FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 19, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1607 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 21 09 1- CV-AJ THERESA BRYANT, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAM I DADE COUNTY , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Jul y 19, 200 5) Befo re ANDERSON, HULL an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PE R CU RIA M: Ther esa Br

y ant appeals the grant of summ ary j udgm ent against her on herBr y ant used the te rm “quid pro quo.” L ike a lot of other courts, we former ly

used the 1 term “quid pro quo” to describe situations where a benef it of employ

ment was tied to a de mand fo r s e xua l f

avo rs . B e c a

us e the Sup re me Court

ins tr uc te d u s th at te rm

sh ou ld n o lo ng e r b e us e d in the ana ly sis of whether

an employer is liable unde r Title VI I , Bur lington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 52 4 U .S. 74 2, 75 3- 54 , 1 18 S.Ct . 2 25 7, 22 65 (1 99 8) , w e have us e d th e pr e fe rr e d te rm " tang ibl e employ ment action" to refe r to hara ssment that culminates in a dischar g e, demotion, or un de sir a ble re a ssi g nme nt. Se e F re de ri c k v . Sp ri nt/ Un ite d M g mt. Co. , 2 46 F .3 d 1 30 5, 13 11 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) . We do so in t

his op ini on , a s w e ll. 2 cl ai m s of se x hara ssm en t and h ost ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t, br ough t purs uant t o 42 1 U . S. C. § 20 00e -2 . O n a

ppe al , pr oc ee din g pr o se , Br y an t arg ue s th at

she

“ established th at, because she is fem ale, she wa s a victim of unwelcom e sexual harassm ent and retaliatory behavior.” She contends that evid ence m ade clear that the w ill ing ne ss o f he r supe rv iso r, F re de ri ck Jon es , to inc lud e he r in a j ob re cl as sif ic at ion , a ft er

ini tia lly e xc lud ing he r, “ co inc ide s w ithhe r be ing non ar gum en ta tiv e” about

his hara ssm en t. B ry an t c onc ed es that Jo ne s m ay have lacked form al authority

to give a recla ssification, but contend s that he had si gn ifi can t i nf

lu en ce o n t ho se who di d. W e “ reviewthe district court’ s order granting summ ary j udgm ent de novo .” Mad ray v. Pu bl ix Supe rm ark et s, In c., 20 8 F .3d12 90 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Sum m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n th e ev ide nc e, vie w ed in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty , sho w s “ that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of3

law . ” S ee id. T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e tangi ble e m

plo ym en t a ct ion , apla int if f m ust show : ( 1) that sh e be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed gr oup; ( 2) that sh e ha s be ensub j ec t t o unw el co m e se xua l hara ssm en t; (3 ) that the hara ssm en t w as ba se d onhe r se x; ( 4) that the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the te rm s and conditi ons of em

ploym ent; and (5) that there is a basis for hold ing th e em ploy er liable. P ipkin s v. City

of T em ple Te rrac e, Fla. , 267 F. 3d 11 97, 1199 (11 Cir. th 2001 ). Apla int if

f m ust a lso sho wthat sh e suf

fe re d so m e tangi ble e m

plo ym en t ac tio n a s ar es ult , w hic h w as de fi ne d by the S upr em e Co urt a s “ a sig nif ic an t hir ing , f ir ing , f ai lin g to pr om ote , r ea ssi gnm en t w ithsig nif ic an tly dif fe re nt re spon sib ili tie s, or

ade ci sio n c au sin g si gni fi cant c hange in be ne fi ts. ” Burl ing ton Indus., I nc. v. Eller

th, 524 U. S. 742, 753-54, 118 S.Ct. 2257 , 2265 (1998). T he e vid en ce is unc ontro ve rt ed that B ry an t su ff

er ed no j ob d etri m en t, and no job benefit w as withheld from her, as the result of her rej ecting Jones’s sexual harassm ent. T he Board presented evidence that em ploy ees and/or supervisors co uld r eque st a j ob r ec la ssi fi catio n, the onl y ne ga tiv e tangi ble e m

plo ym en t co nse que nc e Br

y an t c la im ed

she w as de nie d. T he re fo re , Br y an t di d no t have to wa i tfo r J o n es t o re qu es to n e f o r h er . F u rt h er m o re , t h e s up er v i s o r’s re co m m en da tio n is not

ne ce ssary , and B ry an t he rs el f te sti fi ed that sh e w as tol d by4

ap e r s o n i n Wa g e an dS a l a ry th a ts h e d i dn o th a v e t o wa i tf o r J o n e s t o a c t . F i n a l l y, the dir ec tor

of Co m pe nsatio n A dm ini str at ionte sti fi ed that sh e w oul d no t have re co m m en de d r ec la ssi fi catio n be ca use Br y an t ha d no t be enin he r posi tio n lo ng enough and because Bry ant had received a prom otion al increa se when she starte d in h er de partm en t ( w he re she ha d be enonl y one and a

ha lf y ears w he n sh e com plained of harassm ent). In other w ords, Br y ant was not deem ed eligible for a recla ssification. Ac cordingly , the district court did not err in granting summ ary ju d g m en tt o th e S ch o o l Bo ar do f M i ami D ad e C o u n t y (t h e “Bo ar d ”) o n Bryan t ’s t a n g i b l e e mp l o yme n ta c t i o n h a r a s s me n tc l a i m. Tu rn i n g t o h erh o s t i l e w o rken v i ro n m en tcl ai m , B ryan tar g u es th at J o n es ’s co nduc t w as both ob

j ec tiv el y and s ubj ec tiv el y

of fe nsi ve , w hic h is sup porte d by the Bo ar d ’s re p ri m an do f h i m . B ryan tar g u es th at th e r ec o rdi n d i ca t es th at J o n es ’s be ha vio r w as sub

