FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 81 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 15 57 -MHS

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ver su s GATE GO URMET, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 1, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.The Ch ap te r 7 t ru st ee fo r th e b an krup tc y est at e o f St acey W il li am s ap pe al s th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm et , Inc . on W il li am s’ cl ai m s o f pr eg na nc y

di sc riminat io n, ra ce d is cri m in at io n, re ta li at io n, an d s ta te law
ne gl ig en ce. I. InMarc h 2 00 8 S ta cey W il li am s, a wh it e fem al e, be cam e p reg nant . Abo uta 1
m on th lat er, s he be ga n wo rk in g fo r Gat e Gou rm etat Harts fie ld -J ack so n At la nt a In te rn at io na l Ai rp ort as a cu st om er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve in “ Uni t 3 00 .” Gate Gou rm etde sc rib es it se lf a s “ th e wor ld ’s lar ge stin de pe nd en t p ro vi de r of cat eri ng an d p ro vi si on in g s erv ic es forair li ne s an d ra il ro ad s,” an d i ts cli en ts in cl ud e 2
va rio us air li ne s t ha t o pe rat e fl ig ht s o utof Ha rts fie ld -J ack so n. Will ia m s’ job as a cu st om er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve forGate Gou rm etin vo lv eddri vi ng a tr uc k fr om th e co m pany’ s war eh ou se to th e g at e whe re an air pl an e was do ck ed , us in g ali ft syste m to rai se th e truc k’s s to rag e co nt ai ne r to th e ai rp la ne ’s hei gh t, an d t he n pu sh in g abo ut30 cart s o f fo od , dri nk s, an d o ve ns acro ss a ram p fr om th e truc k t o
“At summary

judgme nt we view the fac ts in the light most favora ble to the nonmoving 1 party . We theref

ore do so he re, dr awingthose fac ts from the plea dings, depositions, and other evidentiar y materia ls on file. Neve rtheless, we observe that what ar e stated a s ‘fa cts’ her ein for purposes of summar

y judgme nt reviewmay

not be the ac tual fac ts nor are all of the fa cts.” Crawf ord v. Carr oll, 529 F.3d 961, 963 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008) (c itations omi tted). Gate G ourmet, http://www.g ateg ourmet.com (la st visit ed May 22, 2012). 2 2th e ai rp la ne .

Inearl y Aug us t 2 00 8, Will ia m s t ol d h er u ni on st eward , Pam W al ke r, th at ge tt in g up o n t he cat eri ng tru ckwas g iv in g h er a “ li tt le pro bl em []” bu t s ai d t ha t sh e co ul d s ti ll do he r job
. Dur in g t ha t co nv ers at io n, Will ia m s al so to ldW al ke r th atsh e was pre gn an t. Walk er re sp on de d t ha t “ ev en tu al ly, atso m e p oi ntin ti m e, y ou ’re go in g t o g etto o b ig to wher e y oucan ’t getup th ere.” W al ke r th ento ldGuy Bax te r, who was Wil li am s’ supe rv is or , th atW il li am s was havi ng tro ub le be in g o n a truc k b ecau se sh e was pre gn an t. Bax te r m etwith To m m y Alb ert s, the ass is ta nt ge ne ral m an ag er o f Uni t 3 00 , andto ldhi m th atW il li am s was ha vi ng tro ub le cat eri ng he r fl ig ht s b ecau se sh e was pre gn an t. Alb ert s t ol d B ax te r “ to m ak e su re th atsh e g et s p ap erwo rk

forwhat ev er h er i ss ue s ar e.” On Au gu st11 , 20 08 , W il li am s m etwith Walk er an d B ax te r. Duri ng th at
m eet in g, Ba xt er t ol d Wil li am s t ha t h e kne w sh e was pre gn an t an d t ha t Walk er h ad to ldhi m sh e was “ ha vi ng is su es on th e truc k.” W il li am s re pl ie d t ha t s he was n ot ha vi ng an y

is su es an d c ou lddo he r job . Bax te r th ento ldW il li am s tha t “ atso m e po in t i n t im e y ou ’re no t g oi ng to be ab le to work , y oukn ow.” He al so to ldhe r th atif s he co ul d n otcarry ou t t he du ti es of h er cu rren t p os it io n, s he wou ldno t b e ab le to workat a ll be cau se th ere wer e n o l ig ht -dut y po si ti on s av ai labl e. W al ke r th ento ldW il li am s t o g o t o the do ct or an d g eta no te sayin g t ha t s he co ul d s ti ll 3work. The ne xtda y , W il li am s wen t t o s ee Nad iaNoel , th e h um anres ou rces

rep res en ta ti ve forUni t 3 00 , anddi sc us se d h er m eet in g wi th Bax te r an d Walk er. Noe l s ai d t ha t Will ia m s h ad“ si gn eda bi nd in g c on tra ct ” st at in g t ha t s he was abl e to do th e cu st om er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve job
. Noe l al so to ldW il li am s t ha t i f sh e co ul d n o l on ge r do th e job , sh e co ul d turn i n h er b ad ge an d c ou ldbe reh ire d wh en sh e was ab le to workag ai n. W il li am s t ol d No el th atsh e wan te d t o k eep he r ba dg e an d c on ti nu e worki ng be cau se sh e d idno t h av e an y li m it at io ns . Two d ay s l at er, o n Au gu st14 , 20 08 , W il li am s g av e a n ot e fro m he r do ct or to W al ke r, who in tu rngave itto Bax te r. Tha t n ot e st at ed , inrel ev an t p art , th at W il li am s h adth e fo ll owi ng m ed ic al res tri ct io ns : (1 ) No s hi fts gre at er tha n 8 ho ur s; (2 ) No l ift in g, p us hi ng , or p ul li ng gre at er tha n 2 0 p ou nd s; (3 ) No p ro lo ng edst an di ng gre at er tha n 3 ho ur s wi th ou t 5 –1 0 m in ut e br eak s; (4 ) No c li m

bi ng , crawl in g, o r worki ng at h ei gh ts th atin crea se th e ch an ce o f fal li ng ; (i .e., 3 o r m or e st ep lad de rs or s te pp in g s to ol s)
. At a m eet in g Wil li am s, Ba xt er, an d Walk er h adlat er tha t d ay , Bax te r to ld W il li am s t ha t h e d idno t h av e an y job s av ai labl e th atco ul d a cco m m od at e h er res tri ct io ns an d t ol d h er tha t s he was t erm in at ed(orword s t o t ha t ef fect ). W il li am s s ai d t ha t s he ne ed edth e job an d c ou lddo it , andsh e as ke d B ax te r to

