FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1127 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 61 42 0 C V-PAS ROBERT DRAGO, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us KEN JENN E, Sherif

f of Br owar d County , F lorida, BROWARD COUNTYSHERIFF’S OFFIC E, D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1486 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 61 42 0 C V-PAS ROBERT DRAGO, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us KEN JENN E, Sherif

f of Br owar d County , F lorida, BROWARD COUNTYSHERIFF’S OFFIC E, D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 27, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. COX , C ircuit Judg e: Ro be rt D ra go ap pe al s the dis tr ic t co urt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t to the Br ow ar d C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e an d S heri ff Ke n Je nne ( co lle ct ive ly , BS O ) on D ra go’ s c la im s un de r the F am ily a nd M ed ic al L eave A ct (F ML A ), 29 U
. S. C. § 26 01 et se q. , the A ge D isc ri m ina tio n in E m plo ym en t A ct (A D E A ), 29 U
. S. C. § 62 1 et se q. , an d th e Fl or ida

Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

( FC RA ), F la
. S ta t. §§ 7 60. 01- 760. 11. D ra go a lso ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 59( e) m oti on t o a l t e r o r a me n dt h e j u d g me n t . We a f f i rm. I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND & PROCEDURAL HIS TORY Be gin nin g inJul y 2000 , D ra go w as a ca pta in in BS O , a ssi gne d to D istri ct 11, A re a 1. I n th at posi tio n, D ra go s upe rv ise d ov er one hun dr ed

a nd tw en ty

pe opl e an d
wa s ac co untable to h is sup eriors for Ar ea 1’ s operational perform ance. H e w as
re spon sib le f

or m ak ing pe ri odi c pr es en ta tio ns t o th os e su pe ri or s a s part of the Po w er tr ac Rat in g Sy ste m . I n A ugus t 20 00, a ft er his f ir st P ow er

tr ac pr es en ta tio n,3

Dr ag o ’s s up er i o rs ex p re s s ed co n ce rn s ab o u tt h e p re s en t at i o n an d h i s d i s t ri ct ’s pe rf orm an ce . A ft er

D ra go’ s P ow er

tr ac pr es en ta tio n inJanuary 200 1, on e supe ri or
co m m en te d th at

D ra go “ w as not

a s f am ili ar a s he sho uld

be w ithinv es tig at ion s” a nd
recom m ended “ m ore prepar ation and organi zation.” ( R.2- 53, E x. 1 at 4. ) I n M a r c h 2 0 0 1 , M a

j o r R i c kF r e y

b e c a m e D r a g o ’ s d i r e c ts up e rv i s o r . S h o rt ly the re af te r, F re y f orm ed th e opi nio n th at

D ra go w as ins ubor din at e, dis ru pti ve to the
c o mma n d , a n du n d e rmi n e dF r e y’ s au t h o r i t y a s t h e d i s t r i c tc h i e f
. I n Ap r i l o f t h a ts a me y ear, F re y thr ea te ne d to de m ote D ra go for ins ubor din at ion an d “ fo r not know ing the
an sw er to [F re y ’ s] que sti ons in the m or nin g m ee tin gs an d [f

or D ra go’ s] ina

bil ity to
re spon d. ” ( R. 2- 55, E x. 6 a t 2. ) O n Ju ly 6, 20 01 , Fre y a dvi se d D ra go i n w ri tin g of Dr ago’ s perform ance defic iencies and advised Drago that he had five w eeks “ to effec t
som e drastic change. ” (R .2-56, Ex. 4.) Later that sum m er, other evaluators charac terized D ra g o’ s attitude du ring his Augus t 2001 Powe rtrac presentation as

“ arg um en ta ti ve ,” “ de fen si ve ,” “ co ck y ,” “ irr it at in g,” an d “ bo rd erl in e d is res pe ct fu l,” pa rti cu la rly when de fic ie nc ie s wer e b ro ug ht to hi s at te nt io n. (R .2-5 3, Ex . 2.) O n S ep te m

be r 18, 2001, D ra go g av e an oth er P ow er tr ac pr es en ta tio n, dur ing
w hic h he a ga in r ec ei ve d ne ga tiv e co m m en ts ab out his pe rf

orm an ce . L t. Co lon el Joh n G. Auer t ol d Dra go , “ You r di st ric t is su ccee di ng an d do in g ve ry well in sp it e o f y ou .” (R. 2- 5 5 at 3 3 -3 4.) Im

