FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 10, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1079 8 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00295 -CV -O RL -22KRS MON IQ UE MIL LE R, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us LE CT RA US A, IN C. De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( A ug us t 10, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Mon iqu e Mi lle r ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of he r fo rm er

e m plo y er , L ec tr a U SA , I nc . ( “ L ec tr a” ). Mi lle r al le ge d “ host ile2

w ork e nvi ro nm en t” se xua l hara ssm en t and r et al iatio n, pur suant t o th e Fl or ida Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 199 2 ( “ FC RA ”) and T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4 ( “ T itl e VII”), 4 2 U.S.C. § § 2 00 0e , et se q. O n appeal, Miller

argues that the district court er re d inf ind ing that sh e did

not e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

se xua l hara ssm en t orret al ia ti on . A . “ H ost ile W ork E nvi ro nm en t” S ex ua l H ar as sm en t C la im Mi lle r fi rs t arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in fi ndi ng that sh e did

not establish a prim a fa cie ca se of sexual harassm ent because she failed to show that the c om pla ine d- of

c ondu ct w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive . Mi lle r co nte nds that she establish ed the pervasive nature of the har assm ent by presenting evidence of thr ee e xam

ple s of m isc ondu ct

on the part

of he r fo rm er

sup er vis or , Jil l Sim m ons, and three exam

ples of m iscondu ct on the part of another L ectra em plo y ee , G re g S um

ne rs , e ac h of

whic h oc curr ed

dur ing ar el at ive ly

sho rt pe ri od of ti m e. Mi lle r co nte nds that the unw el co m e an d of fe nsi ve natur e of

the a ct s, c o mb i n e dw i thh e r

t e s t i mo n y th a ts h e s u f

f e r e dp s yc h o l o g i c a l e f

f e c t s th e r e f

r o m, suf fi ci en tly e sta bli she d ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t. Mi lle r al so arg ue s th at the court err ed in finding that (1) Miller wa s not subje ct to unwelcom e sexual ha ras sm en t an d (2 ) Si m

m on s’ con du ctwas n otba se d o n M il le r’s ge nd er.3

W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , vie w ing th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Pe rrino v. Sout he rn B el l T

el . &T el . Co . , 209 F. 3d 13 09, 1314-15 (11th Cir. 2000). Sum m ary j udgm en t m

ust be gr an te d “ if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro gator ie s, and a dm iss ion s onf ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if any , sho w that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and . . . the m ovi ng p ar ty is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) .

“ Fl or ida ’ s C ivi l R igh ts A ct is patte rn ed

a ft er T itl e V II , and thus fe de ra l c as e l awd e a l i n g w i thT i t l e V I I i s ap p l i c ab l e t o e mp l o yme n td i s c r i mi n a t i o nc l a i ms brough t under Florida law. ” Maniccia v. Brown , 171 F . 3d 1 364, 136 8 n. 2 ( 11th Ci r. 199 9) . W e an al y ze Mi lle r’ s di sc ri m inatio n c la im s, whic h are ba se d onboth Fl or id a an d fe de ral law, s ol el y by referen ce t o c as es in te rp ret in g Ti tl e VII. Id . Tit le VII pr oh ib it s “ ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t” sex ua l h aras sm en t. See W alton v. Johnson &Johnson Servs., Inc. , 34 7 F .3d12 72 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

“ host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t” se xua l hara ssm en t, a pla int if f m ust sho wthe f

oll ow ing : ( 1) she be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed gr oup; ( 2) she w as sub j ec te d to unw el co m e se xua l hara ssm en t; (3 ) the hara ssm en t c om pla ine d of wa s based upo n her sex; (4) the hara ssm ent com plained of was sufficie ntly severe or pervasive to alter the ter m s or conditio ns of em

ploym ent and to create a4

dis cr im inator ily

abusi ve w orkin g e nvi ro nm en t; an d ( 5) the de fe ndant i s responsib le for such environm ent under either a theory of vicarious or direct li ab il it y . Se e id. at12 79 -8 0. H er e, Mi lle r did

not pr es en t e vid en ce that the c ondu ct of S im m ons an d Sum ne rs w as suf

fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rs ua siv e to a lte r the te rm s or c ondi tio ns o f he r em pl oym en t an d t o c reat e a d is cri m in at or il y ab us iv e worki ng en vi ro nm en t. Miller alleges that Sim

m ons: (1) at a hotel bar and in front of Miller and oth er co -w orke rs , loo se ne d th e tie of am ar ri ed , m al e co -w orke r an d r ubbe d he r hands al l ov er his c he st a