4ig no re the no te an d fo rg etth atsh e h adev er g iv enitto hi m . Accor di ng to he r,

Bax te r refu se d t o d o t ha t an d s ta te d, “ no , it ’s a li ab il it y forth is co m

pa ny to l ety ou ge t o utth ere o n the tru ck , so y ou ’re fire d.” Befo re t el li ng W il li am s s he was fi red , Bax te r di d n otch eckwith h is
supe rv is or s o r th e supe rv is or s i n o th er d ep art m en ts to de te rm in e if th ere was a li gh t-dut y job av ai labl e fo r he r. At h is de po si ti on , he s ai d t ha t h e d idno t ch eck be cau se he kn ew Gate Gou rm etwas l ay in g o ff em pl oyees a t t ha t t im e. Bu t acco rd in g t o Wil li am

Res ti tu to , th e g en eral m an ag er o f Uni t 3 00 (who tes ti fie d a s Gate Gou rm et ’s cor

po rat e d es ig ne e u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 30 (b )(6 )), th ere wer e av ai labl e li gh t-dut y job s tha t Will ia m s co ul d h av e p erfo rm ed wit h h er m ed ic al res tri ct io ns . Anditwas Gat e Gou rm et ’s po li cy to off er tho se job s, wh enth ey

were av ai labl e, to em

pl oyees wi th m ed ic al co nd it io ns , in cl ud in g pr eg na nc y . Late r th atday , Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 8, Will iam s fi le d aun io n g rie va nc e in whi ch sh e al le ge d t ha t s he was fi redwitho utjus t caus e due to he r pr eg na nc y . A lo cal
un io n o ffi ci al fax edth atgri ev an ce t o R es ti tu to th e sa m e d ay . The n ex t d ay , W il li am s fi le d ach arg e with t he Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on al le gi ng di sc riminat io n b as edon pre gn an cy an d ra ce. Inth atch arg e, sh e al le ge d th at , aft er s he pro vi de d B ax te r wit h t he no te fro m he r do ct or , Bax te r fi redhe r 5be cau se sh e was pre gn an t an d b ecau se Gate Gou rm etha d n o l ig ht -dut y po si ti on s av ai labl e. W il li am s, wh o i s wh it e, al so all eg edth athe r fi rin g was in “ st ark
co nt ras t” to ho w Gate Go urm ettre at edsi m il arl y si tu at edno n- whi te em

pl oyees. Res ti tu to tes ti fie d a t h is de po si ti on th athe rece iv edW il li am s’ un io n gr ie va nc e so m et im e b etweenAug us t 1 5 andAug us t 1 8, 2 00 8, an d tha t h e m etwith Noe l ab ou t i t o n Au gu st18 . They di sc us se d wh ethe r th ere was a li gh t-duty po si ti onav ai labl e fo r W il li am s an d d et erm in edth atth ere was on e, a si lv erwar e wrap pe r po si ti on . It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t a s il ve rware wrap pe r job was av ai labl e o n Au gu st18 , 20 08 , andth atW il li am s co ul d h av e d on e itwhi le
co m pl y in g wi th he r m ed ic al res tri ct io ns . Res ti tu to to ldNoel to sch edul e a m eet in g wi th W il li am s as so on as p os si bl e to di sc us s tha t p os it io n b ecau se th ey ha d d eci de d t o o fferitto he r. Res ti tu to th ou gh t t ha t No el wou ldco nt actW il li am s th atda y , bu t ap pa ren tl y

sh e d idno t. Tha t s am e d ay , Res ti tu to , Noel , Bax te r, an d Walk er m etwith R ic ha rdJo ne s, th e reg io na l h um anres ou rces m an ag er, t o d is cu ss W il li am s’ un io n g rie va nc e. At th atm eet in g, J on es to ldth e o th ers th athe want ed“ to m ak e su re tha t s he
un de rs ta nd s t ha t s he ’s no t t erm in at ed [;] . . . I wan t t o m ak e crysta l cl ear t ha t s he
ne ed s t o kno w th atsh e’s no t [t erm in at ed ]. ” He al so to ldth em th atW il li am s ne ed edto be bro ug htba ckin so th ey co ul d d is cu ss an y

li gh t-dut y

job th atwas 6av ai labl e fo r he r. Jo ne s d ire ct edNoel an d Walk er t o c on ta ctW il li am s as so on as

po ss ib le an d “ ge t h er b ackin he re t o t al k t o M r. Res ti tu to an d [No el ]. ” Bec au se W il li am s h adfil eda un io n g rie va nc e, W al ke r, th e uni on st eward , was t ol d t o sc he du le a m eet in g wi th he r, Res ti tu to , andNoel
. The ne xtda y , th e EEOC m ai le d Wil li am s’ charg e to Gate Gou rm et . Afte r Gate Gou rm etrece iv edit , Noel refe rredth atch arg e to th e le ga l d ep art m en t. On Aug us t 2 1, wh ic h was two da y s af te r th e EEOC m ai le d t he ch arg e, W il li am s returne d t o Gat e Gou rm etto pi ckup he r pa y ch eckan d s po ke with Walk er. Sh e ha d n otbe enat wo rksi nc e Bax te r to ldhe r on Aug us t 1 4 t ha t s he was fi red , bu t o n Aug us t 2 1 Walk er t ol d Wil li am s t ha t s he ha d n otbe enfir edbu t was in st eadbe in g pl acedon Fam il y

an d M ed ic al Leav e Actlea ve . W al ke r as ke d Wil li am s t o g o wit h h er t o fi ll ou t t he pape rwo rk , bu t Will ia m s re fu se d, s ay in g s he was s ti ll ab le to workan d c ou ldno t af

fo rdto be on unpa idlea ve . Fo urda y s l at er, o n Au gu st25 , 20 08 , Res ti tu to ga ve Bax te r a rep rimand le tt er ab ou t h is tre at m en t o f W il li am s. The let te r st at ed , inpa rt: [Y]ou h ad[a] con ve rs at io n wi th [W il li am s] th atsi nc e sh e co ul d n ot pe rfo rm he r work, s he wou ldbe term in at ed
.

. . . .

. . . . [Y]ou ad m it te d t el li ng [W il li am s] th atsh e was term in at ed du e to he r m ed ic al res tri ct io ns . This no t o nl y vi ol at es Co m

pa ny 7Po li cy an d P ro cedur es bu t i t v io la te s d is cri m in at io n [s ic ] ba se d o n Tit le VII.

