F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 9 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07– 1174 3 D.C . Do ck et No . 0 5 -0 0 3 6 4 -C V- WS GEORGIA MCCANN, Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JAC K TILLMAN, MIC HAEL HA LEY, DA VI D T URN ER , MEL ISS A B OU

ND S, MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BOARD, Defen da nt s– App el le es .

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (M ay 9 , 200 8) Befo re BLACK an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , and RESTANI , Ju dg e. *Th e c omp la int inc or re c tly ide nti fi e s Me lin da

B ound s a s “ Me lis sa .” Mc Cann v. Mo bil e 1 County Personnel B d., No. 05-0364-WS, 2006 WL1867486, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. 2006) . 2 RE ST A N I, Jud ge : Appellant Ge orgia McCann appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in her suit alleging rac e discrim ination , r etaliation, and a hostile work en vi ro nm en t u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 98 1 a nd19 83 . W e aff irm. BACKGRO UND Ge orgia McCann (“ McCann”) has been em ploy ed as a c orrectional office r for the Mobile County

Sherif f’ s Of fice since 1993. F rom

2003 until Septem

ber 2005 , Mc Cann w as a ssi gne d to the Me tr o B ar ra ck s of the Mo bil e Co unty

Ja il, and he r ch ai n of

c om m an d in cl ude d he r supe rv iso r, Co rr ec tio ns L ie ute nant M el ind a Bounds , De putyW arden D avid Turner, W arden Michael H aley , and Sheriff Jac k

1 Til lm an . On June 1, 2004, McC ann was on her w ay to work w hen she was notified that her son was incar cerated in W ashingt on Coun ty . McCann obtained pe rm iss ionto use an e m er ge nc y va catio n day

and w en t t o th e W as hin gto n C ounty j ail still wear ing her correc tional officer uniform . On June 4, 2004, Sher iff Wheat of W ashingt on Coun ty

wr ote a letter to the Mobil e County Sherif f’ s Of fice co m pla ini ng a

bout Mc Cann’ s ir

ratio na l and d isr es pe ct fu l be ha vio r tow ar ds h imThe Mobile County Personnel B oard did not par ticipate in this appea l but is a named 2 party in this action. 3 and his dep uties while at the W ashingt on Coun ty j ail. In July

2004 , apredis ci pli nary

he ar ing pane l de te rm ine d M cC an n w as gui lty of c ondu ct unb ec om ing ane m plo y ee in the pub lic se rv ic e, dis or de rl y c ondu ct , and o f vio la tin g alaw fu l an d r ea sona

ble r eg ulatio n is sue d inN ove m be r 2003 , f

or bid din g e m

plo y ee s to w ear the ir

uni fo rm s of

f- duty . S he ri ff

T ill m ansub se que ntl y

sus pe nde d M cC an n w ith out pay f or f if te enday s, w ithf

ive day s de fe rr ed

pe ndi ng s ix m onths o f good be ha vio r. Mc Cann a

ppe al ed the de ci sio n to the Mo bil e Co unty P er sonn el Bo ar d, w hic h a ff irm ed the pr e- dis ci pli nary

pane l’ s de te rm inatio n f

ind ing Mc Cann g uil ty o f th e c h a r g e s b r o u g h ta g a i n s th e r an de x t e n d e dh e r

s u s p e n s i o n t o f

i f t e e n d a ys wit h n on e d eferred . InAugus t 20 04, Mc Cann r ec ei ve d an un sa tis fa ct or y se rv ic e ratin g, due in part to her suspensio n, which m ade her ineligible for prom otion . McCann w as al so p re ve nte d f

ro m w orkin g ov er

tim e due to a re ce nt p oli cy ins tit ute d by Bo unds forbiddin g discipl ined officers f rom working overtim e for ninety day s after re tur nin g to w ork. I n January 200 5, Mc Cann f

ile d ac harg e of

dis cr im inatio n w ith the E E O C, a lle gin g ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t. I n June 200 5, Mc Cann f ile d su it against Boun ds, T urner, Ha ley , T illm an, and the Mobi le County Per sonn el Board 2Un de r Art ic le I I Iof the Con sti tut ion , f

e de ra l c ourt s a

re lim ite d in

the ir jur isd ic tio n to 3 “ca ses” a nd “contr oversies.” U.S. Const. art. I I I , § 2. A ca se or c ontroversy require s the prese nce of

adver se par

ties. See GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 445 U. S. 3 75 , 3 82 –8 3 ( 19 80 ). Whe n “ bo thlitigants desire prec isely the sam e re sult,” there is

