FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 75 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 01 18 -DTKH JANIC E BURGOS-STEFANELLI, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us SECRETARY, Uni te d S tate s Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:InJan uary 20 09 , Jan ic e Bu rg os -St efan el li bro ug htth is act io n a ga in stth e Dep artm en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”) u nd er the Reh ab il it at io n Actof 1 97 3, 29 U.S.C. §§ 79 1 a nd79 4a (a)( 1) , cla im in g t ha t DHS u nl awfu ll y ret al ia te d a ga in st he r in sev eral way s, i nc lu di ng fir in g h er fro m he r po si ti on as C us to m s In sp ect or , an d h aras si ng he r be cau se sh e h adsu edDHS inMarc h 2 00 6, fo r em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on invi ol at io n o f th e Reh ab il it at io n Act . In h er twoco un t co m

pl ai nt , Bur go s- St efan el li de m an de d, i n b ot h c ou nt s, re in st at em en t t o h er po si ti on , or i f th atwere n otpo ss ib le , com pe ns at ory an d o th er d am ag es . On M arch 5, 2 01 0, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d DHS s umm ary jud gm en t. Bu rg os -St efan el li ti m el y

m ov edth e co urt t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, se e Fed . R. Ci v. P. 5 9( e). Her m ot io n was de ni edan d t hi s ap pe al fol lo wed . In h er b rie f to us , Bur go s- St efan el li arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erred(1) ingrant in g DHS su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se sh e es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on , and (2 ) in fin di ng th atDHS pro ffer eda le gi ti m at e n on -d is cri m in at ory jus ti fic at io n fo r it s ac ti on s ag ai ns t h er. DHS co nt en ds th atth e sc op e o f ou r rev ie w is li m it edto th e de ni al of B ur go s- St efan el li ’s Rul e 5 9( e) m ot io n, as th atwas the ord er s pe ci fie d i n he r no ti ce o f ap pe al . I. W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s co nc ern in g o ursubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 2Elen d v . Bas ha m , 47 1 F .3d11 99 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Fed eral Ru le of

App el la te Pro cedur e 3 (c) re qu ire s tha t a n ot ic e o f ap pe al “ de si gn at e th e jud gm en t, or de r, orpa rt t he reo f be in g app eal ed .” Fed .R.App .Pro c. 3( c)(1 )(B) . Ordi na ril y , th e fai lu re t o abi de by thi s re qu ire m en t wi ll pre cl ud e u s fr om rev ie win g a ny j ud gm en t orord er n otso sp eci fie d. McDo ug ald v . Jen so n , 78 6 F .2d14 65 , 14 74 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). “ The ge ne ral rul e in th is cir cu itis th atanap pe ll at e co urt h as juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w on ly tho se jud gm en ts , ord ers or p orti on s the reo f whi chare s pe ci fie d i n a n ap pe ll an t’s n ot ic e o f ap pe al .” Ost erne ck v. E.T. Barwi ck In du s., In c. , 82 5 F .2d 15 21 , 15 28 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). An ex pr es s d es ig na ti on of the ord er ap pe al edfro m in fers th e la ckof i nt en t t o app eal un m en ti on edord ers or ju dg m en ts . Id. at 1 52 9. W e, ho wev er, “ li be ral ly con st ru e” the requi rem en ts of R ul e 3 , and“ an ap pe al is no t l os t i f a m is ta ke is m ad e in de si gn at in g t he jud gm en t ap pe al edfro m whe re i t i s cl ear tha t the ov erri di ng in te ntwas e ffec ti ve ly to ap pe al .” KH Outdo or , LLC v . Cit

y o f Tr us sv il le , 46 5 F .3d12 56 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe n t he