. . . . Inad di ti on , y oudi d n otob ta in th e p erm is si onof t he Gene ral Man ag er t o re le as e [Will ia m s]. In fac t, [Will ia m s] was n ot te rm in at edan d we h av e rea ch edou t s o . . . sh e can ap pl y fora le av e of ab se nc e. The d eci si on th aty oum ad e inrefe ren ce t o [Wil li am s] is to ta ll y un acce pt ab le an d wi ll no t b e co nd on edin th e fu tu re. In ad di ti on , y ou r act io n[ ] ha s p la cedGate Gou rm etin a po ss ib le li ti ga ti on si tu at io n. Noe l, wh o was in vo lv edwith t he in ve st ig at io n o f W il li am s’ di sc riminat io n c la im , ag reedwith R es ti tu to . Noel tes ti fie d i n h er d ep os it io n t ha t “ pr eg na nc y was a subs ta nt ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct orin Bax te r’s de ci si on to de ny [W il li am s] a po si ti on whi chwou ldacco m

m od at e h er re st ric ti on s.” On Au gu st28 , 20 08 , two week s af te r Bax te r ha d t ol d h er s he was fi red , W il li am s h ada te le ph on e co nv ers at io n wi th EEOC in ve st ig at orDon Marc us . In th atco nv ers at io n h e co nv ey edto he r anoff er fro m Gate Gou rm etto pay

he r ba ck pa y an d l ethe r return t o wo rkif s he wou lddi sm is s t he EEOC cha rg e. W il li am s as ke d wh atwou ldhapp enif s he refu se d t o s ig n the rel eas e, an d M arcu s t ol d h er th atge tt in g t he job was c on ti ng en t o n s ig ni ng it . Thatsame day , W il li am s al so sp ok e with u ni on st ewardW al ke r. W al ke r to ldW il li am s t ha t the y ne ed edto m eet th e n ex t d ay

an d s ai d, “ I’ll g ety outo workin th e si lv erwar e d ep art m en t.” Th ey

8sc he du le d am eet in g fo r th e n ex t af te rn oo n. W il li am s, h owe ve r, m is se d t ha t m eet in g b ecau se sh e was “ he ldup in co urt” ; sh e le ft am es sa ge forW al ke r in fo rm in g h er o f th at . W il li am s t he n c al le d No el
an d t ol d h er tha t s he ha d m is se d t he m eet in g due to anem erg en cy . Noel to ld W il li am s t ha t Gat e Gou rm et ’s leg al de pa rtment wa s wo rk in g wi th th e EEOC an d
sa idth atsh e wou ldco nt actW il li am s o nc e th atde pa rtment andth e EEOC ha d
reac he d a n a gr eem en t. W il li am s i nf orm edNoel th atW al ke r ha d t ol d h er the re was a job av ai labl e fo r he r. Noe l re pl ie d t ha t s he di d n otkn ow wh atth e te rm s o f th e ag reem en t wer e, th atsh e co ul d n ot“ co m m un ic at e an yth in g” be cau se sh e d idno t kn ow, an d t ha t “ [e]veryth in g i s atth e le ga l l ev el rig htno w.” Sh e p ro m is edth at

“ Onc e th ey

fin al iz e ev erythi ng , itwil l b e co m m un ic at edto m e an d t he n I wi ll ge t in co nt actwith you .” Noe l n ev er d id . Oth er tha n t he off er co nv ey edto W il li am s by the EEOC in ve st ig at or , whi ch was c on ti ng en t o n h er dro pp in g t he EEOC ch arg e, Gate Gou rm etne ve r of fere d Wil li am s the si lv erwar e wrap pe r po si ti on or an y ot he r po si ti on . The EEOC is su eda ri gh t-t o- su e le tt er t o Wil li am s, an d s he ti m el y fil eda co m pl ai ntin Geor gi a Supe rio r Co urt as se rti ng vi ol at io ns of Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) –( 2) , and42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, an d al so ass ert in g s ta te law n eg li ge nc e cl ai m s. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e cl ai m edpre gn an cy 9di sc riminat io n, ra ce d is cri m in at io n, re ta li at io n, n eg li ge nthi rin g, n eg li ge nt

ret en ti on , neg li ge ntsupe rv is io n, g ro ss ne gl ig en ce, an d n eg li ge nc e p er s e. Gate Gou rm etrem ov edth e cas e to fed eral di st ric t co urt. W il li am s fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n h er fe de ral pre gn an cy di sc riminat io n, ra ce d is cri m in at io n, an d re ta li at io n c la im s, b utno t o n h er s ta te law cl ai m s. Gat e Gou rm etth enfil eda cro ss -m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll of W il li am s’ cla im s. A m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort re co m m en di ng th atth e di st ric t co urt g ran t s umm ary jud gm en t t o Wil li am s o n h er re ta li at io n c la im s an d gr an t s umm ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm eton W il li am s’ pre gn an cy an d ra ce di sc riminat io n c la im s. The rep ort al so reco m m en de d t ha t t he co urt d en y Gate Gou rm et ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n Wil li am s’ st at e la w cla im s. Bo th pa rti es fil edob

jecti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on s. The di stric t co urt g ran te d Gat e Gou rm et ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n al l o f W il li am s’ cla im s. It c on cl ud edth atW il li am s h adfai le d t o s ho w di rect
ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n b as edon pre gn an cy or r ace, a ndth atsh e co ul d n ot
m ak e anin di rectcas e u si ng cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce b ecau se sh e h adno t i de nt ifi ed a si m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyee ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss who was t reat ed di ffer en tl y . Fu rth er, the co urt re as on edth atW il li am s h adno t re bu tt edGate Gou rm et ’s art ic ul at edno nd is cri m in at ory reas on s fo r fi rin g h er: Bax te r be li ev ed 10sh e co ul d n o l on ge r do he r job an d b el ie ve d t he re were no av ai labl e li gh t-dut y

po si ti on s. Th e co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t, b ecau se Gate Gou rm etha d o ffer edba ck pa y an d re in st at em en t i n e xc ha ng e fo r W il li am s d is m is si ng he r EEOC charg e, Gate Gou rm etha d n otret al ia te d a ga in stW il li am s. Fi na ll y , th e co urt ru le d t ha t W il li am s’ st at e law cla im s wer e d eri va ti ve of h er d is cri m in at io n andret al ia ti on cl ai m s. Will ia m s fi le d am ot io n t o re co ns id er, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d i n al l p art s re le va ntto th is ap pe al
. W il li am s t he n fi le d t hi s ap pe al
. II. Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws d e n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g a ll ev id en ce an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t he
no nm ov in g p art y . Dix on v. Hal lm arkCo s., 6 27 F.3d84 9, 8 54 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r on ly whe n “ th ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a). A ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts when “ ‘a reaso nabl e jury
co ul d re tu rna ve rd ic t fo r th e n on m ov in g p art y .’ ” Dix on , 62 7 F .3dat 8 54 (qu ot in g And ers onv. Lib ert y

Lob by, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 24 2, 2 48 , 10 6 S .Ct. 2 50 5, 2 51 0 (1 98 6) ).

