FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 14120 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 1 2 7 0 - CV - T- M SS J A M E S C . B O T H W E L L , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R M C E W E L L , I N C ., aF l or i dac orpor a t i on, R M C I N D U S T R I E S C O R P ., aD e la w a r e c o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

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

_________________________ ( M ay 21, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T hi s i s J a m e s B othw e l l ’ s s e c ond appe a l of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the de f e nda nt s on hi s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s unde r§ 623( d) of the A ge D i s c r i m i na t i on i n E m pl oy m e ntA c tof 1967 a nd s e c t i on 760. 10( 7) of the F l or i daC i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1992. I . In 19 86 R M C E w el l , Inc. , a s ub si di ary of R M C Indu stri es C orp. , hi re d J a m e s B othw e l l , the n f

or ty - f oury e a r s ol d, a s s e ni orvi c e - pr e s i de ntof s a l e s f orthe w es t ern regi on . In 19 94 B othw el l w as prom ot ed t o w es t ern regi on ar eam anager, another s eni or vi ce -pre si dentl evel po si t i on . In thatpo si t i on B othw el l re ce i ved hi gh perf orm ance eval uat i on s a nd m er i tbo nu se s throu gh 19 98 and sal ary i ncre as es th r o u g h F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 . I n the f a l l of 2002, the de c i s i on w a s m a de t o m e r ge E w e l l w i th a nothe rof R M C I ndus tr i e s ’ s ubs i di a r i e s . A s pa r tof tha tpr oc e s s , F r a nk L e one , the the np resi d en to f E w el l , an d R i ch ard B u ck el ew , th e p resi d en to f th e o th er su b si d i ary, d e c id e d to r e s tru c tu r e E w e ll f r o m h a v in g c o rp o r a te d iv is io n s b a s e d o n g e o g r ap h ic r e gi ons t o ha vi ng the m ba s e d on f unc t i on. A s ar e s ul t , L e one c ons ol i da t e d the e a s t e rn a nd w e s t e rn r e gi ons of the c om pa ny a nd r e - a s s i gne d B othw e l l t o be op er at i on s m anager f

or the new l y c on sol i dat ed re gi on . In thatrol e, he w as r e s p o n s ib le f

o rm a n a g in g E w e ll’s r e a d y - m ix c o n c r e te p la n ts a n d its tru c kd r iv e r s .3

B othw e l l , w ho w a s s i xty a tthe t i m e , w a nt e d t o be the s a l e s m a na ge r , butthe j ob w a s g iv e n to th e f

if ty - y e a r - o ld m a n a g e ro f

a n o th e rr e g io n . W h e n L e o n e to ld B othw el l abou tthi s a ss i gn m ent , he al so sa i d thathe w as un happ y w i th the w es t ern r e gi on’ s pe r f

orm a nc e a nd tha tB othw e l l w a s s l ow i ng dow n a nd di d notha ve the fi re thathe had w hen h e w as youn ger. L eone w enton t o st at e thathe w ant ed

“ y ounge rbl ood” a tl ow e rl e ve l s i n the s a l e s di vi s i on. I n J a nua ry 2003 B uc ke l e w tr a ns f e rr e d E w e l l ’ s di s pa t c h f unc t i ons f

r om the op er at i on s di vi si on t o the sa l es di vi si on , m ea ni ng thatB othw el l w as no l on ger r e s pons i bl e f

ordi s pa t c h. B uc ke l e w the n c r e a t e d adi s pa t c h m a na ge rpos i t i on a nd a s s ig n e d it to L e e P r o f

f itt. P r o f f itt d id n o t c o n s u lt B o th w e ll o n s o m e o f h is d e c is io n s , in c lu d in g th e ap p o in tm e n t o f an e w p la n t m a n a g e r , b u t— a s B o th w e ll l at er ad m i tt ed d u ri n g h i s d ep o si t i o n — th ere w as n o i n d i cat i o n th atth i s w as b ecau se of B othw e l l ’ s a ge . B othw e l l di d, how e ve r , be l i e ve tha tha vi ng di s pa t c h f unc t i ons r e m ove d f

r om hi s c ontr ol w a s the r e s ul tof a ge di s c r i m i na t i on, a nd, on M a r c h 19, 2 0 0 3 , h e h a d a n a tto rn e y s e n d ale tte rto L e o n e s a y in g a s m u c h . L e o n e la te rto ld B o th w e ll th a t h e h a d “lo s t a ll r e s p e c t” f o rB o th w e ll b e c a u s e o f

th e le tte r . T h r e e w e e k s a f

te rL e o n e m a d e th a t s ta te m e n t, h e d ie d f r o m c o lo n c a n c e r . L e one di d notm a ke a ny e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i ons aboutB othw e l l be tw e e n r e c e i vi ng th e l e tt e ra n d d y i n g . Af t e rL e o n e ’ s d e a th , B u c k e l e w t o o ko v e rL e o n e ’ s d u t i e s . On4

