FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 11, 2005 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. 05- 10372 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 6 9 9 - C V- T - 2 6 - E AJ B R I A N A . J E R O N I M U S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P O L K C O U N T Y O P P O R T U N I T Y C O U N C I L , I N C ., L O T T I E S . T U C K E R , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 11, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Head Start is an early childhood educa

tion program for

threeand four

year-old children, 1 after which, thechildren a re prepared to beg in kinderg arten.

2 B r i a n A . J e r oni m us , a w hi t e m a l e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ' s or de rgr a nt i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f d e f e n d a n ts P o lk C o u n ty O p p o r tu n ity C o u n c il (“ P C O C ”) and L ot t i e T ucker (“ T ucker”) on hi s c l ai m s of r ac e a nd se x di sc ri m i nat i on and ret al i at i on i n v i ol at i on of T i t l e V II , the F l ori da C i vi l R i gh t s A ct ( “ FCRA ” ) , a n d 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 1 . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D P C O C is a n o n - p r o f

it a g e n c y th a t p r o v id e s s o c ia l a n d e c o n o m ic s e r v ic e s to a s s i s tl o w- i n c o m e f

a m i l i e s , c h i l d r e n , s e n i o r s , a n d p e r s o n s wi th d i s ab i l i t i e s . On F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 0 , P C O C h ir e d J e r o n im u s a s its D ir e c to ro f F in a n c e . I n th is p o si t i o n , Jero n i m u s w as resp o n si b l e fo r o v erseei n g al l o f P C O C ' s fi n an ci al m att ers, i ncl ud i ng P C O C ’ s a dm i ni stra t i on of the fe dera l H ea d S t artand C om m un i ty S ervi ce B l ock G ra nt(“ C S B G ”) prog ra m s. L ot t i e T ucker, P C O C ’ s E xecut i ve D i re ct or, in te r v ie w e d a n d r e c o m m e n d e d J e r o n im u s f o re m p lo y m e n t b e c a u s e o f h is experi ence i n n on -profi tagency fi nanci al m anagem ent , spec i fi ca l l y H ea d S t art f undi ng. 1 A . Jeron i m u s’ s P er form an ce D ef i ci en ci es 1 . M e m o s A ddr e s s i ng Pe r f o r m a nc e C o nc e r ns O n A pri l 5, 20 00 , short l y a ft erJe roni m us began h i s e m pl oym ent , T ucker3

e x p r e s s e d c o n c e rn s ab o u tth e wa y i n wh i c h h e i n t e r a c t e d wi th a n o th e rP C OC e m pl oy e e . I n a m e m o t o hi s pe r s onne l f i l e , T uc ke rr e c ount e d he re f f or t s t o r e s ol ve a c on fl i ctbetw ee n Jer on i m us and E l ai ne D ust i n, a w om an w ho w as then Jero n i m u s’ s acco u n t i n g su p erv i so r. In h er A u g u st , 2 0 0 0 ev al u at i o n o f Jero n i m u s, T uc ke ri ndi c a t e d tha tJ e r oni m us m e tore xc e e de d e xpe c t a t i ons i n a l l c a t e gor i e s , but n o te d th a t h e s h o u ld w o r k o n h is c o m m u n ic a tio n s k ills . O n M a r c h 21, 2001, T uc ke rs e ntJ e r oni m us a m e m o e xpr e s s i ng he rc onc e rns ov erse vera l fi nanci al m att er s. S peci fi ca l l y, T ucker not ed a tra nsfe r of a gency fund s betw ee n u nrel at ed ac coun t s, the fa i l ure t o reportt o h erthe exi st ence of a c a s h f l ow pr obl e m , the f

a i l ur e t o c om pl e t e c orr e c t l y a l i ne of c r e di tappl i c a t i on, and the del egat i on of re se ar ch w ork t o P C O C ’ s out si de ac coun t i ng fi rm . T ucker e nde d the l e tt e re m pha s i z i ng tha t“ [ t ] he s e a r e s e r i ous c onc e rns , w hi c h ne e d t o be hand l ed expedi t i ou sl y. ” In a M ay16 , 20 01 m em o t o Jer on i m us, T ucker expres se d h erconcerns ov er hi s m a na ge m e ntof

s t a f f m e m be r s . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , s he a ddr e s s e d a n i ns t a nc e of i nt i m i da t i on by J e r oni m us t ow a r d hi s s t a f f m e m be r s a f

t e rthe y c om pl a i ne d about hi m and the del egat i on of t as ks thathe shou l d b e handl i ng . T ucker al so no t ed that J e r oni m us f

a i l e d t o c om pl e t e pr ope r l y a P C O C r e por t . I n he rD e c e m be r , 2001 perf orm ance eval uat i on of Je roni m us, tho ug h, T ucker agai n i nd i ca t ed that4