m ediately after the presentation, Fr ey

told Drago that they4

ne ed ed to m ee t abou t Dr ag o’ s per fo rm an ce de fi ci en ci es . Rathe r than m ee tin g w ith Fr ey , h owe ve r, D ra go w en t t o br eakf as t a lon e an d di d no t r et

ur n to the c om

m an d. Be ca use D ra go had not co m

m uni ca te d to an y one at his co m m an d that he w oul d no t be r ep ortin g to w or

k th at day a nd b ec au se no o ne w as able to re ac h hi m by te le phon e
o r pa g er , BSO s en t a p at ro l m an t o Dr ag o ’s h o m e, wh er e t h e p at ro l m an fo u n dDr ag o ’s BS O -i ssu ed

c ar in the dr ive w ay . A ft er br eakf as t, D ra go ha d re tur

ne d hom e to c ha nge hi s cl ot he s an d t he n h adatt en de d a n e m erg en cy ap po in tm en t wi th a ps y ch ol og is t. O n S ep te m

be r 19, 200 1, F re y

r ec om m en de d to his sup er ior , L t. Co lon el D an ny Wri ght , tha t D ra go b e de m ote d f or his r ep ea te d pe rf

orm an ce de fic ie nc ie s, f

or the pr obl em s no te d du ri ng h is P ow er tr ac pr es en ta tio n th e pr ev iou s day , a nd f or f ai lin g to m ee t w ithF re y

a s r eque ste d, ins te ad

dis ap pe ar ing f

ro m the c om m an d f oll ow ing the pr es en ta tio n. Fre y sta te d th at D ra go h ad

“ fa ile d to de m onstrate the ba sic le ad er shi p abilities required of a Ca

ptain within th e Br owar d Sheriff ’ s Of fice” and that he was im m ed ia te ly r el ie vin g D ra go o f his c om m an d and re pla ci ng him w itha nothe r ca pta in. (R. 2-56, E x. 9. ) L at er , on the sa m e da y , Wri ght w as suc ce ssf

ul i n co nt act ing D ra go b y t el ep h o n e. Wright inform ed Dr ago that W right and oth ers at B SO we re c oncerned be ca use the y ha d no t he ar d f

ro m D ra go s inc e he le ft

the P ow er

tr ac pr es en ta tio n th e prev iou s day . D ur ing tha t c onve rs at ion , D ra go s ai d th at he ne ed ed

ti m e of f fr om5

w ork and w as r eque sti ng l eave ; he di d no t i ndi ca te the a nti ci pa te d le ngth of his ab se nc e. A ft er his co nve rs at ion w ith Wri ght , D ra go re que ste d an FML A appl ic at ion fro m BSO’s Hum an Res ou rces de pa rtment. O n O ct obe r 3, 200 1, D ra go re tur ne d to w ork un an noun ce d. H e br ough t w ith him ac om ple te d F MLA ap pli ca tio n ( sig ne d by his tr ea tin g ps y ch olo gis t) but no Re tur n to W ork Auth or iz at ionf orm . Fr ey an d Wri ght m et w ithD ra go and t old D ra go that they we re upset with him

fo r leavin g the com

m and without no tify ing any one. They threatened to term inate him if he w ent out on leave again w ithou t notice. T hey also told him

that, to offic ially

return fr om

leave, he sh o u l d have a Re turn to W ork A uth or iz at ionf

orm sig ne d by

the psy ch olo gis t. Af ter obtaining th e psy ch olog ist’ s sign ature on the Return to W ork Authorization form , D rago returned to wor k on October 8, 2001
. That day , he wa s
re ins ta te d to the pos iti on h e he ld pr io r to his F ML A le av e, w ithno c ha nge in rank, pa y , or be ne fi ts. D ra go’ s r eque st f or F ML A le av e w as retro ac tiv el y appr ove d on Oc tober 11, 2001. Dr ago was paid for every day of the leave. On O ctober 8, 2001, the sam e d ay he officially returned to work, Dr ago filed
anint e r n a l c o m p l a i n t w i thB S O ’ s E qua l E m

plo ym en t O ppor

tun ity ( E E O ) de pa rtm en t,
on w hic h he c he ck ed

“ ag e dis cr im ina tio n” a nd “ haras sm en t” a s th e re as ons fo r the
co m pla int
. T he EEO co m

