FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 4, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 14 06 3 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 02 08 6- CV-T-3 3- EAJ NATIKA GAN T, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us KASH’ N KARRY FOOD STORES, INC., d.b .a. Sweetba y

Supe rm ark et , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee. App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (Au gu st4, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Nati kaGant , a bl ackfem al e, ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of he r fo rm er em

pl oyer, Kash N’ Karry Fo odSto res , In c., d/b/ a Sweetba y

Supe rm ark et(“ Sweetba y ”), i n h er em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n su itun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 (“ § 1 98 1" ), Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -3 , (“ Tit le VII”), an d t he Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 92 , Fla . St at . § 7 60 .10 (7 ) (“ FCRA” ). Evi de nc e b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t s ho wedth atGant , a cu st om er s erv ic e m an ag er, co m pl ai ne d t o s ev eral Sweetba y m an ag ers fol lo win g an in ci de ntin whi ch sh e al le ge d t ha t Ro be rt P ric e, an ev en in g m an ag er, t ol d h er th athe co ul d n ot“ st an d g he tt o b la ckni gg ers .” Whe n s he co m pl ai ne d abo ut Pri ce’s u se of t he word“ ni gg er,” s he be li ev edth athe als o h adm ad e se ve ral co m m en ts to bl ackass oc ia te s re fere nc in g t he “ gh et to ,” to lda bl ackass oc ia te th at he wou ldfitin at t he MLK st or e as a res ul t o f hi s h ai r st y le , andto ldanass oc ia te to watc h abl ackcu st om er h e th ou gh t wo ul d s te al , when he ha d p rev io us ly refus ed to do an yth in g abo uttwo whi te cu st om ers who were o bv io us ly stea li ng . Whi le Sweetba y

ha d apo li cy

pro hi bi ti ng race di sc riminat io n, t he co m pa ny al so requi redth atin fo rm at io n o bt ai ne d dur in g a n i nv es ti ga ti on be tre at edas co nf id en ti al . Sweetba y

fir edGantles s t ha n am on th aft er s he co m pl ai ne d abo ut Pri ce, s ta ti ng th atitwas d oi ng so be cau se sh e d is cl os edon e o r m or e in ci de nt s wi th Pri ce t o t wo o th er m an ag ers invi ol at io n o f th e co m pa ny’ s co nf

id en ti al it y

po li cy . 2Gan t o rig in al ly ass ert edrace di sc riminat io n a ndha ras sm en t cl ai m s as well

as ret al ia ti on cla im s, b utat h er re qu es t, t he di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d t he race di sc riminat io n a ndha ras sm en t cl ai m s. Whe n i t g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n 1 fav orof S weetba y

on he r rem ai ni ng ret al ia ti on cla im s, t he di stric t co ur t fo un d t ha t Gan t d idno t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on be cau se , eve n a ss um in g th atPri ce d idev erythi ng Gran t al le ge d, s he di d n otha ve anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e be li ef t ha t s he was e ng ag edin pro te ct edact iv it y . The co ur t m ad e analt ern at iv e fin di ng th atev en if s he ha d e st ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e, Sweetba y pro ffer eda le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on forhe r te rm in at io n –he r vi ol at io n o f th e co m pa ny’ s co nf

id en ti al it y

po li cy – an d Gan t d idno t es tabl is h t ha t thi s p ro ffer ed reas on was apre te xtfordi sc riminat io n. On ap pe al , Gantch al le ng es bo th of t he se de te rm in at io ns an d p oi nt s t o se ve ral factua l i nc on si st en ci es th atsh e cl ai m s es tabl is h t ha t t he ass ert edreas on for he r te rm in at io n was pre te xtua l. I.

Gant does not challeng e the dismiss al of her rac e discrimination and hara ssment claims on 1 appea l; there fore , she has abandone d any argument with respe ct to those claims. See United States v. Cunningham , 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that when an appellant fails to of fer argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned). 3W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. Li tt le v. Uni te d T

ech no lo gi es , 10 3 F .3d95 6, 9 59 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Summ ary jud gm en t s ho ul d b e g ran te d wh ere t he re i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact . Fed . R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c). Thu s wh ere t he reco rdas awho le co ul d n otlea d arat io na l t rie r of factto fin d fo r th e n on m ov in g p art y , th ere i s n o g en ui ne is su e o f fac t fo r tr ia l. Mat su sh it a El ec. In du s. Co . v. Zen ith Ra di o C or p. , 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 7, 1 06 S. Ct. 13 48 , 13 56 , 89 L. Ed. 2d53 8 (1 98 6) . The rec or d a ndall of t he in fere nc es sh ou ld be vi ewedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y . Id
. at 5 87 -8 8, 1 06 S. Ct . at 1 35 6- 67 . II . Tit le VII pr oh ib it s re ta li at io n a ga in stanem pl oyee be cau se th atem

pl oyee ha s “ op po se d a ny prac ti ce m ad e an un la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e b y

[Tit le VII]” orha s “ m ad e a ch arg e, te st ifi ed , ass is te d, o r pa rti ci pa te d i n a ny m an ne r in an in ve st ig at io n, p ro ceed in g, o r he ari ng un de r [Tit le VII].” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a). Sect io n 1 98 1 a ls o p ro hi bi ts ret al ia ti on onth e b as is of r ace, e ve n t ho ug h t he st atut e is si le nton th atcau se of a ct io n. CBOCS W es t v. Hu mph ri es , 55 3 U.S. _

__ , 12 8 S . Ct . 19 51 , 19 61 , 17 0 L. Ed. 2 d 8 64 (20 08 ). Cla im s u nd er b ot h § 19 81 an d t he FCRA a re an al y zedun de r th e sa m e frameworkas Ti tl e VII. St an da rd v. A.B.L.E.