Je roni m us m etor excee ded exp ec t at i on s i n al l ca t egori es ; ho w ever , she a l so no t ed “[ n ]o t e n o u g h s ta f

f s u p e r v is io n . . . . [ d ]o e s n o t g e t r e p o r ts c o m p le te d in a tim e ly m a n n e r. . . [ a ]tte n d r e q u ir e d m e e tin g s o n tim e [ o r ] . . . [ k ]e e p h is s ta f f in f o r m e d .” O n D e c e m be r7, 2001, T uc ke rs e ntJ e r oni m us a m e m o, out l i ni ng f i ve concerns w hi ch needed t o b e di sc usse d. S peci fi ca l l y, T ucker not ed: (1) that fi nanci al re po rt s w er e c on si st ent l y pre pare d l at e; (2) thatJe roni m us w as c ons i s t e nt l y l a t e f

orm e e t i ngs ; ( 3) tha tm onthl y de pa r tm e nt a l m e e t i ngs w e r e not be i ng he l d de s pi t e T uc ke r ’ s r e que s t ; ( 4) tha tJ e r oni m us ’ s s t a f f f e l ttha ti m por t a nt deci si on s w er e bei ng i m prop er l y del egat ed fr om hi m t o them ; and (5) that J e r o n im u s r e p o r te d ly h a d b e e n b o rr o w in g m o n e y f r o m s ta f f m e m b e r s . 2. W r i t t e n W ar n i n gs O n January 2, 20 02 , T ucker s entJe roni m us a w arni ng l ett er . In thatl ett er , T ucker not ed thatJe roni m us turned i n a re po rtt o a P C O C audi t or w i th i ncorrec t f i gur e s , bl a m e d the e rr oron a s ubor di na t e , a nd l e f tthe a udi t ora l one i n the bui l di ng w i tho uti nform i ng the audi t or thathe w as l ea vi ng for the day. In addi t i on , T ucker no t ed a s peci fi c i nst ance i n w hi ch Je roni m us w as no tfol l ow i ng the H ea d S t art adm i ni stra t i ve ac coun t i ng gu i del i nes properl y. T ucker concl ud ed by addi ng that

“ i nc orr e c tf

i gur e s a nd ba d a udi t s c oul d c os tthi s a ge nc y gr a ntf unds a nd I do not pl a n t o l e ttha thappe n. I f thi s s houl d oc c ura ga i n, y ou l e a ve m e no a l t e rna t i ve butThe CSBG program uses a different budg et than the He ad Start program. CSBG f unds 2 areprovided by

the fe deral government but dispersed through the Florida Depa rtment of Communi ty

Affairs (“F DCA”). 5 t o p l ac e y ou on suspensi on w i tho utcom pensat i on . ” O n M ay13 , 20 02 , T ucker s enta J er on i m us w ri tt en w arni ng expres si ng her concerns abo uthi s gener al prepare dn es s. T ucker not ed thatJe roni m us had fai l ed t o com e pre pare d t o a m ee t i ng w i th a P C O C audi t or. In addi t i on , T ucker i nd i ca t ed thathe had b ee n u nt i m el y i n sub m i tt i ng re po rt s t o the P C O C F i nance C om m i tt ee , P ol i c y C ounc i l , a nd B oa r d of D i r e c t or s . T uc ke rc onc l ude d by a ddi ng, “ I w i l l not a l l ow y ou t o putthi s a ge nc y a tr i s k by y ourl a c k of pr e pa r a t i on. T hi s i s y our se cond w arni ng . If

you d o n othave a s at i sf ac t ory e xp l anat i on , you w i l l be pl ac ed o n th r e e ( 3 ) d a y s u s p e n s io n .” 3 . Fi na nc i a lM i s m a na g e m e nt T o a m e l i or a t e a c a s h f

