FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 09, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 8- cv -0 06 48 -VMC- AEP MARK G. COMERF ORD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us JOHN E. POTTER, Pos tm as te r Gen eral , U.S. Pos ta l Se rv ic e, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 9, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHUNT, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation.Mark G. Co m erfo rdap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e (“ USPS” ) on Co m erfo rd ’s cl ai m bro ug htpu rs ua ntto th e Age Dis cri m in at io n i n Em pl oym en t Act(“ ADEA”) th atJo se ph Gerace , th e Po st m as te r in Brad en to n, Fl or id a, ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m fo r fi li ng a un io n g rie va nc e an d a n a ge -d is cri m in at io n c om pl ai nt . The d is tri ct

1 co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o USP S o n t he gro un d t ha t Co m erfo rdfai le d t o es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e. 2 Co m erfo rd , a lo ng -ti m e USPS e m pl oyee, was wo rk in g i n 2 00 4 a s a l et te r carr ie r in Tall ah as se e an d s ou gh t t o t rad e job s wi tha wil li ng let te r carrie r in Brad en to n. Pu rp orti ng to rel y on Co m erfo rd ’s un sa ti sf act ory att en da nc e rec or d, Gerac e d en ie d the reque st . Com erfo rdres po nd edby fili ng a co m pl ai ntwith t he USPS Equa l Em

pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty (“ EEO”) de pa rtment, a ll eg in g t ha t Ger ace’s

The fe dera l-sector

provision of the ADEA , 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) , authorizes reta liation 1 claims. Gomez-Pere z v. P otter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008). Comer ford doe s not challeng e the district court’s de nial of his ag e discrimination claim on appe al, and thus this claim is not before us. See Rioux v. City

of Atlanta, G a., 520 F .3d 1269, 1274 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008). Howe ver, Comer ford’ s failure to pursue his ag e discrimination claim does not a dverse ly aff ect his re taliation claim, which is leg ally

and fa ctually

distinct. “We re view a district c ourt’s grant of summar y judgme nt de novo, viewingthe 2 evidenc e in the light most favorableto the party opposing the motion.” Webb-Edwar ds v. Ora ng e County

Sheriff’ s Offic e, 525 F .3d 1013, 1026 (11th Cir. 2008). In order to succe ssfully alleg e a prima fac ie re taliation claim under theADEA, “ a plaintiff must show that (1) []he eng ag ed in statutorily

protec ted expression; (2) [] he suff ere d an adve rse e mploy

ment action; and (3) the a dverseaction wa s causa lly rela ted to the protec ted expression.” Weeks v. Ha rden Mf g . Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 2real reas on forde nyin g t he reque stwas C om erfo rd ’s age . Com erfo rdals o fi le d a

un io n g rie va nc e, as se rti ng th atGerace ’s pu rp orte d re li an ce o n C om erfo rd ’s at te nd an ce re co rdvi ol at edth e USPS u ni on co nt ract . Com erfo rd ’s EEO co m pl ai nt was ul ti m at el y

un su cces sf

ul , bu t a d is pu te res ol ut io n t eam su st ai ne d C om erfo rd ’s un io n g rie va nc e an d h is tra de reque stwas app ro ve d. Co m erfo rdbe ga n wo rk in g i n B rad en to n u nd er Gera ce s ho rtl y th erea fte r. Ove r th e n ex t s ev eral m on th s, Co m erfo rdwas c on st an tl y di sc ip li ne d. Be cau se Co m erfo rdbe li ev edth atth is di sc ip li ne was u nwa rran te d andin ret al ia ti on for hi s ag e-d is cri m in at io n c om

pl ai nt , he s uc ces sf

ul ly sou gh t a t ran sf

er t o C ol or ad o, ev en th ou gh th is tra ns fer re su lt edin a lo ss of h is sen io rit y an d h is reg ul ar, fu ll -ti m e work s ta tu s. Co m erfo rdsubs eque nt ly file d t hi s ADEA act io n. In gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o USP S o n C om erfo rd ’s ret al ia ti on cla im , th e d is tri ctco urt fo cu se d ex cl us iv el y

on Co m erfo rd ’s un io n g rie va nc e. The c ou rt f ou ndth at , bec au se th e un io n g rie va nc e was no t b as edon ag e, Co m erfo rddi d n oten ga ge in st atut or il y pr ot ect edex pr es si on , andth us fai le d t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e. Nowh ere d id th e d is tri ctco urt m en ti on Co m erfo rd ’s EEO ag e-d is cri m in at io n c om pl ai nt , whi ch ha d a ll eg edth atGerace ’s pu rp orte d re li an ce o n C om erfo rd ’s att en da nc e rec or d was a pr et ex t fo r de nyin g the tra de reque st . 3The re i s n o que st io n t ha t Co m erfo rd ’s EEO ag e-d is cri m in at io n c om pl ai nt co ns ti tu te d s ta tu to ril y

pro te ct edex pr es si on . See, e.g ., Hairs to n v . Gain es vi ll e Su n Pub. Co ., 9 F.3 d 9 13 , 91 7, 9 20 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). The fa ctth atCo m erfo rdals o fil eda un io n g rie vanc e d oe s n otso m eh ow n eg at e h is EEO age-d is cri m in at io n co m pl ai nt , esp eci al ly giv enth atth e two were i ne xo rab ly int ert win ed . Ind eed , th e un io n g rie va nc e ch al le ng edGerace ’s pu rp orte d re as onforde nyin g t he tra de reque st , whi ch Co m erfo rdall eg edwas apre te xtforth e rea l re as onforth e d en ia l (Co m erfo rd ’s age ). Thu s, the di st ric t co urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to USPS o n t he gro un d t ha t Co m erfo rdfai le d t o e ng ag e in st atut or il y pro te ct ed ex pr es si on . Accor di ng ly, we va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o pi ni on with re sp ectto Co m erfo rd ’s ret al ia ti on cla im an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith th is op in io n. AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

4