de ci si on to di sc us s l eav e ti m e with Tarm as an d t he ba si s fo r th ei r co nc ern th athe was abu si ng lea ve was re la te d t o t he in ab il it y of t he de pa rtment t o s ch edul e m eet in gs be cau se th ere was no cert ai nt y as t o wh en Tarm as wou ldbe at wo rk . Thu s, t he de ci si on to sh iftTarm as ba ckto a de fin it e
work s ch edul e, whe n v ie wedfro m th e rea so nabl e em

pl oyee pe rs pe ct iv e, was no t a
se rio us an d m at eri al ch an ge to Tarm as ’s work in g c on di ti on s. As t o t he let te r of

cau ti on , th e Nav y ’s own ha ndbo okin di cat es th ata le tt er of cau ti on is no n- di sc ip li na ry . Andth e le tt er Tarm as rece iv edex pl ic it ly stat ed th atitwas n on -d is ci pl in ary an d wo ul d n otbe co ns id eredinan y futur e d is ci pl in ary act io ns . Tarm as di d n otex pe rie nc e an y ch an ge s i n t he term s o r co nd it io ns of h is
em pl oym en t as a res ul t o f th is let te r. In l ig htof t hi s, i t cann otbe sai d t ha t t he le tt er was anadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . B. Ret al ia ti on To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , a pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow t ha t:

has never held that the ADAAA is retroa ctively applicable
. Other circ uits have conclude d that the amendments are not retroa ctively applicable
. See Kemp v. Holder , 6 13 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010); Bec erril v. Pima Cnty. Assessor’s Office , 587 F.3d 1162 ( 9th Cir. 2009). 16(1 ) he en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edex pr es si on ; (2 ) he su ffer eda m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th ere was so m e cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n th e two ev en ts . Golds mith v . Bag by Elev at or Co

. , 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). Ther e is no di sp ut e th atth e fi li ng of acla im wit h t he EEOC is a

“ st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv ity .” Se e id

. Reg ard in g a n a dv ers e act io n, a “ pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th ata reas on ab le
em pl oyee wou ldha ve fou ndth e ch al le ng edact io n m at eri al ly adv ers e.” Bur li ng to n N. an d S an ta Fe Ry. Co. v. Whit e , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 8 (2 00 6) . The ac ts m us t b e
m at eri al an d s ig ni fic an t an d n ottri vi al
. Id. at 6 8. In ad di ti on , a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n i s o ne th at“ well m ig htha ve di ss ua de d areas on ab le work er fro m m ak in g o r
supp orti ng a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n.” Id

. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Furthe r, “ th e 1 0 si gn ifi can ce o f an y

gi ve n a ctof r et al ia ti on wil l o fte n d ep en d upo n t he pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces . Con te xtm at te rs .” Id

. at 6 9. To s ho w a cau sa l re la ti on sh ip , Tarm as m us t s ho w th atth e d eci si on -m ak er
was aware o f th e p ro te ct edact iv it y , andth atth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n wer e n otwho ll y

un rel at ed
. Gup ta v. Fla . Bd. of Rege nt s , 21 2 F .3d57 1, 5 87 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)
.

The term adver se action is broade r in the reta liation context than in t h e ra ci al 1 0 discrimination context. Crawf ord v. Carroll , 529 F.3d 9 6 1 , 9 73–74 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Burlington N

. &Santa Fe Ry. Co. 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006)). 17Here, we co nc lu de th atTarm as fai le d t o s at is fy th e p rima facie cas e. Tarm as ha s n otsh own th atth e em ai l ci ti ng po or job pe rfo rm an ce was a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e act io n. Re cei vi ng th is em ai l d idno t d is su ad e Tarm as fro m fil in g a nd pu rs ui ng hi s d is cri m in at io n c om pl ai nt . Mor eo ve r, co ns id eri ng th e le tt er i n
co nt ex t, the re was no th in g re ta li at ory ab ou t a s up erv is orno ti fy in g a n e m pl oyee of pr ob le m s wi th hi s wo rk . In an y ev en t, af te r he rece iv edth e le tt er, Tarm as als o
rece iv edanacce pt ab le pe rfo rm an ce re vi ew, an d h e h as si nc e rec ei ve d s ev eral cas h bo nu se s. Add it io na ll y , Tarm as can no t es tabl is h acau sa l co nn ect io n. Al th ou gh th e ge ne ral rul e is th atclo se tem po ral pro xi m ity

be twee n the pro te ct edact iv it y an d t he ad ve rs e act io n i s s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh th e cau sa l co nn ect io n, Bru ng ar t v. Bell So uth T el eco mms., In c. , 23 1 F .3d79 1, 7 99 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ), Tarm as st il l m us t sh ow t ha t t he de ci si on -m ak er was aware o f hi s p ro te ct edact iv ity . Here, th ere was
no ev id en ce t ha t Wojtyla kn ew of Tarm as ’s EEOC com

pl ai ntwhen he sen t t he Sep te m be r em ai l. Thu s, al th ou gh Tarm as rece iv edth e em ai l o nl y ab ou t t wo week s af te r he sp ok e wit h t he EEOC, the re i s n o e vi de nc e inth e rec or d t ha t W ojty lakn ew of

th e co m pl ai nt . 1 1

It appea rs from the re co rd t hat the EEOC counselor did not contac t Wojt yla until 1 1 September 13. 18IV. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

19