III. W il li am s al le ge s t ha t Gat e Gou rm etterm in at edhe r an d d en ie d h er a l ig ht
du ty pos it io n b ecau se sh e was pre gn an t an d b ecau se sh e is whi te . Her pre gn an cy 11di sc riminat io n c la im is ba se d o n Ti tl e VII, 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) , andhe r rac e di sc riminat io n c la im s ar e b as edon th atpro vi si on an d o n 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81
. A. As am en de d b y

th e Pre gn an cy

Dis cri m in at io n Act , Titl e VII p ro hi bi ts em pl oyers fr om

di sc riminat in g a ga in stem pl oyees b ecau se of p reg na nc y . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) –( 2) (pr oh ib it in g d is cri m in at io n “ be cau se of . . . se x” ); i d. § 20 00 e(k ) (“ The term s ‘bec au se of s ex ’ or‘ on th e b as is of s ex ’ in cl ud e, bu t ar e n ot li m it edto , bec au se of o r on th e b as is of p reg na nc y . . . .”). W e u se th e sa m e an al y si s fo r cl ai m s o f di sc riminat io n b as edon pre gn an cy th atwe us e fo r ot he r cl ai m s o f di sc riminat io n b as edon sex . Arm st ro ng v. Fl owe rs Hos p., In c., 33 F.3d 13 08 , 13 12 –1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6)
. A pl ai nt iff

m ay us e ei th er d ire ctor i nd ire ctev id en ce t o s ho w th athe r em pl oyer di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er b ecau se of h er p reg na nc y . See i d. at13 13
.

“ Dire ctev id en ce i s ev id en ce, tha t, i f be li ev ed , pro ve s t he ex is te nc e o f a fac t wit ho utin fere nc e o r pr es um pt io n.” W il so n v . B/E Aero sp ace, In c., 37 6 F .3d 10 79 , 10 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (al te rat io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ In di rect ev id en ce i s ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Ham il to n v . Sou th la ndCh ris ti anSch ., Inc ., 68 0 F .3d13 16 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). W il li am s ar gu es th atsh e h as sh own Bax te r’s di sc riminat ory

in te ntby both d ire ctan d i nd ire ctev id en ce.

12B.

W e d o n otha ve to de ci de whet he r W il li am s h as pre se nt eddi rectev id en ce be cau se sh e h as pre se nt eden ou gh in di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce t o s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t. A pl ai nt iff typic al ly m ak es a cas e o f di sc riminat io n t hr ou gh in di rectev id en ce u si ng th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rksetou t i n M cDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp . v. Gree n, 4 11 U.S. 79 2, 9 3 S .Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3) , andTexa s Dep artm en t o f Co m

m un it y Affai rs v. Bu rd in e, 45 0 U.S. 2 48 , 10 1 S .Ct. 1 08 9 (1 98 1) . Arm st ro ng , 33 F.3dat 1 31 4. Un de r th atfram ewo rk , th e p la in ti ff m us t
m ak e a p rima facie cas e b y sh owi ng th at : (1 ) sh e is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr oup; (2) sh e was qu al ifi edforhe r po si ti on ; (3 ) sh e su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (4 ) em pl oym en t o r di sc ip li na ry

po li ci es were d iff

eren tl y ap pl ie d t o h er. See id . If a pl ai nt iff canpre se nta pr im a fac ie cas e th ro ug h ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, the bu rd ensh ift s t o the de fen da ntto art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e n on di sc riminat ory reas on forit s ac ti on s. See Sch aaf v . Sm ithk li ne Bee ch am Co rp ., 60 2 F .3d12 36 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). If th e d efen dantsat is fie s th is bu rd enof p ro du ct io n, t he bu rd ensh ift s b ackto th e p la in ti ff, who m us t s ho w th atth e art ic ul at edreas on is m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Id . at 1 24 4. Gate Gou rm etarg ue s t ha t Will ia m s h as no t m ad e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e un de r th e Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as fram ewo rkbe cau se sh e h as fai le d t o s ho w th at 13em

pl oym en t o r di sc ip li na ry

po li ci es were d is cri m in at or il y ap pl ie d t o h er— sh e h as no t i de nt ifi eda no np reg nantco m pa rat orwho was t reat eddi ffer en tl y . The McDo nn el l Do ug la s fr am ewo rkis no t, h owe ve r, th e o nl y way to us e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o s urvi ve a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d a

“pl ai nt iff’s fai lu re t o p ro du ce a c om pa rat ordo es no t n eces sa ril y do om [he r] case.” Sm ith v .Lockhe ed -Ma rti n, 6 44 F.3d13 21 , 13 28 (11 thCir . 20 11 ); s ee al so Ham il to n, 6 80 F.3dat 1 32 0. If a p la in ti ff “pr es en ts cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce tha t cr eat es a tr iabl e is su e co nc ern in g t he em

pl oyer’s di sc riminat ory

in te nt ,” sh e “ wil l al way s s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t.” Lo ckhe ed -Ma rti n, 6 44 F.3dat 1 32 8. An d apl ai nt iff m ay us e “ no n- co m

paris on cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o ra is e a rea so nabl e in fere nc e o f in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n” an d t he reb y crea te a tr iabl e is su e. Ham il to n, 6 80 F.3d at13 20 ; s ee al so Lockhe edMart in , 64 4 F .3dat 1 32 8; Rio ux v. Ci ty of Atl an ta , 52 0 F .3d12 69 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th atcir cum st an ti al ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e o f rac e d is cri m in at io n e ve n t ho ug h t he pl ai nt iff di d n otpre se ntev id en ce o f a co m parat or ); c f. Alv arez v. Ro y al Atl
. Dev el op ers , Inc ., 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (“ The m etho ds of pr es en ti ng a pr im a fac ie cas e are fle xi bl e an d d ep en d o n t he pa rti cu lar si tu at io n.” ). Wha te ve r fo rm