pl aint sta te d th at

F re y w as hos til e tow ar d D ra go and6

dem eaned him , but it did not include any expla n at i o n o f why

Dr ago believed that tre at m en t was rel at edto Drag o’s ag e o r ho w BSO ha d i nt erfe redwit h Dra go ’s FMLA ri ght s. I n No ve m

be r 2001 , E E O c onc lud ed tha t D ra go’ s c om

pla int w as not
m er ito ri ous. By D ra go’ s ow n a cc ount , af

te r he r et ur ne d f ro m F ML A le av e, he c ont inu ed to
re ce ive cr it ic ism s of

his pe rf orm an ce sim ilar to those he ha d r ec ei ve d be fo re the leave. In N ovem

ber 2001, he ap p l i ed for a posit ion with the Kissim m ee P olice De part m e nt . H e w a s t ol d by h i s su pe r i or s i n B S O t ha th e w ou l d no tb e dem oted dur ing the pe nde nc y

of his ap pli ca tio n w ith the K iss im m ee de pa rtm en t bu t tha t, if he di d n ot rece iv e th e p os it io n wi th Kis si m m ee, h e wou ld be de m ot edto li eu te na nt . D ra go d id n ot r ec ei ve the po sit ionw iththe K iss im m ee de pa rtm en t and, in January 200 2, he w as de m ote d to the r an k of li eu te na nt w ith in B SO
. A ft er the January 200 2 de m oti on, D ra go d id not exp er ie nc e any oth er c ha nge to his r an k, ti tle
o r p a y. In J u l y 2 0 0 3 , Dr ag o fi l ed t h i s l aw s u i tag ai n s t t h e Br o wa rd Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s Of fice an d Sherif

f K en Jenne, in his official ca pacity , see king to recover dam ages fr om BS O f or int er fe re nce wit h hi s F ML A r igh ts and r et al ia tio n f or e xe rc isi ng h is rights un der the FML A, the AD EAand the FCRA
. The dist ri ct co u rt granted
sum m ary j udgm en t t o B SO
. D ra go the n m ove d, pur suant t o F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil7

Pr oc ed ur e 59( e) , to al te r or

a m en d th e j udgm ent. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e
m oti on. D ra go’ s a

ppe al c ha lle nge s bo th the sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or B SO an d the de nia l of his Ru le 59( e) m oti on.

II. C ONT ENT IONS OF THE P AR TIES D ra go c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt erre d inf ind ing tha t the re w er e no ge nui ne iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t t o su ppor t hi s c la im s th at B SO in te rf er ed w ithhis ri ght s un de r the F ML A or re ta lia te d ag ai nst him fo r ex er ci sin g his FM L A , A D E A a nd FC RA rights. Specif

ically , D rago takes issue with the district court’ s finding s that he rece iv edall th e b en efi ts th atth e FMLA g ua ran te ed hi m an d t ha t h e h adno t s ho wn tha t hi s de m oti on w as c au sa lly c onne ct ed

to an y pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct . D ra go a lso
co nte nds tha t the dis tr ic t cour t er re d in de ny ing his Ru le 59( e) m oti on, w hic h m oti on
so ug ht reco ns id erat io n o f th e d is tri ctco ur t’s s umm ary jud gm en t. BS O c ont en ds that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t on al l of Dr ag o’ s cla im s and tha t it did not abus e its dis cr et ion in den y ing D ra go’ s R ule 59 m oti on. III. STA ND AR DS OF RE VIEW R e v i e w o f

a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n t i s d e n o v o . We ap p l y t h e s a me le ga l st an da rd s th at

bou nd the dis tr ic t c ourt, “ vie win g al l fa ct s and r ea sona ble inference s in t h e li ght m ost favorable to the non m ovin g party .” See Strickland v.8

W ate r W ork s and Se we r B d. of the Ci tyof B irm ing ham , 239 F
. 3d 1 199, 120 3 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1)
. S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to
an y m a t e r i a l f

a c t a n d
. . . t h e m o v i n g p a rt y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t a s a m at te r of law. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c)
. T he de ci sio n to a lte r or

a m en d aj udgm en t i s c om m itt ed to the sound d isc re tio n of th e d is tri ctco ur t. Lockard v. Equifax, I nc. , 163 F
. 3d 1 259, 126 7 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) (c iti ng O' Neal v. Kennamer , 958 F
. 2d 1 044, 104 7 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) ). T he re fo re , thi s
co ur t re vi ews th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 59 m ot io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id

