F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 1 9, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1021 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-02172 -CV -RW S-1 GINALY

NNWAT ER S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us HOME DEPOT U.S.A ., INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 19, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff-Appellant Gina Ly nn W aters appeals the district court’ s dism issal of her com

plaint allegin g that her form er e m ploy er, Hom e D epot U. S. A. , I nc.Pla int if f late r fi le d an e mpl oy

me nt dis c ri min atio n ac tio n in dis tr ic t c ourt

a g a ins t H ome De po t. 1 The a ppeal in that ca se is addre ssed in Waters v. Home De pot U.S.A., Inc., 05-10212. 2 (“ Hom e D epot”), retaliated a gainst her, in violation of T itle VI I, 42 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Pl ai nti ff ’ s c om pla int state d th at

H om e D ep ot t er

m inate d he r em

plo ym en t i n Apr il 2002 ; P la int if

f the n f ile d an E E O C c la im

a ga ins t H om e D ep ot a lle gin g discrim ination . A fter the te rm ination of Plaintiff’ s em ploym ent, she purchased an 1 interest in Buzy

Bee, a com

pany operated by

her associate, Karen W arner. Bef ore Pl ai nti ff pur ch as ed

he r int er es t, Bu zy

Be e ha d ac le an ing se rv ic es c ontra ct w ith Hom e D epot. O n 13 February 2004 , H om e D epot term inated the Buzy Bee contract. Plaintiff a lleged that Hom e D epot, to retaliate against her for her pendin g discrim ination com plaint, term inated the contract when it discovered her interest in Buzy

Bee. T he district court dism issed Plaintiff’ s com plaint for failure to s ta te ac la im

be ca use H om e D ep ot h ad

c om m itt ed no a ct that ne ga tiv el y im pa ct ed on P la int if

f’ s e m plo ym en t. Plaintiff ar gues on app eal that H om e D epot’ s term ination of the Buzy Bee co ntr ac t i s an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct

und er T itl e V II . S he m ai nta ins that sh e an d he r co m pany w er e hir ed

to pe rf orm c le an ing se rv ic es f

or H om e D ep ot, that the se3

se rv ic es c onst itu te d e m

plo ym en t, and tha t H om e D ep ot t er m inate d th is em pl oym en t wh en itcan cel le d t he co nt ract . We r ev i ew d e n o v o a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s o rd erg ra n t i n g a d ef en d an t ’s Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) (6 ) m oti on t o di sm iss . K ir w in v . P ri ce Co m

m c’ ns C or

p. , 391 F. 3d 13 23, 1325 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). In doing so , w e acc ept as true the fa ct al le ga ti on s i n apl ai nt iff’s com pl ai nt . Id. Title V II prohibits retaliation against em ploy ees-- includi ng form er em plo y ee s- -whe n th e em

plo y ee ha s f

ile d ac harg e of

dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t the em plo y er . S ee 42 U . S. C. § 20 00e -3 (a ); Ro bin son v. S he ll O il Co . , 117 S . Ct . 843 , 849 (1 997) . B ut t o be a ct ion ab le und er T itl e V II ’ s anti -r et al ia tio n pr ovi sio n, the form er e m

ploy ee m ust sh ow that she suffer ed an adverse e m ploym ent act. See H ar pe r v. Bl oc kbus te r E ntm ’ t C or p. , 139 F . 3d 1 385, 138 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) (a ff irm ing dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of T itl e V II r et al ia tio n c la im and s ettin g ou t el em en ts o f re ta liatio n c la im). T o c onst itu te an a dve rs e ac t, an e m plo y er ’ s po stterm ination activities m

ust work a serious and m aterial c hange in the form er em plo y ee ’ s te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f em plo y m en t. S ee D av is v . T ow n of L ak e Park , F la . , 245 F . 3d 1 232, 123 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ; N el son v. Upsa laCo ll. , 51 F. 3d 3 83, 387 -8 9 ( 3d C ir . 199 5) ( re j ec tin g af

orm er e m plo y ee ’ s r et al ia tio n c la im because em

ploy er’ s act had no im

pact on form er e m

ploy ee’ s actual or proposed4

em plo ym en t) . A nd the a sse rt ed im pa ct c an not be spe cu la tiv e: it

“ m ust a t l ea st ha ve atangi ble a dve rs e ef fe ct on the pla int if

f’ s e m plo ym en t. ” D av is, 245 F . 3d at 123 9. He re, even acc epting all of the allegation s in Plaintiff’ s com plaint as true, w e do n ot s ee howH om e D ep ot’ s po st- te rm inatio n a ct s ha d atangi ble a dve rs e effe ct on her em

ploym ent. P laintiff claim ed only that Hom e D epot retaliated ag ai nst he r by te rm inatin g th e co ntr ac t w ithBu zy Be e, ac om

pany in w hic h sh e ow ns an in te re st. T his a ct m ay have ha d an a dve rs e ef

fe ct on P la int if

f’ s bu sin es s investm ent interests. B ut Plaintiff cannot show that the term ination of the Buzy Be e co ntr ac t w orke d ase ri ous an d m at er ia l c hange in the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f he r curr en t or

pr ospe ct ive e m

plo ym en t. Pl ai nti ff f urthe r as se rt s th at , und er

S w ie rk ie w ic z v. S or em a N . A . , 122 S. Ct . 992 ( 2002 ), she did not ne ed to state e ve ry

f ac t t o pl ea d an a de qua te T itl e V II r et al ia tio n c la im . T he S upr em e Co urt ha s st at ed that an e m

plo ym en t dis cr im inatio n c om

pla int ne ed not inc lud e fa ct s e sta

bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e ca se of discrim ination under Title V II; instead, the com plaint m ust contain only

“ a short and plain statem ent of the claim showing that th e pleader is entitled to relief .” Sw ierkiew icz, 122 S.Ct. at 995. But the Suprem e Court also wr ote that a court m ay grant a m otion to dism iss “ if it is clear that no relief could be granted under5

an y se t of f ac ts tha t c oul d be pr ove d c onsi ste nt w iththe a lle ga tio ns. ” I d. a t 99 8 ( c i t a t i o n an dqu o t a t i o n mark s o mi t t e d ) . P l a i n t i f f h a s f a i l e dt o s h o wth a tH o me D ep ot’ s a ct s r es ult ed

in a tangi ble a dve rs e ef

fe ct on h er e m plo ym en t: w e co nc lud e that no relief could be granted under any set of fa cts that could be prov ed consist ent with Plaintiff’ s allegations o f re taliation. T he district court com m itted no e rr or in dis m iss ing P la int if

f’ s r et al ia tio n c om

pla int . AFFIR MED.