ittak es , if the cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie ntto rai se “ a 14reas on ab le in fere nc e th atth e em pl oyer di sc riminat edag ai ns t t he pl ai nt iff , su m m ary jud gm en t i s i m

pr op er.” Lo ckhe ed -Ma rti n, 6 44 F.3dat 1 32 8; acco rd Ham il to n, 6 80 F.3dat 1 32 0. W il li am s d oe s n otha ve to us e th e Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as fram ewo rkto su rv iv e su m

m ary jud gm en t b ecau se th e rec or d c on ta in s en ou gh no n- co m pa rat or ev id en ce fo r a jury to r eas on ab ly infe r th atBax te r di sc riminat edag ai ns t Will ia m s be cau se sh e was pre gn an t. Bax te r st at edonAug us t 1 1, 2 00 8, t ha t h e kne w W il li am s was pre gn an t, tha t ev en tu al ly she wou ldbe un ab le to ha nd le he r job du ti es be cau se of h er p reg na nc y , andth atGate Gou rm etha d n o l ig ht -dut y job
av ai labl e fo r he r if

sh e co ul d n otdo he r job as acu st om er s erv ic e rep res en ta ti ve . Tha t s am e d ay , W al ke r to ldW il li am s t o g o t o t he do ct oran d b rin g b acka no te
sa y in g t ha t s he was abl e to work
. The n o n Au gu st14 , 20 08 , aft er Ba xt er re adth e no te li st in g Wil li am s’ m ed ic al res tri ct io ns , he t ol d Wil li am s s he was fi redev en th ou gh sh e in si st edsh e was st il l ab le to do he r job
. Bax te r di d tha t wi th ou t
co nt act in g h is supe rv is or s o r th os e in ot he r de pa rtments to de te rm in e if th ere was a job th atW il li am s co ul d d o wi th he r m ed ic al res tri ct io ns . He di d i t ev enth ou gh it
was Gate Gou rm et ’s po li cy to pro vi de work ers li ke W il li am s wi th li gh t-dut y job s whe n the y

were av ai labl e. Noe l, the hu m anres ou rces di rect orforW il li am s’ un it , adm it te d i n h er 15de po si ti on th atW il li am s’ pre gn an cy was a“ subs ta nt ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct or ” in Bax te r’s de ci si on to tel l Will ia m s s he was fi redin st eadof o ffer in g h er a l ig ht -dut y job
. Gate Go urm etadm it s t ha t wh atBax te r di d was no t b as edon an y pro bl em 3 wit h Wil li am s’ work
. Andin it s l et te r rep rimand in g B ax te r, Gate Gou rm etst at ed 4 th atby tell in g Wil li am s s he was fi redbe cau se of h er p reg na nc y -rel at edm ed ic al
res tri ct io ns Bax te r ha d n oton ly vio la te d c om pa ny po li cy

bu t h e h adals o a ct edin a way th atwas “ to ta ll y

un acce pt ab le ” an d t ha t co ns ti tu te d d is cri m in at io n i n vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII. Viewi ng th e rec or d i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to W il li am s, we ar e sa ti sf ie d th atsh e h as pre se nt eden ou gh cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o a ll ow a jury to reas on ab ly infe r th atBax te r’s act io n i n t erm in at in g h er b ecau se of h er p reg na nc y an d h is in act io n i n n otatt em pt in g t o fi ndhe r a l ig ht -dut y job were, as th e le tt er rep rimand in g h im

st at ed , a vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII. The d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm eton W il li am s’ Titl e VII cl ai m forpre gn an cy di sc riminat io n was im

pr op er.
Noel agree d in her de position that it was ac curate to state: “Ms. Will iams’ pre gnancy 3 was a substantial or motivating fa ctor in B axter’s dec ision to deny her a position which would acc ommodate her

restric tions.” Gate G ourmet admitted that it “has take n no actions in this matter that wer e take n as a 4 result of misconduct a

nd/or poor, def

icient, substandar d, and/or unsatisfa ctory work pe rfor

mance by [W illiams] .” 16C.

Tit le VII al so pro hi bi ts di sc riminat io n i n e m pl oym en t “ be cau se of . . . race [o r] col or ,” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) , (2) , as d oe s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 , see San de rs v. Do bb s Ho us es , Inc ., 43 1 F .2d10 97 , 10 99 –1 00 (5t h C ir. 1 97 0)
. Titl e VII an d § 5 19 81 “ ha ve th e sa m e requi rem en ts of p ro of an d u se th e sa m e an al yti cal fram ewo rk .” Sta nd ardv. A.B.E.L. Serv s., In c., 16 1 F .3d13 18 , 13 30 (11 th Cir
. 19 98 ). Ju stas wi thdi sc riminat io n b as edon pre gn an cy , a pl ai nt iff m ay pro ve race di sc riminat io n t hr ou gh eit he r di rector i nd ire ctev id en ce. See Crawfo rdv. Ca rro ll , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 75 –7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. W il li am s d oe s n otarg ue th atsh e h as an y di rectev id en ce o f rac e d is cri m in at io n; in st eadsh e arg ue s t ha t, u si ng th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rk , sh e h as in di rector c irc um st an ti al
ev id en ce o f rac e d is cri m in at io n. Se e Bryantv. J on es , 57 5 F .3d12 81 , 13 07 –0 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9)
. W il li am s co nt en ds th atsh e h as est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e b y us in g Nata sh a Pre vo as aco m

pa rat or . Prev o i s an Afric an–Am eri can wom anwho he ld th e sa m e p os it io n a s Will ia m s, wo rk edinth e sa m e u ni t, an d was gi ve n ali gh t-dut y job ba se d o n h er p reg na nc y . It i s u nc le ar fro m th e rec or d, h owe ve r, whe th er the

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 5 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 17de ci si on to gi ve Prev o ali gh t-dut y job was m ad e b y