. IV. D ISCU SSION F M LAIn te rf

er en ce C lai m

“ Am ong th e substanti ve rights granted bythe FML A to eligible em ploy ees ar e the right to ‘12 w orkwee ks of leave during any 12-m onth period .
. . . [b] ecause of a
se ri ous he al th c ondi tio n th at m ak es the em

plo y ee una

ble to p er fo rm

the f unc tio ns o f the posi tio n of suc h em

plo y ee , ’ 29 U
. S. C. § 2612 (a )( 1) , an d the ri ght f oll ow ing le av e

‘ to be restored by

the em ploy er to the positio n of em ploy m ent held by

the em ploy ee whe n t he lea ve co m

m en ced ’ orto an eq ui va le nt po si ti on , 29 U.S.C
. § 26 14 (a)( 1) .” Str ic kland , 239 F. 3d at 1206
. T o stat e a FM L A int er fe re nc e cl ai m , apla int if f m ust de m onstrate tha t he w as e nti tle d, und er the F ML A , to a be ne fi t tha t h e wa s de nie d. S e e Stri ck lan d , 2 39 F
. 3d a t 12 07. T he de nia l tha t D ra go c om pla ins of is tha t heD r a g o a l s o c o mp l a i n s th a tB S O i n t e r f e r e d w i th h i s F M LA r i g h t s b y d e n yi n g h i s n o n - F M LA 1 va c a tio n re qu e sts , whi c h we re pe nd ingbe fo re he too k F MLA l e ave . D ra g o d oe s n ot a lle g e that B SO took away

any of hi s acc rued vacation time. Rather, he complains only that BSO re fused to appr ove h i s r e qu e s t s f

o r p art i c u l ar

d ay s o f f f r o mw o r k
. T h e a b i l i ty t o t a k e p art i c u l ar

d ay s o f n o n - F M LA va c a tio n is no t a

ri g ht p ro te c te d by the F MLA a nd thu s, a s a matte r o f l aw, c ann ot b e the pr e dic a te fo r a F MLA i nte rf

e re nc e c la im. Indeed, be cause his FMLA application, signed by the psy cholog ist, stated that Dra g o did not 2 have a se ri ou s h e a lthc on dit ion

and that he wa s a

ble to pe rf

or m his job fu

nc tio ns , it is q ue sti on a ble whether Dra g o was e ver e ntitled to any FMLA leave
. See2 9 U S C § § 2 6 1 2 ( a u th o r i z i n g F M LA leave due to “a

serious hea lth condition that makes the e mploy ee una ble to perf

orm the func tions of the position of such employ ee” ), 2613(b)(4)(B ) (requiringthat medical c ertification state that “the e mpl oy e e is una

ble to p e rf

or m th e fu nc tio ns of

the posi ti on of the e mpl oy e e .” ). Ho we ve r, B SO treated Dra g o’s time off f rom work a s FMLA leave
. The district c ourt assumed, for purposes of the summary judgme nt, that Drag o was e ntitled to F MLA l e ave . We do the same . F or the re a so ns state d late r, Dr a g o’ s c la ims fa il n e ve rt he le ss. 9 w ish ed to re tur n to w ork onO ct obe r 3, 200 1, bu t he was pr ev en te d f ro m doi ng s o
un ti l Oct ob er 8 , 20 01 . T hu s, Drag o c on te nd s t ha t BS O in te rfer edwit h h is FMLA ri ght s by pr ev en tin g hi m

f ro m r et ur nin g to w ork f

or tw o bu sin es s day s. 1 Having review ed the rec ord care fully , we conclud e th at Drago wa s not deni ed
an y be ne fi t gu ar an te ed

him by the F MLA
. I t i s tr

ue tha t the F ML A guarante es a 2 person taking FML A le ave the ability to re t u rn t o his previou s posi tion o r to an equiv al en t posi tio n af

te r the le av e ha s en de d. 29 U
. S. C. § 2614 (a )( 1)
. H ow ev er , it is al so tr ue tha t an e m