“ ov erri di ng in te ntwas e ffec ti ve ly to ap pe al ” th e o rig in al jud gm en t, a n ot ic e o f ap pe al st at in g t ha t i t ap pe al s fr om anord er o n ato ll in g p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io n m us t be co ns tru edas a n app eal fro m th e o rig in al jud gm en t an d n otm erel y fro m th e de ni al of t he po st -tr ia l m ot io n. Ki ckl ight er v. Na il s b y Ja nn ee, In c. , 61 6 F .2d73 4, 73 9 n .1 (5 th Cir . 19 80 ). Whe re the de fectinth e n ot ic e o f ap pe al “ di d n ot 3pr ejud ic e o r m is le adth e res po nd en t,” the ap pe ll at e co urt s ho ul d n otnarro wly read

th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al . Forman v. Davis , 37 1 U.S. 1 78 , 18 1- 82 , 83 S.Ct . 22 7, 2 29 - 30 , 9 L.Ed.2 d 2 22 (19 62 ) (h ol di ng ap pe ll at e co urt s ho ul d h av e co ns tru edno ti ce o f ap pe al fro m

de ni al of m ot io n a s an att em ptto ap pe al fro m

un de rlyin g ju dg m en t). Si nc e Burg os -St efan el li ’s ov erri di ng in te ntwas t o app eal th e o rd er g ran ti ng DHS su m m ary jud gm en t, we h av e juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er wh ethe r th e co urt erred in gra nt in g t ha t o rd er. 1 II. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, v ie win g al l ev id en ce an d fa ctua l i nf eren ces reas on ab ly drawnfro m 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 arty . Bur to n v . Tamp a Ho us in g Au th or it y , 27 1 F.3 d 1 27 4, 1 27 6- 77 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Summary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if t he pl ead in gs , dep os it io ns , ans wers to in te rro ga to rie s, an d a dm is si on s o n fi le , to ge th er with t he affi da vi ts , if an y , sh ow the re i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al fact an d t ha t the m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 . W e can affi rm

a gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t o n a ny bas is supp orte d b y th e When appropriate, we w ill review the de nial of a motion to alter or amend a judgme nt 1 under Rule 59( e) f

or abuseof discre tion. Shuford v. Fidelity Nat. Property &Casualty Ins. Co. , 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 ( 11th Cir. 2007). Howeve r, the district cour t’s order deny ing the Rule 59(e) motion is not properly

befor e us bec ause B urg os-Stefane lli did notchalleng e the or der in he r brief. See A cce

ss Now v. Southw est Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (holding that issues not briefe d on appea l are deeme d abandone d). 4reco rd . Lu ca s v. W.W . Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The Reh ab il it at io n Actin co rp or at es th e an ti -ret al ia ti on pro vi si onfro m § 1 22 03 (a) o f th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 79 1( g) , 79 3( d) , 79 4( d) ; se e S

ut to n v . Lader , 18 5 F .3d12 03 , 12 07 n.5 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e st an dardforde te rm in in g l iabi li ty und er the Reh ab il it at io n Actis th e sa m e as un de r ADA, inth e co nt ex t o f a d is cri m in at io n c la im ). Und er the ADA’ s an ti -ret al iati on pro vi si on , “ [n ]o pe rs on sh al l d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t an in di vi du al be cau se su chin di vi du al ha s o pp os edan y actor p ract ic e m ad e unl awfu l by thi s ch ap te r.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 20 3( a). Thi s an ti -ret al ia ti on pro vi si on is si m il ar to Tit le VII’s pr oh ib it io n o n re ta li at io n. Se e Ste wa rt v. Hap pyHerma n’

s C hesh ir e Bri dg e, In c. , 11 7 F .3d12 78 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Acco rd in gl y , we ass es s ret al ia ti on cla im s p ur su an t t o t he Reh ab il it at io n Actun de r th e fra m ewo rkwe us e in ass es si ng Tit le VII ret al iati on cla im s. Se e Ell is v. Eng la nd , 43 2 F .3d13 21 , 13 23 -2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ( dis cu ssi ng the pr oc ed ur es fo r a fe de ra l em

plo y ee to ra ise dis ab ili ty cl ai m s unde r the Re ha bil ita tio n A ct). Whe n, as he re, s umm ary jud gm en t i s g ran te d b as edon cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, we an al yze the cas e u si ng th e sh ift in g fr am ewo rksetou t i n McDo nn el l Dougl as Co rp . v. Gree n , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S.Ct . 18 17 , 36 L.Ed.2d66 8 (1 97 3) ; se e W ri gh t v. S ou th la nd Co rp ., 18 7 F .3d12 87 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th atth e

5McDo nn el l Do ug la s an al yti c fra m ewo rkap pl ie s t o re ta li at io n c la im s) . Und er