4Se rvs., In c. , 16 1 F .3d13 18 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (§ 19 81 ); Har pe r v. Bl oc kb us te r Entm’t C or p. , 13 9 F .3d13 85 , 13 87 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (FCRA). To s ta te a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r ret al ia ti on , th e p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th at(1) sh e p art ic ip at edin a pr ot ect edact iv it y ; (2 ) he r em pl oyer subjec te d h er t o an a ct th atwou ldha ve be en m at eri al ly adv ers e to a reas on ab le em pl oyee, and(3) a cas ua l co nn ect io n e xi st s b et ween th e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he ad ve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on . Bur li ng to n N or th ern & Sa nt a Fe Ry. Co
. , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 8, 12 6 S . Ct. 2 40 5, 2 41 5, 1 65 L. Ed. 2d34 5 (2 00 6) (an no un ci ng “ m at eri al ly adv ers e” el em en t); Olms te ad

v. Ta co Bell

Co rp . , 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (s et ti ng for th pr ima fa ci e tes t p re- Bur li ng to n N or th ern ). To en ga ge in pro te ct ed act iv ity , th e p la in ti ff u su al ly m us t n oton ly sho w th at“ [s ]he su bj ect iv el y(th atis , in go odfai th ) be li ev edth at[he r] em pl oyer was e ng ag edin un la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic es , bu t al so th at[he r] bel ie f was ob je ct iv el y re as on ab le in li gh t o f th e fac ts an d re co rdpre se nt ed .” Li tt le , 10 3 F .3dat 9 60 (em ph as is in ori gi na l). Onc e th e p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on , th e em pl oyer sh ou ldco m e fo rwardwit h “ a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on ” fo r it s m at eri al ly ad ve rs e act io n. Olms te ad , 14 1 F .3dat 1 46 0. Ho wev er, t he “pl ai nt iff be ars th e ul ti m at e b ur de n o f pr ov in g b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t t he reas on pr ov id edby the em

pl oyer is a pr et ex t fo r pr oh ib it ed , ret al ia to ry co nduc t.” Id
. To 5sa ti sf

y th atbu rd en , “ th e p la in ti ff m us t d em on st rat e su ch weakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns in th e em pl oyer’s pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns forit s ac ti on th ata reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi ndth em

un worth y

of c red en ce.” Co mbs v. Pla nt at io n Pa tt erns , Mea do wcr af

t, In c. , 10 6 F .3d15 19 , 15 28 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Whe re an em

pl oyer fir es anem

pl oyee “ un de r th e m is ta ke n b utho ne st im pr es si on th atth e em

pl oyee vi ol at eda work ru le ,” th e em pl oyer ge ne ral ly is n ot li ab le fordi sc riminat ory

co nduc t. Damo n v . Flemi ng Su pe rma rk et s, In c. , 19 6 F .3d 13 54 , 13 63 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Howev er, t he pl ai nt iff can sh ow t ha t t he em pl oyer’s just ifi cat io n i s p ret ex tu al by sub m it ti ng ev id en ce (1 ) th atsh e d idno t vi ol at e th e ci te d wo rkrul e, or (2) th atif s he di d v io la te th e ru le , othe r em pl oyees ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss , who en ga ge d i n s im il ar ac ts , were n otsi m il arl y tre at ed . Alp hi n v . Sea rs , Rob uc k & Co
. , 94 0 F .2d14 97 , 15 01 n.1 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Eve n i f we as su m e th atGantm ethe r bu rd en of e st ab li sh in g t ha t s he en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edact iv it y an d o th erwi se m ad e o uta pr ima fa ci e cas e, sh e d id no t es tabl is h p ret ex t. Gan t d idno t p ro vi de an y ev id en ce t ha t h er d is tri ctm an ag er, Dav e Gam

bl e, di d n otho ne st ly bel ie ve th atsh e h advi ol at edth e co nf id en ti al it y po li cy when he term in at edhe r. Mo reo ve r, ev en if the di rect orof Hu m an 6Res ou rces , Debr a Pet it ti , m ay ha ve in co rrec tl y

rep res en te d t o Gam

bl e th atth e co m pa ny hadfir edpe op le in th e p as t fo r th e sa m e tr an sg res si on , th atwou ldno t un de rm in e th e co nc lu si on th atGam bl e h on es tl y

be li ev edth atGantvi ol at edth e co nf id en ti al it y

po li cy an d c ou ldbe term in at edforth atvi ol at io n. Th eref or e, ev en if Ga m bl e was in co rrec t i n h is be li ef t ha t s he was t ol d o r ot he rwis e kne w abo utth e po li cy , th atwas n otsu ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pre te xt . Se e Damo n , 19 6 F .3dat 1 36 3 n.3 . Mo reo ve r, we co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t Gan t d idno t d ire ct ly rebu t t he ba si s fo r fi rin g h er, i .e., hervi ol at io n o f th e co nf id en ti al it y

po li cy , bec au se sh e ad m it te d t el li ng two ot he r m an ag ers ab ou t h er al le ga ti on s re ga rd in g P ric e. Fi na ll y , sh e d idno t p ro vi de an y ev id en ce o f ot he r em

pl oyees wh o v io la te d t he co nf id en ti al it y

po li cy an d wer e n otfir edforit . Ind eed , th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d th atno ot he r em

pl oyees h av e v io la te d t he po li cy at i ss ue . There fo re, an y

factua l in co ns is te nc ie s re ga rd in g Gan t’s kno wled ge of t he co nf id en ti al it y

po li cy were n ot m at eri al , andth e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Sweetba y

on Gran t’s re ta li at io n c la im s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

7