plo y ee ta kin g F ML A le av e m ust giv e his e m

plo y er not ic e of the probable duration of the conditi on r equiring the leave. 29 U .S .C . § 2613 (b)(2). D oubt le ss, thi s is to al lowthe e m plo y er to plan f or the ab se nte e’ s j ob func tio ns to b e ha nd le d i n a no th er way du rin g h is ab se nc e an d t o a nt ic ip at e h is ret ur n.Dra g o contends (but does not provide evidence ) t hat t his provision of t he FML A does not 3 apply in his case beca

use B SO had no uniform policy requiringfitness ce rtifications of e mploy ees re tur nin g fr om F MLA le ave . B ut, Dr a g o’ s ow n te sti mony a t de po sit ion may be c on str ue d to ind ic a te that he knew

of such a policy . (R.2-55 at 65.) 10 In th is cas e, Drag o app eare d a t h is co m m an d o n Oct ob er 3 , 20 01 , FMLA ap pli ca tio n inhand, a nnounc ing tha t he w as r et ur nin g to w ork th at da y , ne ve r ha vin g inf orm ed a ny one in BS O of

the a nti ci pa te d du ratio n of his le av e or

the da te upo n which he expected to return to work. While he wa s absent, Drago’ s responsib ilities (significant, given that he s u p er vised ov er one hundred and twenty people and that his absence cam e j ust on e w eek after the Se ptem ber 11, 2001 attacks on the United States) had been r eassigned to ano ther captain. T he BSO required him to take another two day s of leave and re turn to work on October 8, 2001 , w ith a Return to W ork A uth or iz at ion
. T his r equir em en t di d no t i nte rf er e w ithD ra go’ s rig hts und er the FM L A
. A s sta te d abov e, the statut e its el f co nte m pla te s th at

a n e m plo y ee m ust giv e
ane m plo y er not ic e of the an tic ipa te d dura tio n of the e m plo y ee ’ s a

bse nc e. A nd, the FML A a llows an em

ploy er to re quire that an em ploy ee pre sent a Return to W ork Aut ho riz at io n fo rm

be fo re h e ret ur ns fro m

FMLA le av e. See 29 C.F .R. § 825.310 (f) (“ A n e m plo y er m ay de la y res tor at ionto em

plo ym en t un til a n e m

plo y ee sub m its a required fitness-for- dutycertification.”). 311

Other record e vidence provid es addition al suppo rt for our conclusio n that BSO
w as e nti tle d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t on D ra go’ s FML A int er fe re nc e cl ai m . Fi rs t, the Re tur n t o W o rk A u t h o r i z a t i o n t h a t D r a g o p r e s e n t e d , w h e n h e o f f i c i a l l y r e tu rne d to
wor k on O ct obe r 8, 200 1, auth or iz ed him to re tur n to duty on tha t date , not

on any
earl ie r da te . S ec ond, w he n D ra go r et ur ne d on O ct obe r 8, 2001 , he w as r ei nst at ed to his pr ior pos iti on, w ithou t an y ch an ge in rank, pay or be ne fi ts. F ina lly , BS O pa id Dr ago for all the leave that he took (including the two b usiness day s betwee n October 3 and October 8). Dr ago sim ply offer s no evidence t hat he suffere d any dam age as
a re sul t of BS O ’ s r equir em en t tha t he ta ke an ad dit ion al tw o da y s’ pa id le av e. T his
co urt ha s pr ev iou sly

he ld tha t, e ve n w he re the re m ay ha ve be en te ch nic al vio la tio ns
o f t h e FMLA, those vio lations are not com pensable where , a s here, a plaintiff has failed to dem onstrate that he suffere d any “ adverse em

ploy m ent action” for purposes of st at in g a pri m a fac ie cas e un de r th e st atut e. Se e G raha m v . Sta te F arm M ut. I ns. Co