June 9, 20 03 B uckel ew m etw i th B othw el l t o t el l hi m thatthe op er at i on s m anager po si t i on s a tE w el l and h i s ow n sub si di ary w ou l d b e c on sol i dat ed and that B uckel ew had cho se n D enni s U pchu rc h for the j ob . T he new po si t i on w as r e s pons i bl e f

or , a m ong othe rthi ngs , pa ve ra nd c e m e ntope r a t i ons . U pc hur c h, w ho i s yo u n g er th an B o th w el l , h ad sev eral years o f ex p eri en ce i n th e p av er i n d u stry; B othw e l l ha d none . B othw e l l a nd B uc ke l e w t a l ke d aboutthe pos s i bi l i ty of B othw e l l l e a vi ng E w e l l , tr a ns f e rr i ng t o adi f

f e r e ntj ob w i thi n E w e l l , orc ons ul t i ng f orE w e l l . T ha tm onth, E w e l l de c i de d nott o a w a r d B othw e l l as a l a ry i nc r e a s e f or th e f ir s t tim e s in c e h ir in g h im . T w o da y s a f

t e rs pe a ki ng w i th B uc ke l e w , B othw e l l be c a m e avi c e - pr e s i de nt i n charge of “ spec i al proj ec t s. ” I tw as i nt ended as a pl ac e- ho l der posi t i on t o k ee p B othw el l on the payr ol l un t i l an approp ri at e posi t i on for w hi ch he w as qu al i fi ed o p e n e d u p in th e r e o r g a n iz e d c o m p a n y . W h ile in h is n e w p o s itio n , B o th w e ll s a t i s f a c t or i l y c om pl e t e d the one t a s k B uc ke l e w a s s i gne d hi m , w hi c h t ook ap p ro x i m at el y o n e m o n th . D u ri n g h i s t i m e as v i ce-p resi d en to f sp eci al p ro j ect s, B o th w e ll n e ith e ra s k e d ab o u t n o rap p lie d f o ro th e rp o s itio n s in th e c o m p a n y . I n A ugus t2003 B othw e l l f i l e d ac ha r ge w i th the E qua l E m pl oy m e nt O pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on , al l egi ng age di sc ri m i nat i on . O n N ov em ber 3 of that y e a r , he w a s not i f

i e d of B uc ke l e w ’ s de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e B othw e l l ’ s e m pl oy m e nt5

a s o f J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 4 b e c a u s e th e r e w e r e n o p e rm a n e n t p o s itio n s a v a ilab le f o rh im . D u ri n g E w el l ’ s m erg er b etw een th i rt een an d fi ft een em p l o yees l o stth ei r j o b s, in c lu d in g a t le a s t o n e o th e rr e g io n a l m a n a g e r , a n d m a n y m o r e w e r e m o v e d to d i fferen tp o si t i o n s w i th i n th e n ew co m p an y. A f t e rr e c e i vi ng ar i ght - t o- s ue l e tt e rf r om the E E O C , B othw e l l f i l e d a n a ge di s c r i m i na t i on a nd r e t a l i a t i on s ui ta ga i ns tE w e l l a nd R M C I ndus tr i e s unde rthe A D E A a nd the F C R A . T he de f e nda nt s f i l e d am ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton both c l a i m s , a nd B othw e l l f i l e d am ot i on f

orpa r t i a l s um m a ry j udgm e nton the r e ta lia tio n c la im . T h e c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n ts o n b o th c la im s a n d d e n ie d B o th w e ll’s m o tio n . T h e c o u r t f o u n d th a t, a lth o u g h B o th w e ll ha d a l l e ge d apr i m af

a c i e c a s e of

a ge di s c r i m i na t i on, he ha d notm e thi s bur de n of s how i ng tha tar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ’ r e a s ons f

orthe a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons w e r e pr e t e xtua l . A ppl y i ng ours t a nda r d f orr e t a l i a t i on c la im s a t th e tim e , it a ls o f o u n d th a t B o th w e ll h a d n o t m a d e o u t ap r im af a c ie c la im o f r e ta lia tio n b e c a u s e h e c o u ld n o t s h o w as u f f ic ie n t c a u s a l lin kb e tw e e n h is p r o te c te d a c tiv itie s a n d th e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s . B othw e l l appe a l e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the de f e nda nt s on hi s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . B e f or e w e i s s ue d a n opi ni on i n hi s appe a l , the S up re m e C ou rti ss ued i t s opi ni on i n B url i ng t on N orthern and S ant a F e R ai l w ay6

