### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 05- 13317 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 2 3 1 9 2 - C V - WMH E L V I R A G A M B O A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A M E R I C A N A I R L I N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 14, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E l vi r aG a m boa , af

e m a l e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng A m e r ic a n A ir lin e s ( “A m e r ic a n ” ) s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n G a m b o a ’s d is p a r a te tr e a tm e ntc l a i m unde rthe F l or i daC i vi l R i ght s A c t( “ F C R A ” ) , F l a . S t a t . § 760. 10, etse q. G am bo a’ s s ec on d am ended com pl ai ntal l eged she s uffe re d sex di s c r i m i na t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of the F C R A , be c aus e , f

ol l ow i ng a n a l t e r c a t i on be tw e e n he ra nd am a l e e m pl oy e e , A m e r i c a n t e rm i na t e d he r , butdi d notdi s c i pl i ne h im . G a m b o aa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in f in d in g th a t: ( 1 ) s h e f

a ile d to es t abl i sh a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di spar at e tre atm ent ; and (2) A m er i can’ s proff er ed re as on for t erm i nat i ng her, and n otthe m al e e m pl oyee , w as no ta pre t extfor s ex d is c r im in a tio n . A s aprel i m i narym att er , G am bo a c on ce ded i n the di stri ctcourtthather f e d e r a l T itle V I I c la im w a s u n tim e ly , a n d it is w o rth n o tin g th a t w e h a v e d iv e r s ity j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rthe F C R A c l a i m , a s i ti s undi s put e d tha tthe pa rt i e s a r e c i t i z e ns o f d if f e r e n t s ta te s a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e te rm in e d th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s yto exce ed $7 5, 00 0, w i th n o further obj ec t i on fr om G am bo a. 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(a) (1), ( c ) ( 1 ) ; s e e a ls o S ie rm in s k i v . T r a n s o u th F in a n c ia l C o rp ., 2 1 6 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ho l di ng that , i n the re m ov al cont ext , di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on si dere d the j uri sdi ct i on al am ou ntt o h ave been m etw hen adequ at e r ec ord evi dence sugg es t ed so, and “ pl ai nt i ff [di d n ot ] deny the dam ages exce eded the j uri sdi ct i on al3

am ou ntw hen g i ven the op po rtun i ty. ”) . A dd i t i on al l y, w e have re cogn i ze d that , as he r e , w he r e a n e m pl oy e e r e c e i ve s a“ r i ghtt o s ue ” l e tt e rf r om the F C H R , the e m p lo y e e m a yp u r s u e ac iv il s u it b a s e d o n th e F C R A in f e d e r a l c o u rt if

d iv e r s ity j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t s . W e bb v. W or l dw i de F l i ghtS e rvi c e , I nc . , 407 F . 3d 1192, 1194 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t i ng S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da prece dent ). W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e ntde novo. D ur l e y v. A P A C , Inc. , 23 6 F . 3d 65 1, 65 5 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). T he party s ee ki ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t th e r e is n o d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t. M ul l i ns v. C r ow e l l , 228 F . 3d 1305, 1313 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . B a s e d on the r e a s ons s ta te d b e lo w , it is u n n e c e s s a ryto d e te rm in e w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in gi vi ng de f

e r e nc e t o the a rbi tr a t i on de c i s i on be c aus e , i rr e s pe c t i ve of the a m ountof w e i ghtthe di s tr i c tc ourtga ve the a rbi tr a t i on de c i s i on, G a m boaha s f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt an y ev i d en ce t en d i n g t o sh o w th atA m eri can ’ s reaso n fo r su sp en d i n g h er i s a p r e te x t f o rs e x d is c r im in a tio n . T i t l e V I I a nd the F C R A both pr ohi bi te m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on on the basi s of anu m ber of c hara ct er i st i cs , i ncl ud i ng se x. 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2(a) (1); F l a. S t a t . 760. 10( 1) ( a ) . C l a i m s unde rT i t l e V I I a nd the F C R A a r e a na l y z e d unde rthe s a m e bur de n- s hi f

t i ng f r a m e w ork. H a rpe rv. B l oc kbus t e rE nt e rt a i nm e ntC orp. , 139 F . 3d 13 85 , 13 87 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( no t i ng thatF l ori da court s have hel d that4

de c i s i ons c ons trui ng T i t l e V I I a r e appl i c abl e t o c l a i m s unde rthe F C R A be c aus e the F C R A w a s m o d e le d o n T itle V I I ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ; c f . S in c la irv . D e J a yC o rp ., 1 7 0 F. 3 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( i n t e rp r e t i n g th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f th e FCRA i n apot e nt i a l l ydi f

f e r e ntm a nne rtha n T i t l e V I I i n the l i m i t e d c ont e xtof de f i ni ng the m e a ni ng of

as t a tut orye m pl oy e r ) . B e c aus e the s a m e pr i m af a c i e c a s e a nd b u rd en -sh i ft i n g m ech an i sm s ap p l y t o T i t l e V II an d F C R A d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s, de c i s i ons c ons trui ng T i t l e V I I a r e appl i c abl e t o G a m boa ’ s c l a i m s . S e e H a rpe r , 139 F . 3d a t1387. W e use the bu rden-s hi ft i ng fr am ew ork setforth i n M cD on nel l D ou gl as C orp. v. G re en, 41 1 U . S . 79 2, 93 S . C t . 18 17 , 36 L . E d. 2d 66 8 (19 73 ), and T exas D e p’ tof C m ty . A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 101 S . C t . 1089, 67 L . E d. 2d 207 ( 1981) , t o e va l ua t e c l a i m s ba s e d on c i r c um s t a nt i a l , r a the rtha n di r e c t , e vi de nc e of d is c r im in a tio n . C h ap m a n v . A I T r a n s p o rt, 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e of

di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntunde rT i t l e V I I orthe F C R A , th e em p l o yee m u stp ro v e th at : “ (1 ) sh e i s a m em b er o f a p ro t ect ed cl ass; (2) s he w as subj ec t ed t o adv er se em pl oym entac t i on ; (3) herem pl oyertre at ed s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d m a l e e m pl oy e e s m or e f avor abl y ; a nd ( 4) s he w a s qua l i f i e d t o do the j ob. ” M a ni c c i av. B r ow n, 171 F . 3d 1364, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T he part i es on l y di sput e the thi rd fa ct or, w hether A m er i can tre at ed5