. , 193 F. 3d 12 74, 1284 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). Quite sim ply , in th is case, no interfere nce
w ithF ML A r igh ts o cc ur re d. T he re fo re , sum

m ar y j udgm en t w as appr opr ia te ly g r a n t e df o r B S O o n D r a g o ’s F M L A i n t e r f e r e n c e c l a i m.12 FM L A , AD E A , a n d FC R A Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms Inor de r to sta te cl ai m s fo r dis cr im ina tor y r et al ia tio n, apla int if

f m ust pr es en t
ev ide nc e tha t: (1 ) he e nga ge d instatut or ily pr ote ct ed co nduc t; (2 ) he w as a dve rs el y affe cted b y an em

ploy m ent decision; and (3) th ere was a causal connection between th e st at u t o r i l y pro te ct edco nd uc t an d t he ad ve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on . See Str ic kland , 239 F. 3d at 120 7 (“ a plaintiff bringing a [F MLA ] retaliation claim fac es the increased burden of s howing that his em ploy er’ s actions ‘ we re m otivated byan im pe rm iss ibl e re ta lia tor

y or di scr im ina tor

y a nim us. ’ ”) ( ci tin g King v. Preferred Te ch nic al G roup , 166 F
. 3d 8 87 , 891 ( 7thCi r. 1999 )) ; H air sto n v . G ain es vi lle Sun P ub. Co

. , 9 F. 3d 913, 919 (1 1th Ci r. 1993 ) (A D E A an d Ti tle V II r et al ia tio n) ( ci tin g G old sm ith v . Ci tyof

A tm ore , 996 F. 2d 1155, 1163 ( 11th C ir
. 1993 )) ; see also Harper
v. B loc kb ust er

E ntm ’t Co rp. , 1 3 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 5 , 1 3 8 9
- 9 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( F C RA c l a i ms
ar e an al y ze d us ing th e sam e an al ytic al f ram ew ork a s T itl e V II ). O nly a ft er the plaintiff m akes this prim a fa cie ca se of discrim inatory retal i at i o n does the bu rden shi ft to the de fe ndant to re but the pr es um pti on of re ta lia tio n by pr oduc ing le git im at e
reas on s fo r th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . See H

air sto n , 9 F
. 3d a t 91 9. “ ‘ If

the de fe ndant c ar

ri es thi s burd enof

pr oduc tio n, the pr es um

pti on ra ise d by

the pr im a fa ci e case is rebutted,’ and ‘ drops from the case. ’ ” Id

. (quot ing Te xa s D ep ’t of Co m m uni ty A ffa irs v . B urdi ne , 450 U. S. 248, 255 n.10, 101 S. Ct. 1089 , 1095 n.10 (1981)).13

It is undi sputed th at D ra go’ s de m oti on c onst itu te s an a dve rs e em plo ym en t de ci sio n. R eg ar din g th e sta tut or ily pr ote ct ed ac tiv ity in w hic h he all eg ed ly e nga ge d, D ra go d oe s no t a lle ge tha t he w as de m ot ed fo r ta kin g F ML A le av e. R athe r, he
co nte nds tha t hi s de m oti on w as r et al ia tio n f or : ( 1) hi s ve rb al c om

pla int s to his supe ri or s th at

the y vio la te d the FM L A by r ef usi ng t o a llo w him

to re tur n to w ork f

or tw o w orkin g day s be y ond the da te on wh ic h he w ish ed to re tur n to w ork, a nd ( 2) his
w ri tte n E E O co m

pla int w hic h he m ai nta ins “ oppo se d” BS O ’ s re fu sa l to al low him to
re tur n to w ork f

or tw o day s b ey on d the da te on whic h he de sir ed to re tur n and i n wh i ch h e c o m

p l ai n ed t h at h e s u ff

er ed ag e d i s cr i m i n at i o n . (R .1 -1 , ¶ ¶ 3 3 , 3 6 , 4 1 .) We
assum e for purposes of t his appeal (but explicitlydo not decide) that D rago’ s verbal
an d w ri tte n c om

pla int s cons tit

ute sta tut or ily pr ote ct ed ac tiv ity unde r the FM L A , the A D E A , a nd the F CR

A
. E ve n so , a ll D ra go’ s c la im s of r et al ia tio n f

ai l a s am at te r of law be ca use he ha s fa ile d to pr es en t suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e tha t the adve rs e em plo ym en t action he alleges (his dem otion ) was causally linked to the only protected activities in which he alleges he engaged (the verbal com plaints to his sup eriors and the w ritten EE O c om plaint). The onl y e vid en ce D ra go h as c ite d to sup port the c au sa tio n e le m en t of his retaliation claim s is that he was dem oted approx i m at ely three m onth s afterDr a g o atte mpt s to a ug me nt his thi n ev ide nc e of c a us a tio n w ithargume nt t