C o. v. W hi t e , 548 U . S . 53, 126 S . C t . 2405 ( 2006) , w hi c h c ha nge d s om e a s pe c t s of the l aw on re t al i at i on . W e there fore vaca t ed and rem anded the ca se for the di stri ct courtt o con si der i ti n the fi rs ti nst ance i n l i gh tof B url i ng t on N orthern. T he di stri ct c our tr e a c he d the s a m e c onc l us i ons on r e m a nd, a ga i n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nt t o the de f

e nda nt s , a nd B othw e l l appe a l e d. II. B othw el l cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o the defendant s on h i s r et al i at i on cl ai m . H e f i rs tar gu es thatthe di stri ct c our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the de f e nda nt s bynotvi e w i ng the re co rd in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to h im as th e n o n -m o v in g p ar ty. H o w ev er , “ [w ]e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t” a n d “[ a ]s ar e s u lt, a ny e rr ori n how the di s tr i c tc our tvi e w e d the f a c t s i s m oot e d by ourde c i s i on of the i s s ue a ne w . ” Z i voj i novi c h v. B a rne r , ___ F . 3d ___, ___, 2008 W L 1805821, a t*6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . B othw el l al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t to th e d e f

e n d a n ts b y h o ld in g th a t h e d id n o t m a k e o u t ap r im af a c ie re t al i at i on cl ai m . T o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c l ai m for r et al i at i on cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that : (1) he e ng aged i n a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty; (2) he s uffe re d a n a c t i on f

r om hi s e m pl oy e rtha tar e a s onabl e e m pl oy e e w oul d ha ve f ound t o beThe e lements of retaliation under the F CRA and the ADEAarethe same, se e Drag o v. 1 Jenn e , 4 53 F .3 d 1 30 1, 13 07 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 6) , s o w ene e d n ot c on sider B othwe ll’ s F CRA re t al i ati o nc l ai ms ep arat e ly. 7 m at eri al l y ad v erse; an d (3 ) th ere i s a cau sal l i n kb etw een th e tw o ev en t s. 1 Bu r l i n g t o n N . , 5 4 8 U . S. a t___ , 1 2 6 S. Ct . a t2 4 1 5 ; Su l l i v a n v . N a t ’ l R. R. P as se ng erC orp. , 17 0 F . 3d 10 56 , 10 59 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). If the pl ai nt i ff

es t abl i shes a pri m a f ac i e c as e, the bu rden shi ft s t o the em pl oyert o p roff era l egi t i m at e, non- di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f orthe a dve r s e a c t i on. C r a w f or d v. C i ty of

F a i rburn, 482 F . 3d 1305, 1308 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . I f the e m pl oy e rm e e t s thi s bur de n, the n the b u r d e n s h if

ts b a c k to th e p la in tif

f to s h o w th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n is m e r e ly ap r e te x t f

o rr e ta lia tio n . I d . T he thr e e a c t i ons of

w hi c h B othw e l l c om pl a i ns a r e : ( 1) L e one ’ s s t a t e m e nt thathe had “ l ostal l re spec t ” f or B othw el l ; (2) B othw el l ’ s a ss i gn m entt o speci al pr oj e c t s , a nd ( 3) hi s t e rm i na t i on. A n a c t i on i s m a t e r i a l l y a dve r s e i f i tm i ght

“ di s s ua de [ ] ar e a s onabl e w orke rf r om m a ki ng ors uppor t i ng ac ha r ge of d is c r im in a tio n . B u r lin g to n N ., 5 4 8 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 4 0 5 , 2 4 1 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . R egar di ng L eone’ s c om m ent , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y hel d thatthi s w as no tan a c tio n th a t ar e a s o n ab le e m p lo y e e w o u ld f in d to b e m a te r ia lly a d v e r s e . “[ P ]e tty s l i ght s , m i nora nnoy a nc e s , a nd s i m pl e l a c k of good m a nne r s ” a r e typi c a l l y not e nough t o s uppor tar e t a l i a t i on c l a i m , i d. , a nd L e one ’ s i s ol a t e d s t a t e m e ntw a s no8

m ore than a m i no r a nn oyance . F urther, any a ni m osi ty thatL eone bo re t ow ar d B othw el l for c om pl ai ni ng of the al l eged di sc ri m i nat i on ce as ed t o h ave a ny ef fe ct th r e e w e e k s th e r e a f