Il d efo n so – an al l eg ed l y si m i l arl y-si tu at ed em p l o yee– m o re fav o rab l y. O n c e th e p la in tif

f h a s e s tab lis h e d ap r im af a c ie c a s e o f

d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t, the bu rden then shi ft s t o the em pl oyert o st at e al egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r e a s on f orthe e m pl oy e e ’ s di s c i pl i ne . S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s , 411 U . S . a t802- 03, 9 3 S .C t. a t 1 8 2 4 - 2 5 . I f

th e e m p lo y e rs u c c e s s f

u llyd o e s s o , th e b u r d e n s h if ts b a c kto the pl a i nt i f

f t o s how tha tthe r e a s on of f e r e d bythe e m pl oy e rw a s apr e t e xtf or d iscr im in atio n . Id . at 8 0 4 , 9 3 S .C t. at 1 8 2 5 . In d eter m in in g w h eth eran em p lo ye r’s s ta te d r e a s o n f

o rte rm in a tio n is p r e te x t f o rd is c r im in a tio n , w e h a v e h e ld th a t a pl a i nt i f f c a n s t i l l pr ove s e x di s c r i m i na t i on by s how i ng tha tam a l e e m pl oy e e w i th a si m i l ar em p l o ym en th i st o ry as th e p l ai n t i ff w as n o tsu b j ectt o th e sam e ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on , even w hen an em pl oyerhas gi ven g oo d rea sons–the fa ctual base s of w hi ch ar e unrebutt ed by the pl ai nt i ff –for t erm i nat i ng the pl ai nt i ff . S ee R oj a s v. F l or i da , 285 F . 3d 1339, 1343- 44 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve al w ay s r em ai ned care ful no tt o “ se cond -guess a busi ness deci si on m ade by” an e m pl oy e r . I d. a t1344. I nde e d, our“ s ol e c onc e rn i s w he the runl a w f ul di s c r i m i na t orya ni m us m ot i va t e [ d] ac ha l l e nge d e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. ” D a m on v. F l e m i ng S upe rm a rke t s of F l or i da , I nc . , 196 F . 3d 1354, 1361 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A n e m pl oy e rw ho f i r e s a n e m pl oy e e unde rthe m i s t a ke n but hone s ti m pr e s s i on tha tthe e m pl oy e e vi ol a t e d aw ork rul e i s notl i abl e f or6

d is c r im in a to ryc o n d u c t.” I d . a t 1 3 6 3 n .3 . U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd c ons i de r a t i on both pa rt i e s ’ br i e f s , w e f i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. P re t erm i tt i ng w hether or notG am bo a e st abl i shed a pri m a f ac i e c as e, s um m a ryj udgm e ntw a s pr ope r . T he unc ontr a di c t e d e vi de nc e i s tha tG a m boa struck Il defonso, l ea vi ng a r ed m ark o n h i s f ac e, af t erthei r verbal exchange. T here is n o e v id e n c e th a t I ld e f o n s o h a d a n yp h y s ic a l c o n ta c t w ith G a m b o a . I n d e e d , it is u n d is p u te d th a t a n e y e w itn e s s to ld a n A m e r ic a n m a n a g e rth a t G a m b o ah a d h it I l de f ons o w i th a n ope n ha nd. A ddi t i ona l l y , G a m boadoe s notde nyha vi ng m a de p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t w ith I ld e f o n s o , b u t c la im s th a t h e ra c tio n w a s in s e lf - d e f e n s e . F urtherm ore, G am bo a off er s no evi dence thatA m er i can p osse ss ed di sc ri m i nat ory ani m us t ow ar ds i t s f

em al e e m pl oyee s. S ee D am on , 19 6 F . 3d at13 61 . A m er i can c l e a r l yt e rm i na t e d G a m boaunde rthe hone s t , a nd l i ke l yc orr e c t , be l i e f tha tG a m boa h it I ld e f o n s o . S e e id . a t 1 3 6 3 n .3 . F in d in g th a t A m e r ic a n ’s d e c is io n to te rm in a te G am b o a b ecau se sh e m ad e p h ysi cal co n t actw i th Il d efo n so , w h ere Il d efo n so i nd i sput abl y di d n otm ake c on t ac tw i th h er , w ou l d requi re us t o sec on d-gu es s an em pl oyer ’ s busi ness deci si on abse ntany proof of di sc ri m i nat ory ani m us. S ee R oj as , 28 5 F . 3d at13 44 . T hu s, G am bo a has fa i l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence that A m er i can’ s proff

er ed re as on for s uspend i ng and u l t i m at el y t erm i nat i ng her7

e mp l o y me n tw a s ap r e t e x tf o rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n . Se e M c D o n n e l l D o u g l a s , 4 1 1 U . S. a t 8 0 4 , 9 3 S .C t. a t 1 8 2 5 . F or the re as on s abo ve, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g rant i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t to A m e r ic a n . AF F I RME D.