hat hi s su pe ri or s’ 4 ang e r w ithhim

fo r l e avin g his c omm and wi tho ut t e lli nganyon e , th e ir thr e a ts t o f

ir e him if he did so ag ain, and ( on September 21, 2001) their disapproval of his vaca tion requests (in par

t beca use he ha d be e n o ut o n F MLA l e ave ) e vid e nc e the fact th at th ey did no t r e sp e c t hi s F MLA r ig hts . A t mo st, these facts demonstrate Dra g o’s s uperiors’ frustration that he fa iled to communicate on Septembe r 18 that he wa s le avin g his c omm and (f or F MLA or oth e r re a so ns ) and the ir de c isi on that B SO c ou ld not affor d for him to be aw ay from the c ommand on the holiday dates he had re quested. The y are not releva nt to show a causal connection betwee n any complaint Dra g o made ( verba lly on October 3 or in writing on October 8) and his ultimate demotion.

14 co m pla ini ng t o hi s su

pe ri or s and f

ili ng h is E E O c om

pla int
. W e ha ve pr ev iou sly he ld 4 tha t, in th e abs en ce of

a ny oth er e vid en ce of

c au sa tio n, athr ee a nd o ne -h al f m onth pr oxi m ity be twee n apr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty a nd an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionis in su ffi ci en t t o creat e a jury iss ue on cau sa ti on . W as cu ra v. Cit

y o f S ou th Mia mi , 257 F.3 d 1 23 8, 1 24 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. W e are no t p ers ua de d t ha t t hr ee m on th s (o nl y two
w ee ks l es s than th e tim e w e dis cu sse d in W asc ura ) is s uf

fi ci en tly pr oxi m at e to s how
cau sa ti on . A ddi tio na lly , D ra go i s un ab le to pr es en t a j ur y que sti on r eg ar din g c au sa tio n be ca use the r ec or d e vid en ce is ove rwhe lm ing tha t B SO c ont em pla te d de m oti ng h im be fo re he e ve r co m

pla ine d th at

BS O w as int er fe ri ng w ithhis F MLA rights. D ra go him se lf a dm itt ed tha t, a s e ar ly

a s Apr il 2001 ( fi ve m on th s be for e he w en t ou t on FM LA l ea v e) , F re y c o n s i d er ed d emo t i n g Dr ag o fo r p er fo rman ce -r el at ed re as o n s . We hol d th at , in a re ta lia tio n c as e, w he n an e m plo y er c ont em pla te s an a dve rs e
em ploy m en t action before an e m ploy ee engages in protected activity , te m poral15

pr oxi m ity be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty a nd the sub se que nt a dv er se e m plo ym en t act io n do es no t s uf

fic e to sh ow ca us at io n. C. f. Co tto n v . Crac ke r B arr el O ld C ount ry Store, Inc. , 434 F. 3d 1 227, 123 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) ( ci tin g Clark Co unt y Sc hool D ist
. v. Bre eden , 53 2 U.S. 2 68 , 27 2, 1 21 S. Ct. 1 50 8, 1 51 0- 11 (20 01 )). Be ca use he f ai ls t o pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce of

c au sa tio n, D ra go f

ai ls t o pr es en t a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im ina tor

y r et al ia tio n. T he re fo re , e ac h of his ret al ia ti on cla im s fa il s as a m at te r of law. R ul e 59( e) M ot ion Drag o’s Ru le 59 m ot io n s ou gh t am en dme n t o f th e jud gm en t b as edon two
ar gum en ts: ( 1) tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e cl ear ly e rr one ous fa ct

ua l f ind ing s init s
or de r gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t, an d (2) tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed e rr or by gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t f

or BS O w it ho ut re qui ri ng B SO to fi le astate m en t of fa ct s o p p o s i n g D r a g o ’ s s u m m a ry j u d g m e n tm o t i o n . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd e n i e dthe
m ot io n. W e agre e w ith the dis trict court that t h e argum ents in Drago’ s m otion are
m er itl es s and the re fo re hol d th at the dis tr ic t co ur t di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in de ny ing the m oti on.Def endants maintain that the B rowa rd County Sheriff’ s Offic e is not a leg al entity . Given 5 our disposition of the case , we ne ed not addr ess that question. 16 V. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the r ea sons state d a

bove , the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed
. 5 AF FIRMED
.