j ec tiv el y of fe nsi ve to he r. S he c ont en ds tha t Jo ne s’ s se xua lly ina ppr opr ia te be ha vio r tow ar ds o the r w om enin the of fi ce is ind ic at ive that hi s co nduc t w as pe rv as ive . B ry an t arg ue s th at the Bo ar d f

ai le d to pr ev en t and pr om ptl y c or re ct Jon es ’ s be ha vio r, sin ce she f ile d he r co m

pla int in Jul y of 200 1 and Jones was not reprim anded unti l January of 2002. Bry ant contends that tho ugh Jone s w as sup pose dly str ipp ed of his sup er vis or y auth or ity , he sti ll exercised “ authoritative influ ence” over her. Bry ant argues that her w orkWe may aff irm the district court' s judgme nt on any g rounds supported in the r ecor d. 2 Luc a s v . W. W. G ra ing e r, Inc ., 25 7 F .3 d 1 24 9, 12 56 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) (c iti ngJaf

fk e v. Dunh am, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S.C t. 307, 308 (1957)). 5 pe rf orm an ce w as a ff

ec te d inthat sh e soug ht p sy ch ia tr ic tr eatm en t. W ithou t addressing th e m erits of Br y ant’ s host ile work e nvironm ent case, we look in stead at the Board’ s affir m ative defense to that claim . In tw o cases 2 de ci de d th e sa m e day , F ar ag he r v. Ci ty of Bo ca Raton , 524 U . S. 775 , 118 S . Ct . 2275 ( 1998 ), and B ur lin gto n I ndus tr ie s, I nc . v. E lle rth, 524 U . S. 742 , 118 S . Ct . 2257 (1998), the Suprem e Court established an affirm ative defense for an em ploy er f or an actionable hostile work environm ent created by a supervisor, which m ay

be raised if no tangi ble em ploym ent action has been taken. Se e Fara ghe r, 524 U . S. a t 80 7, 141 S . Ct . a t 22 92- 93. I f ane m plo y ee ha s e sta

bli she d a host ile -e nvi ro nm en t se xua l- hara ssm en t c la im but no t an gib le e m

plo ym en t a ct ion w as take n, an e m

plo y er “ m ay r ai se an a ff

irm at ive de fe nse to lia

bil ity or dam ag es , subj ec t t o pr oof

by apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce . ” E lle rth, 524 U . S. a t 76 5, 118 S.Ct. at 2270. To e stablish the aff irm ative defense, the Board m ust sh ow that (1 ) it “ ex er ci se d r ea sona

ble c ar e to p re ve nt and c or re ct pr om ptl y any se xua lly hara ssi ng b eh av ior , ” an d ( 2) that B ry an t “ unr ea sona bly f ai le d to take a dvanta ge of an y pr ev en tiv e or

c or re ct ive opp ortun iti es pr ovi de d by [ the Bo ar d] or

to av oid harm oth er w ise . ” Fara ghe r, 524 U . S. a t 80 7, 118 S . Ct . a t 22 93; se e E lle rth, 524Although B ryant ar gues that this was insufficie nt, the Boa rd is only require d to provide 3 a solution that stopped the hara ssment. Bryant testified in deposition that the hara ssment stopped when the inve stigation beg an. 6 U . S. a t 76 5, 118 S . Ct . a t 22 70 ( sa m e) . “ Bo th e le m en ts m ust be sa tis fi ed

f or the de fe ndant- em

plo y er to av oid li ab ili ty , and the de fe ndant b ears the bur de n of pr oof on b othe le m en ts. ” F re de ri ck v. S pr int/U nit ed

Mg m t. Co . , 246 F . 3d 1 305, 131 3 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). F urthe r, the f ir st e le m en t of

the a ff irm at ive de fe nse ha s tw o pr ongs : ( 1) r ea sona ble c ar e to p re ve nt s ex ua l ha ra ssm en t and ( 2) re as ona ble c ar e to c or

re ct se xua l hara ssm en t. I d. a t 13 14. Loo ki ng at t he fact s, we co nc lu de th atth e Bo ardis en ti tl edto th is de fen se . T he Bo ar d po ste d it s se xua l hara ssm en t po lic y qui te e xte nsi ve ly , goi ng s o f ar a s to ev enw ri te it

on the ba ck

of e m plo y ee pay

stu bs. I m m ed ia te ly a ft er Br y an t co m pla ine d, the Bo ar d be gan an in ve sti ga tio n and a dvi se d Jo ne s a ga ins t t ak ing an y r et al ia tor y a ct iona ga ins t B ry an t. D ur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , the Bo ar d of fe re d B ry an t the opp ortun ity to m ove to an oth er

de partm en t, w hic h sh e de cl ine d. A ft er

the inv es tig at ion , it

r ep ri m an de d Jo ne s, str ipp ed him of his supe rv iso ry

auth or ity , and m ove d hi m f ro m his pr ivate of

fi ce to a cu

bic le . T he Bo ar d gave Jon es spe ci fi c ins tr uc tio ns t o c ea se his ina

ppr opr ia te be ha vio r an d he wa s g i v en s ex u al h ar as s m en ttra i n i n g . Bryan tfa i l ed t o u s e t h e B o ar d ’s 3 pr oc ed ur es f or one and a

ha lf y ears ; on ce she did , the hara ssm en t st oppe d. T heBr y ant’s re quest for or al ar gument is denied. 4 7 Bo ar d c an not

be he ld l ia

ble f or und er T itl e V II in suc h c ir cum stanc es . Upo n re vie wof

the ple ad ing s and u

pon co nsi de ratio n of

the br ie fs of

the part ie s, w e fi nd n o r ev er sib le erro r. W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o th e Bo ar d. AFFIRMED. 4