(continued...) 4 (collectively

“ Appellees”) , a lleging that she had was subje cted to racia l discrim ination , r etaliation, and a hostile work environm ent in vio lation of Title V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4, 42 U . S. C. § 20 00e , e t se q. , and 4 2 U . S. C. §§ 1 981 an d 1 98 3. O n Ju ly 6, 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d B ound s, T ur ne r, H al ey , and Tillm an’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent for all cla im s except for the r etaliatory fa ilure to pr om ote c la im

a ga ins t T ur

ne r, H al ey , T ill m an , and the Mo bil e Co unty Pe rs onne l B oard . Mc Cann s ubse que ntl y c onse nte d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t onthi s re m ai nin g c la im , a dvi sin g th e co urt tha t sh e “ be lie ve [d ] that the Co urt e rr one ousl y dism issed her earlier

claim s and wishe[d] to proceed w ith an appeal of that im m ed ia te ly . ” ( Se e Appe llant’ s App. , T ab s 80 , 82. ) O n M ar ch26, and Apr il 5, 2007 , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe r et al ia tor y f ai lur e to prom ote claim

as to all defendants. ( See id., Ta bs 81, 83.) JURISDIC TION AN D S TAN DA RD OF RE VIEW This court has j urisdictio n over a final j udgm ent of the district court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 129 1. W e re view a district court’ s grant of summ ary 3(...continued) 3 “no ca se or c ontroversy

within the meaningof Art. I I Iof the Constituti on.” Moore v. Cha rl ott e -M e c kle nb ur gB d. of Ed uc ., 40 2 U .S. 47 , 4 8 ( 19 71 ) (pe r c ur iam) . T hu s, “ a pa rt y normally has no standingto appea l a judg ment to which he or she conse nted.” Rey

nolds v. Rob e rt s, 20 2 F .3 d 1 30 3, 13 12 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) (b ra c ke ts a

nd qu otatio ns omi tte d) . B e c a us e Mc Cann vo luntari ly

c on se nte d to summa

ry jud g me nt a g a ins t he r o n h e r r e ta liator y fa ilure to promote cla im ag ainst Turner , Haley , Tillman, and the Mobile County Personnel B oard, she cannot a ppeal the dismissal of these claims and, ther efor e, they are not at issue in this appeal. 5 j udgm ent de novo . See Jones v. Dillard’ s, I nc., 331 F.3d 1259 , 1262 (11th Cir. 2003 ). “ Sum

m ary j udgm ent is appropriate ‘ if the pleadings, deposit ions, answer s to i nte rr ogator 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 tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ’ ” E be rh ar dt v . W at er s, 901 F . 2d 1 578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c) ). DISC US SION Mc Cann a lle ge s th at

she w as sub

j ec t t o r ac e dis cr im inatio n and r et al ia tio n, in v iol at ionof

42 U . S. C. §§ 1 981 an d 19 83, w ithr es pe ct to m atte rs of

e m plo ym en t dis ci pli ne , c om

pe nsatio n, alow er ing of

se rv ic e ratin g, f

ai lur e to p ro m ote , and failure to re assign o r transfe r, and that she was subje ct to a hostile work en vi ro nm en t.

I. Discrim ination Title V II prohibits em

ploy ers fr om

discrim inating “ against any indiv idual6

w ithr es pe ct

to his c om

pe nsatio n, te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or pr ivi le ge s of

e m plo ym en t, be ca use of suc h in div idu al ’ s r ac e, c olo r, r el igi on, se x, or na tio na l or igi n. ” 42 U . S. C. § 20 00e -2 (a )( 1) . Whe re , a s he re , the re is no d ir ec t e vid en ce of discrim ination , a

plaintiff m ay

prove discrim ination through circum stantial evidence, using the burden-shi fting fram ew ork establishedin McDonnell Douglas Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S. 792 ( 1973 ). T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se f

or dis parate tr eatm en t, Mc Cann m

ust sho wthat “ (1 ) she is a m em be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss; ( 2) she was subj ected to adverse e m ploym ent action; (3) her em ploy er tre ated sim ilarl y sit ua te d [ w hit e] e m