l ow pr obl e m s i n the C S B G pr ogr a m , J e r oni m us i m prop er l y l etthe C S B G ac coun tbo rr ow fr om the H ea d S t artac coun t . In 2 addi t i on , he fl oat ed checks f rom the H ea d S t artac coun tw hi l e there w er e i nsuffi ci entfund s t o m ake pay m ent . O n Jul y 24, 20 02 , T ucker re ce i ved n ot i ce fr om the bank thata P C O C chec k i n the am ou ntof $1 6, 48 9. 00 had b ee n returned f o rin s u f f ic ie n t f u n d s . T h e f

o llo w in g d a y , T u c k e rs e n t a w r itte n w a rn in g to J e r oni m us i ndi c a t i ng tha tde l i be r a t e l y i s s ui ng ba d c he c ks i s nota c c e pt abl e a ndReviewingthe August, 2002 bank statement, Tuc ker discovered that J eronimus had 3 iss ue d a n additi on al 24c he c ks without suf fi c ient f un ds . 6 not i ng tha tJ e r oni m us ha d “ ne gl e c t e d t o i nf or m [ T uc ke r ] tha t[ he w a s ] m a i l i ng out c he c ks w i th i ns uf

f i c i e ntf unds . ” I n a ddi t i on, T uc ke rnot e d tha tJ e r oni m us w a s not keepi ng i n t ou ch w i th st af f a nd ordered hi m t o h ave w ee kl y s t af f m ee t i ng s. T ucker c o n c lu d e d b y a d d in g th a t “th is is th e s e c o n dw a rn in g th a t I h a v e h a d to is s u e to y o u . T h e n e x t s te p is a f iv e - d a y s u s p e n s io n w ith o u t p a y .” T he f ol l ow i ng da y , J ul y 26, J e r oni m us s e nta n e m a i l t o T uc ke ra nd D onna E tz e l, P C O C ’s h u m a n r e s o u r c e s d ir e c to r , c o m p la in in g th a t h e w a s b e in g “u n ju s tly s i ngl e d outf

orc i r c um s t a nc e s be y ond [ hi s ] c ontr ol , ” tha tT uc ke r“ w a s c onduc t i ng a ca m pai gn of hara ss m ent , ” a nd addi ng that“ [t ] hi s i s atrul y host i l e e nv i ronm ent . . . ” A ft er sen d i n g i t , Jero n i m u s reco n si d ered b ecau se th e em ai l co n t ai n ed h arsh la n g u a g e . H e th e n w e n t d o w n s ta ir s to E tz e l’s o f f ic e , a n d a s k e d th a t s h e d e le te it, w h ic h s h e d id . T uc ke rpr om pt l y l a unc he d a n i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o the pr a c t i c e s w i thi n the f in a n c e d e p a r tm e n t. T u c k e rd is c o v e r e d th a t in th e m o n th s o f M a y th r o u g h J u ly 20 02 , Je roni m us had, w i tho utno t i fy i ng T ucker, i ss ued 4 7 checks – t ot al i ng m ore th a n $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 –w ith in s u f f ic ie n t f u n d s , c r e a tin g o v e r d r a f

ts in P C O C ’s a c c o u n t. 3 O n J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , J e r o n im u s m e t w ith T u c k e ra n d in f o r m e d h e rth a t, in a d d itio n to f l oa t i ng c he c ks , he ha d be e n us i ng H e a d S t a r tf unds t o a ddr e s s P C O C ’ s c a s h f l owBor rowingfrom He ad Start funds to meet other financ ial obligations is forbidden by 4 regulation. 7 pr obl e m s . T uc ke rthe n s e ntJ e r oni m us a l e tt e ri nf or m i ng hi m tha tH e a d S t a r tf unds m a y n o t b e u s e d to f

u n d o th e rp r o g r a m s , th a t P C O C ’s a u d ito rw o u ld b e o n s ite to 4 s e e w he the rthe r e w e r e pr obl e m s w i th how H e a d S t a r tha d be e n a dm i ni s t e r e d, a nd th a t h e w o u ld b e s u s p e n d e d w ith o u t p a y d u r in g th e p e n d e n c y o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . T he a udi t or s pr oduc e d a w r i tt e n r e por ton A ugus t6, 2002. I n i t , the y f ound thatfor the peri od of M aythrou gh Jul y 200 2, there w er e three i nst ance s i n w hi ch H e a d S ta r t f