nd h ea d, ( 2) too k M ill er

w ithhe r to p ur ch as e co ndom s and t old Miller that the condom s wer e for her “ love-fest w eekend with [her ] new bo y fri en d,” an d (3 ) ta lk edab ou t h er s ex li fe wi th m al e an d fe m al e co -wo rk ers . Mi lle r furthe r al le ge s th at S um ne rs : ( 1) m ad e co m

m en ts t o he r ab out

he r be ing a good -l ooki ng f

em al e an d he r m ar

ri ag e not be ing that se ri ous as she ha d be enonl y rece ntly m arrie d, (2) told her that she loo ked goo d in sho rt skirts, and (3) a sked he r out f or dr ink s and d inn er

on a num be r of oc ca sio ns. T his c ondu ct is not s u ff i ci en t l y s ev er e o r p er s u as i v e t o al t erth e t erm s o r c o n d i t i o n s o f M i l l er ’s em plo ym en t, whe n c om

pare d w iththe c ondu ct

c om pla ine d of

inMe ndoz a v. Borden, I nc. , 195 F. 3d 12 38, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 1999) ( en ban c ). ( H old ing that a superviso r’ s acts of rubbing hi s hip agains t plaintiff’ s hip while touchin g her5

shou lde r an d sm ili ng, loo kin g at pl ai nti ff ’ s gr oinare a w hil e m ak ing asni ff ing soun d, and “ co nst an tly ” stari ng and f oll ow ing pla int if

f w er e ins uf

fi ci en t a s a m at te r of law t o s us ta in a “ ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t” sex ua l h aras sm en t cl ai m). W e ar e boun d by

our pr ec ed en t i n M

en doza . Id . a t 12 47- 48. B ec au se Mi lle r did

not pr es en t e vid en ce that the c om pla ine d- of

c ondu ct w as suf fi ci en tly severe or persuasive to alter the term s or conditio ns of her em ploym ent, Miller fai le d t o s ho w a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t s ex ua l h aras sm en t. Se e W alton , 347 F. 3d at 127 9. T hus we need not address Miller’ s argum ents that the district court erred in finding that Miller was not subjec t to unwelcom e sexual ha ras sm en t an d t ha t Si m

m on s’ con du ctwas n otba se d o n M il le r’s ge nd er. B. Re ta liatio n C la im Mi lle r ne xt arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c our

t e rr ed in fi ndi ng that sh e fa ile d to show a prim a fa cie ca se of re taliation because Miller failed to show a c ausal connection b etwe en her com plaints o f hara ssm ent and her term ination . Miller concedes that she filed her initial com plaint regarding harassm ent in February 2001 and w as te rminate d inS ep te m be r 2001 . H ow ev er , Mi lle r co nte nds that sh e showed the requisite tem

poral proxim ity

betwee n the events, in that Sim m ons was not aw ar e that M ill er

ha d f ile d th e co m

pla int a ga ins t he r unt il Augus t 20 01, one m onth pr ior

to Mi lle r’ s te rminatio n. Mi lle r al so arg ue s th at she sho w ed

that sh e6

h ada r ea s o n ab l e g o o dfa i thb el i ef th atd i s cr i m i n at i o nex i s t edan dth atLe ct ra ’s ar tic ulate d r ea son fo r te rminatin g he r em plo ym en t w as pr et ex tua l. A ga in, w e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . P errin o , 209 F . 3d at 13 14- 15. W e an al y ze Mi lle r’ s di sc ri m inatio n c la im s so le ly by referen ce t o c as es in te rp ret in g Ti tl e VII. M ani cc ia , 171 F . 3d at 13 68 n . 2. T itl e V II pr ohi bit s an e m plo y er f ro m dis cr im inatin g a ga ins t an e m plo y ee in ret al ia ti on forex erci si ng a ri gh t g ua ran te edth ereu nd er. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e- 3( a) . “ Apr im a fa ci e ca se of r et al iatio n c ont ai ns thr ee e le m en ts: f ir st, the plaintiff engaged in statu torily protected conduct; second , the plaintiff suff ered an adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion ; and f

ina lly , the a dve rs e ac tio n w as c au sa lly r el at ed to the protected expression.” W illiams v. M

otoro la, Inc. , 303 F . 3d 1 284, 129 1 ( 11th Cir. 2002 ) (internal quotations o m itted). “ The c ases that acce pt m ere tem poral pr oxi m ity be tw ee n an e m