Bax te r orby Rest itut o (b ot h of who m are wh it e). If Ba xt er d idno t m ak e th e d eci si on to gi ve Prev o t he li gh t-dut y job , W il li am s an d P rev o a re p ro babl y no t s im il arl y

si tu at ed . See Si lv era v. Ora ng e Cn ty. Sch . Bd., 2 44 F.3d12 53 , 12 61 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (“ [D]iffere nc es in tre at m en t b y di ffer en t s up erv is or s o r de ci si on m ak ers can se ld om be th e b as is fora vi ab le cla im of d is cri m in at io n.” ). Bec au se itdo es no t m at te r to th e res ul t, we wi ll ass um e, as th e d is tri ctco urt di d, t ha t Will ia m s h as est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f rac e d is cri m in at io n. W il li am s m

us t s ti ll sh ow t ha t t he reas on s Gat e Gou rm etpro ffer edforhe r te rm in at io n— Bax te r be li ev edsh e was un ab le to do he r job an d b el ie ve d t he re were n o a va il ab le li gh t-dut y job s—were a p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n b as edon race . Tha t Gat e Gou rm et ’s pro ffer edreas on s m ig htbe un tru e d oe s n otne ces sa ril y m ean W il li am s ca n s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t. See Alv arez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 4 (c it in g Ree ve s v . San de rs on Plu m bi ng Pro ds ., Inc ., 53 0 U.S. 1 33 , 14 8, 1 20 S.Ct . 20 97 , 21 09 (20 00 )). Itdo es no t b ecau se ev enif t he pro ffer edreas on s wer e fal se , W il li am s m

us t s ti ll sh ow t ha t t he actua l re as on sh e was term in at edwas ra ce di sc riminat io n. Se e id . at 1 26 5 (c it in g B ur di ne , 45 0 U.S. at25 6, 1 01 S.Ct . at 10 95 ); s ee al so Reev es , 53 0 U.S. at14 3, 1 20 S.Ct . at 2 10 6 (“ [T]he u lt im at e b ur de n of pe rs ua di ng th e tr ie r of

factth atth e d efen da ntin te nt io na ll y di sc riminat ed 18ag ai ns t t he pl ai nt iff rem ai ns at a ll ti m es with t he pl ai nt iff . Andin att em

pt in g t o sa ti sf y th is bu rd en , th e p la in ti ff— on ce the em pl oyer pro du ces su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to supp ort a n on di sc riminat ory ex pl an at io n fo r it s d eci si on—m us t b e aff or de d t he op po rtu ni ty to p ro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t t he leg it im at e reas on s o ffer edby the de fen da ntwere n otit s t ru e rea so ns , bu t wer e a p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.” (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). The in fere nc e th atW il li am s’ evi de nc e o f pr et ex t s up po rts is th atth e rea so n sh e was fir edin st eadof b ei ng gi ve n ali gh t-duty job was h er p reg na nc y , no t t he factth atsh e (l ik e th e d eci si on m ak er) i s wh it e. It fo ll ows th atun de r th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s fr am ewo rkW il li am s h as no t s ho wn a g enui ne is su e o f
m at eri al factab ou t wh ethe r Gat e Gou rm etin te nt io na ll y di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er ba se d o n h er ra ce. See Reev es , 53 0 U.S. at14 3, 1 20 S.Ct . at 2 10 6. No r ha s s he do ne so ou ts id e th e Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as fram ewo rk . The d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm eton W il li am s’ Titl e VII an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 ra ce d is cri m in at io n c la im s. IV. Ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who en ga ge s i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct ed act iv ity is ba rredun de r bo th Tit le VII an d § 19 81 . See 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a); CBOCS W ., Inc . v. Hum

ph rie s, 5 53 U.S. 44 2, 4 57 , 12 8 S .Ct. 1 95 1, 1 96 1 (2 00 8)

19(co nc lu di ng th at§ 1 98 1 e nc om pa ss es ret al ia ti on cla im s) ; Bry an t v . Jo ne s, 5 75 F.3 d 1 28 1, 1 30 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (di sc us si ng th e ri gh t o f act io n fo r ret al ia ti on un de r § 1 98 1 b ot h p re- a ndpo st -Hu m ph rie s) . A pla in ti ff es tabl is he s a p rima facie
cas e o f ret al ia ti on by sho win g t ha t: (1) sh e “ en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct ed act iv ity ”; (2) sh e “ su ffer eda m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n” ; an d (3 ) “ th ere was a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n.” Howard v. Walg reen Co ., 60 5 F .3d12 39 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); a cco rdDavi s v . Co ca-C ol a Bo tt li ng Co . Con so l., 5 16 F.3d95 5, 9 78 n.5 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. Gate Gou rm etadm it s, tha t i ts co m pa ny po li cy

was t o o ffer

av ai labl e li gh tdu ty pos it io ns to em

pl oyees wi th m ed ic al co nd it io ns . (App el le e Br. 1 9– 20 ). W il li am s al le ge s t ha t af

te r Bax te r to ldhe r sh e was term in at ed , Res ti tu to (th e u ni t’s ge ne ral m an ag er) a ndJo ne s (t he reg io na l h um anres ou rces m an ag er) i ns tru ct ed Noe l (the un it ’s hu m anres ou rces rep res en ta ti ve ) to off er Will ia m s a l ig ht -dut y po si ti onas asi lv erwar e wrap pe r. Onc e Gat e Gou rm etlea rn edsh e h adfil edan EEOC cha rg e, ho wev er, i t o ffer edhe r th atpo si ti on on ly on the co nd it io n t ha t s he dr op he r EEOC cha rg e. Gate Gou rm etdo es no t d is pu te th atW il li am s en ga ge d i n a st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv ity

when sh e fi le d t he ch arg e. It a rg ue s i ns te adth at W il li am s d idno t s uf

fer am at eri al ly adv ers e act io n t ha t can b e cau sa ll y co nn ect ed to th e fi li ng of t he ch arg e. 20W e fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er re fu si ng to gi ve W il li am s the li gh t-dut y po si ti on was a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n. Itwas. Gat e Gou rm etarg ue s t ha t, b ecau se W il li am s was term in at edon Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 8, i ts de ci si on no t t o g iv e h er the li gh tdu ty pos it io n c an no t b e a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n s in ce i t was no t re qu ire d t o rei ns ta te W il li am s t o adi ffer en t p os it io n a fte r te rm in at in g h er. Any offer to do so was , th eref

or e, anatt em

ptto set tl e h er EEOC ch arg e, an d o ffer s t o s ettl e EEOC ch arg es are n otret al ia to ry . Gate Gou rm et ’s arg um en t s uf fers fro m th e fac t t ha t Gat e Gou rm etit se lf h as pu t ev id en ce i nt o t he reco rdfro m whi ch a jury cou ldreas on ab ly findth atW il li am s was no t fi redon Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 8. Inth e Jo in t Pr el im in ary Pl an ni ng Rep ort an d Sch edul in g Ord er an d i n Def en da nt ’s Ini ti al Dis cl os ur es , Gate Go urm etst at ed :