u n d s h a d b e e n im p r o p e r ly u s e d f o rp u rp o s e s n o t r e la te d to H e a d S ta r t. O ve rtha ts a m e pe r i od, the a udi t or s f ound 72 i ns t a nc e s ( i n a n a m ountof $88, 953. 85 pl us $1, 334. 00 i n ove r dr a f tf e e s ) of c he c ks be i ng dr a w n w i thout s u f f ic ie n t f u n d s to c o v e rth e m . B . Je r on i m u s ’ s T e r m i n at i on B y l e tt e rda t e d A ugus t13, 2002, T uc ke ri nf or m e d J e r oni m us tha tthe audi t ors had re vi ew ed the agency r ec ords, and thathe w as bei ng t erm i nat ed base d on the i nform at i on they had di sc ov er ed. A ft erhi s t erm i nat i on , Je roni m us w rot e a n e m a il, w h ic h h e s e n t to th e w h ite m e m b e r s o f th e P C O C B o a r d , c o m p la in in g o f h is t e r m i na t i on. H i s e m a i l e xpl a i ne d how he w a s notr e s pons i bl e f orthe unde r l y i ng ca sh flo w cr isis w h ich p re cip it ated h is term in atio n . F o ll o w in g Je ro n im u s’s t erm i nat i on , the vacantD i re ct or of F i nance posi t i on w as advert i se d i n a l ocalJ eronimus also sug g ests that therewas a n environment of racial discriminatory animus 5 at PCOC. J eronimus notes two statements by Tucker (his superior), and two statements by Wooten (a colleague). D uringa meeting with an insura nce c arrier, Tuc ker a sked the rhetorical question, “why

is it that the g ood guys wea r white a nd the bad guys wea

r blac k? ” A sec ond incident coincide d with a trainingthat J eronimus was giving, in which Tucker told J eronimus that he “better betrainingthe black pe ople in this room too or it’s not – i t’s g oing to l oo k likeyou ’reonly

takingc areof

theno nb lac ks .”Af

ter t wopre sentatio ns g iven b y white males who wor

ked for outside vendors, Jeronimus heard Wooten say “white boy” with a smirk on her f ace , which Jeronimus took t o mean “ What does he know? He’ s a white boy .” Af ter the se c on d p re sentatio n, Jeronimu s menti on e d th e“whitebo y”c omm ent in p a ssingto Etze l be c a us e he thought it was “odd.” 8 new spaperand fi l l ed by C ra i g F etherm an, a w hi t e m al e. C . A l l e g a t i o ns o f

D i f f e r e nt i a lTr e a t m e nt A s di sc usse d l at er , Je roni m us cont ends thatT ucker s up ervi se d and tre at ed G ai l W i gg s ( “ W i gg s” ), the P C O C H ea d S t artD i re ct or, and L el a W oo t en (“ W oo t en”) , a S eni or P rogram R es ou rc e C oo rdi nat or, m ore f avorabl y bec ause they a r e bl a c k a nd f

e m a l e . T hus , w e r e vi e w the f a c t s r e ga r di ng W i ggs a nd W oot e n. 5 A s H ea d S t artD i re ct or, W i gg s w as re spon si bl e f or havi ng addi t i on al c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n th e He a d S t a r tp r o g r a m . He a d S t a r ts e n ta l e tt e rt o P C OC i ndi c a t i ng tha tf

undi ng w a s a va i l abl e t o e xpa nd e nr ol l m e ntby a n a ddi t i ona l 68 c hi l dr e n. W i ggs w a s r e s pons i bl e f orge tt i ng a ddi t i ona l c hi l dr e n e nr ol l e d a nd J e r o n im u s w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o rim p le m e n tin g th e f

in a n c ia l a s p e c ts o f

th e e x p a n s io n . A lth o u g h J e r o n im u s c o m p le te d h is d u tie s w ith r e s p e c t to th e e x p a n s io n , W ig g s d id no t . Je roni m us re po rt ed W i gg s’ s f ai l ure t o the P C O C B oard of D i re ct ors e very m on th for ei gh tm on ths. In addi t i on , T ucker vi si t ed som e of the si t es and h ad9