McDo nn el l Do ug la s , th e p la in ti ff b ears th e in it ia l b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng a pr ima fa ci e cas e. Pen ni ng to n v . Cit y o f Hu nt sv il le , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Once a pl ai nt iff

ha s es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e em pl oyer th enha s anop po rtu ni ty to arti cu late a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on forth e ch al le ng ed em pl oym en t ac ti on . Id . If th e em pl oyer pro ffer s s uc h a n e xp la na ti on , th e b ur de n sh ift s b ackto th e p la in ti ff t o p ro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da nt ’s exp lana ti on is m erel y a pr et ex t. Id. To es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on , a pl ai nt iff m ay sh ow tha t: (1 ) sh e en ga ge d i n s tatu to ril y pro te ct edex pr es si on ; (2 ) sh e su ffer eda m at eri al ly adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th ere was so m e cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n th e two ev en ts . Golds mith v . BagbyElev at or Co ., Inc ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (2 00 8) . The fi li ng of a n EEO cl ai m is a “ st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv ity ,” see id , as is th e fi li ng of a n e m

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n l aws ui t, Don ne ll on v. Fru eh au f Co rp ., 79 4 F .2d59 8, 6 00 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). Reg ard in g a n a dv ers e act io n, a “ pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th ata reas on ab le em pl oyee wou ldha ve fou ndth e ch al le ng edact io n m at eri al ly adv ers e.” Bur li ng to n No rthe rn an d S

an ta Fe Rai lw ayCo . v. W hi te , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 8, 1 26 S.Ct . 24 05 , 24 15 , 16 5 L.Ed .2d34 5 (2 00 6) . In Bur li ng to n N or th ern , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d, 6“ The an ti -ret al ia ti on pro vi si on [of Tit le VII] pro te ct s an in di vi du al no t fr om all ret al ia ti on , bu t fr om

ret al ia ti on th atpro du ces anin jury or ha rm .” Id

. at 6 7, 1 26 S.Ct . at 2 41 4. Th e act s m us t b e m at eri al an d s ig ni fic an t an d n ottri vi al . Id. at 6 8, 12 6 S .Ct. at24 15 . In ad di ti on , a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n i s o ne th at“ well m ig ht ha ve di ss ua de d areas 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.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Furt he r, “ th e si gn ifi can ce o f an y gi ve n actof r et al iati on wil l o fte n d ep en d upo n the pa rti cu la r ci rcum st an ces . Con te xt m at te rs .” Id. at 6 9, 1 26 S.Ct . at 2 41 5. Un de r th e h ol di ng in Bur li ng to n , act io nabl e ret al ia to ry

co nduc t i nc lu de s n oton ly tha t wh ic h a ffec ts term s an d co nd it io ns of e m

pl oym en t, b utals o a ny con du ct“ whi chha s a m at eri al ly adv ers e effe cton a pl ai nt iff

, irre sp ect iv e o f whe th er i t i s emplo ym en t o r workp la ce rel at ed .” Cr aw

fo rd v. Ca rr ol l , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 73 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on s om itte d) . Reg ard in g t he cau sa l-r el at io ns hi p p ro ng , we con stru e th is ele m en t b ro ad ly so th ata pl ai nt iff

si m pl y ha s t o d em on st rat e th atth e p ro te ct edact iv ity an d t he adve rs e act io n a re n otco m pl et el y un rel at ed . Higdo n v . Jac ks on , 39 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A pl ai nt iff sat is fie s thi s el em en t i f sh e p ro vi de s s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce tha t h er em

pl oyer ha d kno wled ge of t he pro te ct edex pr es si on an d “ th at th ere was a cl os e te m

po ral pro xi m ity

be twee n t hi s awa ren es s an d t he adve rs e . . . 7act io n.” Id. Whi le we ha ve no t s ta te d e xa ct ly how cl os e th e te m po ral pro xi m ity m us t b e, itha s ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t the “ m ere t em po ral pro xi m ity