“ Mr. Ba xt er d idno t h av e au th or it y to term in at e [Will ia m s]. There fo re, [Will ia m s’] em

pl oym en t was ne ve r te rm in at ed . In fa ct , [Gate Gourm et ] ne ve r rem ov ed[W il li am s] fro m it s emplo ym en t d at ab as e an d s ti ll ackno wled ge s [Will ia m s] as a n e m

pl oyee init s emplo ym en t d at ab as e.” (R5 :5 –6 ; R1 1: 3) . And whe n R es ti tu to tes ti fie d a s Gat e Gou rm et ’s cor po rat e d es ig ne e u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Civ il Pro cedur e 3 0( b) (6 ), he sai d: (1) “ W il li am s i s s ti ll in ou r syste m an d i s s ti ll pa rt o f ou r fac il ity ”; (2) “ [Will ia m s] was n ev er t erm in at ed ”; (3) “ [Will ia m s i s] act iv e inou r syste m ”; (4) “ W il li am s was no t o ffi ci al ly term in at edfro m ou r payro ll 21syste m , bec au se Ms . W il li am s was ne ve r of fic ia ll y term in at edto be gi n wi th ”; an d (5 ) “ W il li am s was n’t t erm in at edbe cau se I di d n otoff ic ia ll y term in at e h er.” (Res ti tu to Dep. R1 68 :2 56 ; R1 68 -1 :3 13 –1 4)
. Bo th Noel an d J on es als o t es ti fie d i n th ei r de po si ti on s t ha t Will ia m s was no t t erm in at ed . (Noel Dep. R1 62 :3 67 ; J on es Dep . R14 7- 1: 15 9– 60 ). Bec au se we m us t ac cep t t ho se st at em en ts as t ru e fo r pu rp os es of s umm ary jud gm en t o n Wil li am s’ ret al ia ti on cla im , we hav e to ass um e he re tha t s he was n otfir edon Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 8. 6 An ac ti on is m at eri al ly adv ers e if it“ m ig htha ve di ss ua de d areas on ab le
worke r fro m

m ak in g o r supp orti ng a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n.” Bur li ng to n N. & San taFe Ry. Co . v. Whit e, 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 8, 1 26 S.Ct . 24 05 , 24 15 (20 06 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . W ithh ol di ng a po si ti onth atanem pl oyee wou ld ot he rwis e rec ei ve un de r co m pany po li cy , parti cu la rly whenitres ul ts in he r no lo ng er h av in g ajob , m ig htwell di ss ua de a reas on ab le work er fro m m ak in g o r supp orti ng a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n. Gate Gou rm etco nc ed es in it s b rie f to th is Co urt t ha t “ anem pl oyer m ay

no t
Of c ourse, we acc epted a s true just the opposite—that Wil liams was fire d on August 14, 6 2008—when we decide d whether her pr egnancy

discrimination claim could survive summary judgme nt. But we did not find that she was fir ed on that date , only that there is sufficient evidenc e for

a jury to find that she was. What we find here is not inconsist ent with that. It is not inconsistent beca

use the a ssertions that Gate G ourmet has made about B axter not having authority to fire Williams are enough evidenc e for a jury to find that she was not fir ed on August 14 despite B axter telling he r that she wa s. There is also enough evidenc e for a jury to find that she wa s fired on August 14. 22wit hh ol d s ta nd ardem pl oyee be ne fit s b ecau se anem pl oyee ha s re fu se d t o wai ve [h er] rig ht s u nd er the an ti -d is cri m in at io n s ta tu te s,” ( App el le e Br. 1 8) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , anditreco gn iz es th ata li gh t-dut y job is a “be ne fit ,” (Ap pe ll ee Br . 18 –2 0) . As we h av e m en ti on ed , Gate Go urm etals o c on ced es th atitwas c om pa ny po li cy to gi ve av ai labl e li gh t-dut y job s t o e m

pl oyees wh o n eed edth em be cau se of
a m ed ic al co nd it io n, (Ap pe ll ee Br . 19 –2 0) , anditadm it te d thr ou gh it s R ul e 30 (b )(6 ) rep res en ta ti ve ’s tes ti m on y th ata li gh t-dut y

job was a va il ab le on Aug us t 18 , 20 08 , (Res ti tu to Dep. R1 68 :1 57 –5 8, 1 67 –6 8) . Gate Go urm etarg ue s, h owe ve r, th at“ th is be ne fitwas n ot. . . pr om is edor o wed” to W il li am s b ecau se sh e h ad al read y be enfir ed , andGate Gou rm etha s n o p ol ic y to pro vi de rei ns ta te m en t. (Ap pe ll ee Br . 18 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Bu t as we ha ve jus t d is cu ss ed , th e reco rdco nt ai ns ass ert io ns by G at e Gou rm etth atas o f Aug us t 1 8, 2 00 8, Will ia m s ha d n otbe enfir edan d was st il l an em pl oyee, andne it he r pa rty dis pu te s t ha t W il li am s was no t g iv ena li gh t-dut y job
. The m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n m us t, h owe ve r, be “ cau sa ll y co nn ect ed ” to W il li am s’ EEOC char ge . Gate Go urm etass ert s t ha t t he de ci si on no t t o g iv e h er a li gh t-dut y job to okpl ace n o l at er than Au gu st18 , 20 08 , andth e EEOC di d n ot
m ai l Gat e Gou rm etno ti ce o f th e ch arg e u nt il Aug us t 1 9, 2 00 8. Th e d en ia l o f a li gh t-dut y job can no t, the refo re, b e a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n c au sa ll y co nn ect ed 23to he r EEOC cha rg e b ecau se ithapp en edbe fo re Gat e Gou rm etgo t n ot ic e o f th e

ch arg e an d a n e ffec t cann otpre ced e th e cau se . Cf. Drag o v . Jen ne , 45 3 F .3d13 01 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atwher e anem pl oyer co nt em

pl at edanadve rs e act io n b efo re the em

pl oyee en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edact iv it y , th e te m po ral pro xi m it y be twee n the pro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n d idno t s ho w cau sa ti on ). Tha t ar gu m en t fa il s as well , no t as a m at te r of law o r lo gi c b utas am at te r of fact . Viewedin th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to W il li am s, the ev id en ce wo ul d a ll ow a reas on ab le jury to fin d t ha t t he fol lo win g s eque nc e o f ev en ts oc cu rred : (1 ) Aug us t 1 4, 2 00 8: Bax te r te ll s Will ia m s t ha t s he is term in at ed ; (2 ) Aug us t 1 5, 2 00 8: W il li am s fi le s anEEOC cha rg e; (3 ) Aug us t 1 8, 2 00 8: Res ti tu to an d No el m eet , det erm in e th ere i s an av ai labl e li gh t-dut y