te rb e c a u s e o f

L e o n e ’s d e a th . E ve n a s s um i ng tha tB othw e l l s t a t e d apr i m af a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on on the other tw o adv er se em pl oym entac t i on s, the defendant s a re st i l l ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j udgm e nt . T he y ha ve pr of f e r e d al e gi t i m a t e , non- di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f or r e a s s ig n in g B o th w e ll a n d s u b s e q u e n tly te rm in a tin g h im : W h e n E w e ll m e r g e d w ith the othe rR M C I ndus tr i e s s ubs i di a ry , the ne w c om pa ny onl y ne e de d one ope r a t i ons m a n a g e r , a n d U p c h u r c h w a s m o r e q u a lif ie d . T h e r e w a s n o o p e n p o s itio n a v a ilab le f ors om e one w i th B othw e l l ’ s qua l i f i c a t i ons , s o the c om pa ny ke pthi m on f or a l mo s tay e a r , w a i t i n g f o ro n e . A f

t e ri tb e c a me ap p a r e n tth a tn o n e w o u l d b e c o me a va i l abl e , B othw e l l ’ s e m pl oy m e ntw a s t e rm i na t e d. T h e b u r d e n th e n r e s ts o n B o th w e ll to s h o w th a t th is r e a s o n is p r e te x tu a l. C ra w ford, 48 2 F . 3d at13 08 . “ [A ] pl ai nt i ff em pl oyee m ayno tes t abl i sh thatan e m pl oy e r ’ s pr of

f e r e d r e a s on i s pr e t e xtua l m e r e l y byque s t i oni ng the w i s dom of the e m p lo y e r ’s r e a s o n ” s o lo n g a s “th e r e a s o n is o n e th a t m ig h t m o tiv a te ar e a s o n ab le e m p lo y e r .” C o m b s v . P la n ta tio n P a tte rn s , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 1 9 , 1 5 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . B o th w e ll a r g u e s th a t, if h e w a s n o t d o in g h is jo b w e ll, th e n th e d e f e n d a n ts w o u ld ha ve t e rm i na t e d hi s e m pl oy m e ntl ong be f or e the y di d. H ow e ve rthi s i gnor e s the9

f a c t th a t h e w a s n o t r e m o v e d f r o m h is p o s itio n a s o p e r a tio n s m a n a g e rs o le ly be c a us e of

de f i c i e nc i e s i n hi s j ob pe r f

orm a nc e . H e w a s r e m ove d be c a us e the m e r g e rm a d e h i s p o s i t i o n r e d u n d a n ta n d h i s c o u n t e rp a r ta tth e o th e rR MC I ndus tr i e s s ubs i di a ry w a s m or e qua l i f i e d. B othw e l l a l s o a r gue s tha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ a c t i ons i n putt i ng e vi de nc e i nt o the re cord bo th abo utB othw el l ’ s profe ss i on al short com i ng s and abou tthe l ac k o f a p o s itio n f

o rh im in d ic a te s th a t th e y a r e b e in g d is in g e n u o u s , w h ic h , in tu rn , is ev i d en ce o f p ret ex t . B u tth e p ro ffer o f tw o l eg i t i m at e reaso n s fo r an ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on do es no tprov e thatthe ac t i on w as m ot i vat ed by nei ther. S ee C h ap m a n v . A I T r a n s p ., 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “I n o r d e rto a v o id s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, ap la in tif f m u s t p r o d u c e s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e f

o rar e a s o n ab le fa ct fi nd ert o con cl ud e thatea ch of the em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed no nd i sc ri m i nat ory reaso n s i s p ret ex tu al . ”). B o th w el l h as fai l ed t o sh o w “ su ch w eak n esses, i m p l au si b i l i t i es, i n co n si st en ci es, i n co h eren ci es, o r co n trad i ct i o n s i n [h i s] em pl oyer ’ s proff

er ed l egi t i m at e r ea sons for i t s a ct i on thata r ea sonabl e f ac t fi nd er c o u ld f in d th e m u n w o r th y o f

c r e d e n c e ,” s o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s c o rr e c t in aw ar di ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o the defendant s. C om bs, 10 6 F . 3d at15 38 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed); se e B on anni S hi p S up pl y, Inc. v. U ni t ed S t at es , 95 9 F . 2d 15 58 , 15 61 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( st at i ng thatan appeal s c ou rtca n10

af fi rm a di stri ctcourt ’ s orderfor a ny re as on supp ort ed by the re cord). AF F I R ME D.