c onc e rns tha ts om e of

the c hi l dr e n m i ghtnotbe pr e pa r e d f orki nde r ga r t e n. F or these re as on s, i n the fa l l of 20 02 , T ucker urged W i gg s t o st ep do w n as H ea d S t art D i re ct or. W i gg s s t epped d ow n and t oo k the po si t i on of A ss i st antH ea d S t art D i re ct or. G a i l W oot e n ( “ W oot e n” ) w a s r e s pons i bl e f or , a m ong othe rthi ngs , pr e pa r i ng gr a ntappl i c a t i ons t o s e c ur e f undi ng f orthe C S B G pr ogr a m . O n F e brua ry 23, 20 01 , H i l da F ra zi er , F D C A P l anni ng M anager, w rot e t o P C O C and st at ed that F D C A coul d p ay10 0% of the contra ctal l ocat i on and i ncorpo ra t e a ny ca rryover f r o m th e p r e v io u s f

is c a l y e a rin to th e n e x t c o n tr a c t. T h e f u n d in g , h o w e v e r , w o u ld notbe r e l e a s e d unt i l appr opr i a t e m odi f i c a t i on doc um e nt a t i on w a s s ubm i tt e d by P C O C a nd appr ove d by the F D C A . T he f ol l ow i ng y e a r , on M a r c h 27, 2002, P C O C r e c e i ve d a l e tt e rf r om F D C A i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe m odi f i c a t i on doc um e nt a t i on had n otbeen rec ei ved and thatthe do cum ent at i on m ustbe subm i tt ed “ as soon as pos s i bl e t o a voi d de l a y s i n pr oc e s s i ng [ P C O C ’ s ] r e que s tf orpa y m e nt . ” T he m odi f i c a t i on doc um e nt a t i on w a s s ubm i tt e d on M a y 6, 2002, a nd the F D C A f unds di d notbe c om e a va i l abl e unt i l the e nd of J une , 2002. A c c or di ng t o J e r oni m us , the d e la y s in r e c e iv in g F D C A f u n d s c a u s e d a c a s h s h o r ta g e in th e C S B G p r o g r a m . Je roni m us al so no t es thatby fa i l i ng t o sat i sf y s ever al cond i t i on s of aT ee n O u tr e a c h g r a n t a w a r d , W o o te n c a u s e d P C O C to in c u ra te n p e r c e n t m o n th lyThis Court reviews a district court’s grant of summar y judgment de novo, applying the 6 samesta ndard s a s th edis tric t c ourt . H arris v . H&W Contra c tingCo. , 1 02 F .3 d 5 16 , 5 18 (1 1th Cir. 1996). “Summary

judgment is appropriateif the re cord shows no g enuine issue of material fac t and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. When decidingwhether summary judgment is appropriate , all evidenc e and reasona ble factual inferenc es dra wn there from a

rereviewe d in

a light m os t f

avo ra bleto t heno n- movingpa

rt y .”Witter v . D e lta

Air L ines, Inc., 138 F .3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks a nd citation omitted). 10 h o ld b a c k p e n a lty , r e s u ltin g in a to ta l lo s s o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 to P C O C . D . P roce ed i n gs B ef ore t h e D i st ri ct C ou rt O n A ugus t12, 2003, J e r oni m us f i l e d the i ns t a ntc om pl a i nta l l e gi ng r a c e a nd se x d i sc ri m i nat i on and ret al i at i on by P C O C and T ucker i n v i ol at i on of T i t l e V II , th e F C R A , a n d4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 . T h e d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d on J a nua ry 11, 2005. 6 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t J e r o n im u s d id n o t e s tab lis h a p r im a f a c ie case o f race o r sex d i scri m i n at i o n b ecau se h e fai l ed t o sh o w th atan y si m i l arl ys i tua t e d e m pl oy e e s out s i de hi s pr ot e c t e d c l a s s w e r e tr e a t e d m or e f a vor abl y tha n he w as . E ven i f J er on i m us had est abl i shed a pri m a f ac i e c as e, the di stri ctcourt c o n c lu d e d th a t h is c la im n o n e th e le s s f a ile d b e c a u s e th e u n d is p u te d f a c ts d em o n strat ed th ath e h ad b een t erm i n at ed fo r l eg i t i m at e, n o n d i scri m i n at o ry, n o n p re tex tu al re as o n s. T h e d istrict co u rt also co n clu d ed th at Je ro n im u s’s r e ta lia tio n c la im f