be twee n . . . kn owl ed ge of p ro te ct edact iv ity an d a n a dv ers e . . . acti on . . . m us t b e ‘very cl os e.’” Id. (ci ti ng Clark Co un tySc h. Dist . v. Breeden , 53 2 U.S. 2 68 , 27 3, 1 21 S.Ct . 15 08 , 15 11 , 14 9 L.Ed .2d50 9 (2 00 1) , andno ti ng th atth e Supr em e Co urt ci te d wi th ap pr ov al de ci si on s h ol di ng th ata th ree t o fo urm on th di sp ari ty is in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh a cau sa l co nn ect io n) . Furt he rm or e, “ [i]f th ere i s a subs tant ia l d el ay

be twee n t he pro te ct edex pr es si on an d t he adve rs e act io n i n t he ab se nc e o f ot he r ev id en ce t en di ng to sh ow caus at io n, the co m pl ai ntof r et al ia ti on fai ls as am at te r of

law.” Id. at 1 22 0- 21 (ho ld in g t ha t, b y it se lf, thr ee m on th s was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e cau sa ti on , bu t no ti ng a pr ev io us ho ld in g th at on e m on th is

“ no t to o pro tra ct ed .”). W e co nc lu de th atBurg os -St efan el li fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on . Excep t fo r th e p ro po se d a ndactua l t erm in at io n o f he r em pl oym en t, the act io ns of DHS d idno t co ns ti tu te m at eri al ly adv ers e act io ns ; m or eo ve r, sh e fai le d to sh ow tha t tho se act io ns were caus al ly relat edto he r pr ot ect edact iv ity . Evenif sh e sa ti sf ie d t hi s p ro ng , ho wev er, we n ot e th atsh e st il l fa il edto sh ow p ret ex t, fo r reas on s s etforth be lo w.

8III.

If a p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e em pl oyer th enha s an op po rtu ni ty to arti cu la te a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on forth e ch al le ng ed em pl oym en t ac ti on . Penn in gt on , 26 1 F .3dat 1 26 6. Th e em pl oyer “ ne edno t pe rs ua de th e co urt tha t i ts pro ffer edreas on s ar e le gi ti m at e,” as it s b ur de n i s

“ m erel y on e o f pr oduc ti on , no t p ro of .” Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns

po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ). “ Thi s i nt erm ed iate burd enis “ ex ceed in gl y li gh t.” Tu rn es v. AmSo uth Ba nk

, NA , 36 F.3d10 57 , 10 61 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). If the em pl oyer pro ffer s s uc h aleg it im at e n on -ret al ia to ry ex pl an at io n, the em pl oyee m us t s ho w by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the leg it im at e reas on s o ffer edby the em pl oyer fortak in g t he adve rs e act io n wer e n otit s tru e reas on s. Reeves v. S

an de rs on Plu mbi ng

Pro du ct s, In c. , 53 0 U.S. 1 33 , 14 3, 1 20 S.Ct . 20 97 , 21 06 , 14 7 L.Ed .2d10 5 (2 00 0) . A clai m an t ca nn otest ab li sh pre te xtby si m pl y de m on strat in g fa ct s tha t s ug ge stret al ia to ry an im us , bu t m us t s pe ci fic al ly res po ndto each of t he em pl oyer’s exp la na ti on s an d re bu t the m . Cr aw fo rd v. Cit y of Fai rb urn, Ga . , 48 2 F .3d13 05 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A reas on is no t pr et ex tu al un le ss itis sh own bo th th atth e rea so n was fal se , andth atret al ia ti on was th e rea l re as on . Se e Bro ok s v. C ou nt y Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C ou nt y, Ala . , 44 6 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 16 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . If “ th e p ro ffer edreas on is on e th atmig ht 9m ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, an e m

pl oyee m us t m eetth atreas on he adon an d reb utit , andth e em

pl oyee can no t s uc ceedby sim pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of th atreas on ,” or

sh owi ng th atth e d eci si on was b as edon erro ne ou s fa ct s. Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 0. DHS pro vi de d aleg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forit s d eci si on to te rm in at e Bu rg os -St efan el li ’s em pl oym en t b as edonth e m ed ic al rep orts subm it te d by her treat in g p hysic ians . Bur go s- St efan el li fai le d t o p ro du ce an y ev id en ce t o sh ow tha t thi s re as on was p ret ex tu al . AFFIRMED.

10