po si ti on as asi lv erwar e wrap pe r an d d eci de to of fer t ha t p os it io n t o Wil li am s; (4 ) Aug us t 1 8, 2 00 8: Laterth atsame day , Res ti tu to , Noel , Bax te r, W al ke r, an d J on es m eet , andJo ne s s ay s t ha t Will ia m s n eed s t o b e br ou gh t b ackin to di sc us s an y av ai labl e li gh t-dut y

job ; (5 ) Aug us t 1 9, 2 00 8: The EEOC m ai ls no ti ce o f th e ch arg e to Gate Gou rm et ; (6 ) Aug us t 2 0– 28 , 20 08 : Atso m e p oi ntdu rin g t hi s p eri od , Gate Gou rm etrece iv es no ti ce o f th e EEOC ch arg e an d re fers itto it s l eg al de pa rtment; (7 ) Aug us t 2 8, 2 00 8: DonMarc us of t he EEOC rela y s a c on di ti on al of fer fr om Gate Gou rm etto W il li am s: dro p the EEOC cha rg e an d 24Gate Gou rm etwil l p uthe r ba ckto workan d p ay he r ba ck pa y ; W il li am s d oe s n otacce ptth e o ffer ; (8 ) Aug us t 2 8, 2 00 8: Laterth atda y , W al ke r sc he du le s a m eet in g wit h Wil li am s fo r th e n ex t d ay an d t el ls he r th atsh e wil l b e g iv ena li gh t-duty job in th e si lv erwar e d ep art m en t; (9 ) Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 8: W il li am s m is se s t he sch edul edm eet in g b utha s a co nv ers at io n wi th Noel ov er the tel ep ho ne in whi chNoel refu se s t o di sc us s t he pro m is edpo si ti on in th e si lv erwar e d ep art m en t b ecau se “ [e]veryth in g i s atth e le ga l l ev el rig htno w”; (1 0) Gate Gourm etne ve r gi ve s Will ia m s t he si lv erwar e wrap pe r po si ti on , ano th er l ig ht -dut y po si ti on , or a ny po si ti on at a ll
. 7

“ W e co ns tru e th e cau sa l l in k e le m en t b ro ad ly so t ha t ‘a pl ai nt iff m erel y ha s to pro ve th atth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d the ne ga ti ve em

pl oym en t ac ti on are n ot co m pl et el y un rel at ed .’ ” Gol ds m it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 78 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g Ol m st edv. Taco Bel l Co rp ., 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 )). Part ic ul arl y

in li gh t o f th atst an da rd , a jury reas on ab ly cou ldfin d fro m th e se qu en ce o f ev en ts th atGate Gou rm etde ci de d t o u nc on di ti on al ly offer W il li am s t he li gh t-dut y

si lv erwar e wrap pe r po si ti onan d wo ul d h av e d on e so bu t fo r th e fac t t ha t s he fil edanEEOC cha rg e. Once itlea rn edth atsh e h ad , Gate Gou rm etch an ge d wh atwou ldha ve be enanun co nd it io na l o fferin to a co nd it io na l Gate G ourmet disputes a number of these f acts, but there is enough evidenc e to cr eate a 7 g enuine issue f

or the jury

as to ea ch of the m. See Morrison v. Amwa y Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ In rulingon a Rule 56 motion, the district court may not weigh the evidenc e or find fac ts. Instead, the c ourt’s role is limited to decidingwhether there is sufficient evide nce upon which a r easona

ble juror c ould find for the non- moving pa rty .”). 25of

fer i n wh ic h s he co ul d h av e th e p os it io n (wi th ba ckpay ) on ly if sh e dro pp edth e ch arg e. Whe n Wil li am s wo ul d n otdro p i t, Gat e Gou rm etres ci nd edth e o ffer
. 8 Thi s p erm is si bl e in te rp ret at io n o f th e ev id en ce cr eat es a reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e st atut or il y

pro te ct edfil in g o f an d re fu sa l t o s et tl e th e EEOC ch arg e cau se d Gate Gou rm etto de ny W il li am s a l ig ht -dut y po si ti on , whi ch is a m at eri al ly adve rs e act io n. Acco rd in gl y , su m m ary jud gm en t s ho ul d n otha ve be engra nt ed ag ai ns t Will iam s o n h er Tit le VII an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 ret al ia ti on cla im s.

Gate G ourmet’s off

er to g ive Will iams a lig ht-duty job in ex chang e for

her dr opping the 8 EEOC cha

rg e also include d the entice ment of bac k pay . Gate G ourmet argues, and the district court c oncluded, that be causethe conditional offe r included ba ck pay , it was a settlement of fer , and settlement off

ers c annot be r etaliation. It is true that they ordinarily

cannot be . But wha

t Gate G ourmet did was withhold from Williams a light-duty position, which is a benef it that she undisputedly

would otherwise ha

ve re ceive d under c ompany policy , and it alleg edly

did that solely beca use of he r EEOC cha

rg e. Cf. Goldsmith, 513 F.3d at 1279 (c oncludingthat it was reta liatory

to terminate a

n employee f

or re fusingto sign a

n arbitration agree ment that would have cover ed his pendingdiscrimination char g e). 26V.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm etonW il li am s’ cla im s fo r rac e d is cri m in at io n, b utwe rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm eton W il li am s’ cla im s fo r pr eg na nc y di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Gat e Gou rm et ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n W il li am s’ st at e law cla im s b ecau se itco nc lu de d t he y were d eri va ti ve of t he fed eral di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on cla im s t ha t t he co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t. There fo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o 9 Gate Gou rm eton th e st at e la w cla im s t o t he ex te ntth ey are b as edon W il li am s’ cl ai m s fo r rac e d is cri m in at io n, b utwe rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm etonth e st at e la w cla im s t o the ex te ntth ey are b as edon W il li am s’ cla im s fo r pr eg na nc y di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on , andwe rem an d t he
cas e fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n o f th os e cl ai m s. The di stric t co urt al so de ni edon e o f W il li am s’ di sc ov ery m ot io ns as m oo t be cau se itgra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t t o Gat e Gou rm et . W e v acat e th atord er an d

Wil liams’ state law c laims are ba sed on either a violation of a f

ederal statute or Gate 9 Gourmet pe rmitting its employ ees to discriminate. It does not appea r that Ge org ia cour

ts have ever rec ognized a common law duty to preve nt employ

ment discrimination. But if such a duty exis ts, violation of it would necessarily require discrimination to have occ urre d. 27rem an d i t t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r rec on si de rat io n i n l ig htof thi s o pi ni on .

AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

28