a ile d b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t e n g a g e d in p r o te c te d a c tiv ity , a n d th a t in any e vent , he di d n otshow a c ausa l conn ec t i on betw ee n the ost ensi bl y prot ec t ed a c tiv ity a n d h is te r m in a tio n . J e r o n im u s tim e ly ap p e a ls .J eronimus conc edes that he is not making a claim of discrimination or retaliation on the 7 basis of direc t evidence . 11 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A. T h e Di s c r i mi n a t i o n Cl a i ms T itle V I I p r o v id e s th a t: I t s h a ll b e a n u n la w f

u l e m p lo y m e n t p r a c tic e f o ra n e m p lo y e r . . . to di s c ha r ge a ny i ndi vi dua l , orothe rw i s e t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny i ndi vi dua l w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s c om pe ns a t i on, t e r m s , c ondi t i ons , or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , because of s uch i nd i vi du al ’ s r ac e, col or, r e lig io n , s e x , o rn a tio n a l o r ig in . . . . 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2(a) (1). T o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of r ac e or s ex d i scri m i n at i o n b y ci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce, a p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th at : (1 ) h e i s a 7 m em ber of aprot ec t ed cl as s; (2) he w as qu al i fi ed for the po si t i on ; (3) he s uffe re d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on; a nd ( 4) he w a s r e pl a c e d by a pe r s on out s i de the pr ot e c t e d c l a s s , orw a s tr e a t e d l e s s f a vor abl y tha n a s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d pe r s on o u tsid e th e p ro tected clas s. M ay n ar d v . B d . o f R eg en ts o f th e U n iv s. o f F la. D ep ’t of E duc . , 342 F . 3d 1281, 1289 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d pe r s on i s one tha tha s e nga ge d i n s i m i l a rm i s c onduc t . A nde r s on v. W B M G - 42, 253 F . 3d 561, 56 4 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). I f th e p la in tif

f e s tab lis h e s a p r im a f

a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n , th e b u r d e n s h if ts t o the de f

e nda ntt o a r t i c ul a t e a l e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t ory bus i ne s s r e a s on f or the e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a ti s s ue . S i l ve r a v. O r a nge C ounty S c h. B d. , 244 F . 3d12

12 53 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). If the defendantoffe rs a l egi t i m at e, n o n d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n f o rth e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n , th e b u r d e n s h if ts ba c k t o the pl a i nt i f

f t o de m ons tr a t e w hy the pr of f e r e d r e a s on i s a pr e t e xtf orr a c e or s e x di s c r i m i na t i on. I d. T o pr ove tha ta l e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f or th e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n is a p r e te x t f o rr a c e o rs e x d is c r im in a tio n , a pl a i nt i f f m us ts how e i the r“ tha ta di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on m or e l i ke l y m ot i va t e d the em pl oyeror. . . thatthe em pl oyer ' s proff er ed expl anat i on i s unw orthy of cr edence. ” T e x. D e p’ tof

C om m uni ty A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 256, 101 S . C t . 1089, 1 0 9 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; s e e a ls o M a y f ie ld v . P a tte r s o n P u m p C o ., 1 0 1 F .3 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1996) . C our t s “ a r e noti n the bus i ne s s of a dj udgi ng w he the re m pl oy m e nt de c i s i ons a r e prude ntorf a i r . I ns t e a d, ours ol e c onc e rn i s w he the runl a w f ul di s c r i m i na t ory a ni m us m ot i va t e s a c ha l l e nge d e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. ” D a m on v. F le m in g S u p e r m a r k e ts , 1 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e f i r s ta gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tW i ggs a nd W oot e n w e r e not si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed t o Jer on i m us because thei r per form ance i ss ues w er e notas seri o u s as Jero n i m u s’ s p erfo rm an ce i ssu es. W i g g s an d W o o t en , l i k e Jero n i m u s, re po rt ed t o T ucker. W i gg s’ s c on du cti nv ol ved (1) a del ayi n exp andi ng the H ea d St a r tp r o g r a m t o e n r o l l a n a d d i t i o n a l s i x ty - e i g h tc h i l d r e n a n d ( 2 ) o p e r a t i o n o f s o me si t es i n a m anner that , i n the ey es of T ucker, m ayhave been i nsuffi ci entt o p re pareJ eronimus also compa res the treatment herec eived to that of Charlotta Saab, a black 8 female, former assistant direc tor at PCOC whom Tucker terminated. Jeronimus contends that he wa s treate d differently beca use Saab w as terminate d only after face- to-fac e counse ling a nd be c a us esh ewa s p e rmitt e d toa pp e al tothePCO C B oa