plo y er ’ s kn ow le dge of

pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct iona s su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce of

c au sa lity to es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e case uniform ly

hold th at the tem

poral proxim ity

m ust be very

close.” Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Bre eden , 532 U . S. 268 , 273 , 121 S . Ct . 150 8, 151 1 ( 2001 ) (internal quotation s om itted).We do not sugg est that a seve n-month period betwe en an e mploy er’ s knowledg e of a 1 protec ted ac tivity

and an a dverse employ

ment action is alwa

y s insufficient evide nce of causa lity . Ho we ve r, g ive n th e fa c ts o f t his c a se , th e te mpo ra l pr oximi ty of se ve n mo nth s is no t e no ugh to establish causation. Se eCla rk Cou nty , 532 U.S. at 273, 121 S. Ct . at 1511.

7 He re, Miller has not shown sufficient tem poral proxim ity

betwee n her co m pl ai nt s t o h er em

pl oyer an d h er t erm in at io n a s t o e st ab li sh cau sa ti on . Se e id. T he e vid en ce sho w s th at

Mi lle r fi le d awri tte n c om pla int of hara ssm en t w ith L ec tr a in F eb ru ar

y 200 1 and w as te rminate d inS ep te m be r 2001 . T his se ve n- m onth pe ri od b etw ee n th e tw o e ve nts is not “ ve ry c los e” a s to e sta

bli sh the ne ces sa ry tem po ral pro xi m it y . Se e Clark Co unt y , 532 U. S. at 273, 121 S. C t. at 1511 ( re ly ing on c as es that he ld a thr ee -month pe ri od and a f our -m onth pe ri od ins uf fi ci en t i n ho ldi ng a

20- m onth pe ri od i nsuf

fi ci en t t o su gge st c au sa lity ). T he se ve n- m onth pe ri od b etw ee n M ill er ’ s c om pla int of hara ssm en t and h er

te rminatio n falls outsid e the param eters f or establishin g causation. Miller, however, argues 1 that the relevant period of tim e is not the seven-m onth period betwee n her com plaint to Le ctra and her term ination , but the one-m onth period betwee n when Si m m ons (a de ci sio n- m ak er

in he r te rminatio n) le ar

ne d of Mi lle r’ s c om

pla int , and Mi ll er’s s ub se qu en t t erm in at io n. E ve n a ssum ing that M ill er c ane sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se ba se d onthe ap pr oxi m at el y

one -m onth pe ri od b etw ee n whe n S im m ons be cam e aw ar e of

the8

com plaint and when Miller wa s term inated, she has fa iled to provi de evidence that Le ctra’ s stated legitim ate re ason for the term ination – poor sales perform ance – wa s p re t ex tu al . In s up p o rto f h erp re t ex tar g u m en t , M i l l eral l eg es th atLe ct ra ’s record of em

ploy ee per form ance, the “ GA P re port,” shows that m ale em ploy ees wi ths i m i l ars al es re co rd s we re n o tt erm i n at ed , an dth atSi m m o n s fa l s i fi edMi l l er ’s sa le s f or ec as t. H av ing e xam ine d th e re co rd , w e fi nd that the G A P re port i n a ct ua lity de m onstrate s th at

Mi lle r’ s sa le s pe rf

orm an ce la gge d su

bst an tia lly

be hin d th at

of her colleagues of sim ilar em ploym ent histo ry

who w ere not term inated. F urther, Mi ll er h as pro vi de d n o e vi de nc e th atSimm on s “ fal si fie d” Mi ll er’s s al es for ecas t. Although evidence indicates that Sim m ons adjusted the rawsales forec ast figures subm itted by

Miller, the rec ord also establish es that those adjustm ents wer e a pr ope r ex er ci se of

S im m ons’ m an ag er ia l duty

to en sur e that the sa le s f or ec as t re fl ec te d r ea lis tic sa le s pr ospe ct s. Mi lle r pr ovi de s no e vid en ce that S im m ons’ ad j ustm en ts w er e im

pr ope r. B ec au se Mi lle r ha s f ai le d to c re at e a ge nui ne iss ue of fact r egarding whether L ectra ’ s stated legitim ate re asons for dism issin g her w ere pr et ex tu al , th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . See P en nin gto n v . Ci tyof H

unt sv ille , 261 F. 3d 12 62, 1267 (11t h Cir. 2001 ).9

Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndup on co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we dis ce rnno r ev er sib le e rr or . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.