rd of Dire c tor s whil ehewa s p ermitt e d to 13 the chi l dren-benefi ci ar i es for ki nd er gart en. W oo t en’ s c on du cti nv ol ved (1) a del ayi n sub m i tt i ng m od i fi ca t i on do cum ent at i on t o the F D C A i n a m anner that w oul d e nabl e the C S B G pr ogr a m t o ha ve s uf f i c i e ntf unds t i m e l y a nd ( 2) i nc urr i ng a c o s t o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 to P C O C in th e T e e n O u tr e a c h G r a n t. J e r oni m us ’ s c onduc tw a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y di f f e r e nta nd m or e s e r i ous tha n the cond uctof ei ther W i gg s or W oo t en. F rom ea rl y i n h i s e m pl oym ent , T ucker e x p r e s s e d c o n c e rn s th a t J e r o n im u s w a s u n ab le o ru n w illin g to g e t a lo n g w ith cow orkers , thathi s m anagem entw as t oo hand s- off, thathi s r eport s w er e c ons i s t e nt l y notbe i ng pr e pa r e d i n a t i m e l y m a nne r , a nd tha the w a s not c o m p e te n tly m a n a g in g P C O C ’s f in a n c e s . T h e s e c o n c e rn s w e r e m e m o r ia liz e d in num e r ous l e tt e r s a nd m e m or a nda f r om T uc ke rt o J e r oni m us a nd i n s tr ong a nd un equi vo ca l l angu age. U l t i m at el y, w hatl ed t o h i s t erm i nat i on w as the di sc ov ery thatJe roni m us w as vi ol at i ng agency re gu l at i on s by i napp ropri at el y usi ng H ea d S ta r t f u n d s f o ro th e ru n d e r f

u n d e d p r o g r a m s a n d d im in is h in g P C O C ’s s ta n d in g w ith cr ed it o rs b y f

lo atin g ch ec k s w ith o u t su ff icien t fu n d s. B ec au se Je ro n im u s’s c onduc tw a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y di f f e r e nta nd m or e s e r i ous tha n the c onduc tof W i ggs or W oot e n, the y c a nnotbe s a i d t o ha ve e nga ge d i n s i m i l a rc onduc t . A c c or di ngl y , the 8appeal to a personne l committee. We find no merit in this contention. Both employees w ere

terminated, a

nd neither w erereinstated through the appe al proc edure . Be causethe FCRA is patterne d after Title VII , the district court also properly entered 9 summary judgment on J eronimus’s F CRA claims. See Har per v. B lockbuster Entertain. Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 ( 11th Cir. 1998). Additionally , beca use Title VIIand § 1981 “ha ve the s am ere qu i re m e nt s o f

p ro o f an d u s eth es am ean aly

ti c alf ram ew o r k , ”S t an d ard

v . A . B . E . L. Servs., Inc., 161 F .3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998), the district cour t properly entered summary judgment o n Jeronimu s’ s ra c edis c rimin atio n c laim under § 19 81 . A lth ough thedis tric t c ourt did no t sp e c if ic ally menti on § 1 98 1, be c a

us ethe§ 1 98 1 c laim i s re viewe d under t hesame framewo rk

a s T itl eVII , a

ny e rror whic h mi ght exist in

thefailureto re ferenc e§ 1 98 1 is ha rmle ss. Although Wooten wa s not a dec isionmaker in the dec ision to t erminateJ eronimus, her 10 remark s, “ may

prov idec ircums tanti al evidenc eto suppo rt an in ferenc eof

dis c rimin atio n. ”Ros s v. Rhodes Fur

niture, Inc., 146 F .3d 1286, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 1998). 14 d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te rri n c o n c l u d i n g th a tJ e r o n i mu s f a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e of

r a c e ors e x di s c r i m i na t i on a nd i n e nt e r i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vor o f th e d efen d an t s o n h i s d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s. 9 J e r o n im u s a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is tr e a tm e n t c o m p a r e d to th a t o f b la c k f e m a le em pl oyee s, com bi ned w i th the com m ent s thatT ucker and W oo t en m ade, show that th e r e a s o n s f

o rh is te r m in a tio n w e r e p r e te x tu a l. B e c a u s e J e r o n im u s h a s f a ile d to 10 e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on, the r e i s no ne e d t o r e a c h the i s s ue of prext ext . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdi d add re ss pret ext , and i ti s c l ea r thatgi ven Je roni m us’ s a dm i ss i on thatthe performance-r el at ed i ss ues T ucker addres se d i n h er c orr e s ponde nc e t o hi m w e r e l e gi t i m a t e c onc e rns , he c a nnots how tha tthe r e r e a s ons f o rh is te r m in a tio n w e r e p r e te x tu a l in a n y e v e n t. B . T h e Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms15

T itle V I I p r o v id e s th a t: I t s h a ll b e a n u n la w f

u l e m p lo y m e n t p r a c tic e f o ra n e m p lo y e rto di sc ri m i nat e a gai nstany of hi s e m pl oyee s. . . because [ the em pl oyee ] ha s oppos e d a ny pr a c t i c e m a de a n unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e by thi s t i t l e , orbe c a us e he ha s m a de a c ha r ge , t e s t i f i e d, a s s i s t e d, or pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a ny m a nne ri n a n i nve s t i ga t i on, pr oc e e di ng, orhe a r i ng un der thi s t i t l e. 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) . I n o r d e rto e s tab lis h a p r im a f a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that : “ (1) he e ng aged i n p rot ec t ed ac t i vi ty; (2) he s uffe re d an advers e e m pl oym entac t i on ; and (3) there w as a c ausa l l i nk betw ee n the prot ec t ed act i v i ty an d th e ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n . ” B ass v . B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m ’ rs, 25 6 F . 3d 10 95 , 11 17 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he on l y a ct i on s w hi ch c o u ld c o n c e iv ab ly q u a lif y a s p r o te c te d a c tiv ity w e r e J e r o n im u s ’s c a s u a l m e n tio n to E t ze l of W oo t en’ s “ w hi t e boy” c om m entand the em ai l thathe se ntt o E t ze l c om pl a i ni ng tha the w a s be i ng unj us t l y s i ngl e d out . A l l i ndi c a t i ons , i nc l udi ng Je roni m us’ s c on t em po ra neou s r ea ct i on , ar e thatthe “ w hi t e boy” c om m ent s w er e i s ol a t e d, e phe m e r a l , a nd a m bi guous . A nd i n the e m a i l , w hi l e J e r oni m us c o m p la in e d o f

b e in g “s in g le d o u t,” b e in g s u b je c te d to “a c a m p a ig n o f h a r a s s m e n t,” and w orki ng i n a “ ho st i l e e nv i ronm ent , ” he never s ug gest ed thatthi s tre atm entw as in a n y w a y r e la te d to h is r a c e o rs e x . E v e n a s s u m in g th a t E tz e l h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity t o rea d the ent i re em ai l before she del et ed i t , thi s e m ai l di d n otam ou ntt o p rot ec t ed c onduc t . A nd e ve n i f

the e m a i l di d qua l i f

y a s pr ot e c t e d c onduc t , w e a gr e e w i th the16

di s tr i c tc our ttha tJ e r oni m us m a de no s how i ng of a c a us a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the e m a i l ( orthe c om m e nti n pa s s i ng t o E t z e l ) a nd hi s t e r m i na t i on. I I I . CONCL US I ON F ora l l of the above r e a s ons , thi s C our ta f f i r m s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e ntry of su m m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f th e d efen d an t s o n al l o f Jero n i m u s’ s cl ai m s. A FFI R M ED .