plo y ee s m or e favor ab ly ; and ( 4) she w as qua lif ie d to do the job.” E EO C v. Joe’ s Stone Crab, Inc. , 220 F. 3d 12 63, 1286 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). If McCann satisfies these elem ents, the appellees m ust prov ide a le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r the ir

a ct ion . B urke -F ow le r v. O range Co unty , F la . , 447 F . 3d 1 319, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . I f thi s burd enis m et , Mc Cann m

ust the n pr ove that the appe lle es ’ r ea sons are apr et ex t f or unl aw fu l di sc riminat io n. Id . Only the third elem ent is at issue here. In order to deter m ine whether other em plo y ee s w er e sim ilarl y

sit ua te d to Mc Cann, w e ev al ua te “ ‘ w he the r the em ploy ees ar e involv ed in or accused of the sam e or sim ilar conduct and are dis ci pli ne d indif

fe re nt w ay s. ’ ” I d. ( quot ing Manic ci a v. Br ow n, 171 F . 3d 1 364,McCann alleg es that she is the only person who w as eve r disciplined for violatingthe 4 uniform policy

and questions whethe r the policy was e ver disclose d to the office rs at the Me tro Ba rra cks. B eca

use she is unable to find a “ne arly identical” c omparator, McCann a rgues that requiring“identica l misconduct would be improper ly draw ing the circ le of c omparators too tightly .” (A

ppellant’s B r. 16.) Mc Cann advoc ates for use of the “ simil ar” misconduct standar d that has bee n articulated at times in our past opinions, which re quires “similar misconduc t from the sim ila rl y sit uate d c omp arator .” Al e xan de r v . F ult on County , G a ., 20 7 F .3 d 1 30 3, 13 34 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) (q

uo tatio ns omi tte d) ; se e a lso An de rs on v. WB MG -4 2, 25 3 F .3 d 5 61 , 5 65 (1 1th Cir. 2001). “Ne arly

identical,” how ever , does not mean “ exactly identical.” Arang e of c omp arator s ma

y satis fy thi s st and ard . Wh ile we re c ognize the dif fi c ult y Mc Cann may fa c e in meetingthis standard, we are bound by prec edent to adhe re to the “ near ly identical standa

rd.” Se e B ur ke -F ow le r, 44 7 F .3 d at 13 23 n. 2 ( fi nd ingthat th e c ourt wa s r e qu ir e d to fo llo w the “ ne arl y identical” sta

ndard de spite a later

panel de cision that called this re quirement into question, rea soning that “when a

later pa nel dec ision contradicts an e arlier one, the e arlier

panel de cision controls”) . Fur

ther, ther e is the possibilit y that even in the a

bsence of what may

fairly be descr ibed as a

near ly identical compa

rator, some conduct may

be so unfa irly

discriminatory

that no rea sonable pe rson would find it non-ac tionable. That is not the ca se her e and w e nee d not speculate on what suc h conduct mig ht be. The c omparators that McCann pre sents on appea l mus t th e re fo re satis fy

the “ ne arl y

ide nti c a l” te st. 7 1 3 6 8 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 )) . In d o i n g s o , “ t h e q u an t i t y an dqu al i t y o f t h e c o m p ar at o r’s m isc ondu ct

[ m ust ] be ne ar ly

ide nti ca l t o pr ev en t c ourts f ro m se co nd- gue ssi ng em plo y er s’ r ea sona

ble de ci sio ns and c onf

usi ng a ppl es w ithor an ge s. ” I d. (quot at ion s om itt ed ); se e al so N ix v . W L CYRa dio /R ah al l C om m c’ ns, 738 F . 2d 1181 , 1185 (11th Cir. 1984) (“ [T ] he m iscondu ct for which [the plaintiff] wa s discharged [m

ust be] nearly

identical to tha t e nga ge d inby an e m plo y ee out sid e the pr ote ct ed

c la ss whom

the e m plo y er r et ai ne d. ”) ( br ac ke ts and quot at ion s om itted). 4 McCann alleges that the fif teen day suspens ion sh e re ceived after she wore h e r u n i f o rm o f f - du t y w a s i mp o s e db a s e do n r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . M c C a n n c l a i msThe district cour t determined that McCann’s cha ng e in shift assig nment and denia l of 5 reque st to transfer

did not amount to adverse e mploy ment actions bec ause she did not demonstrate how

either a ction was “ serious and material.” McCann, 2006 WL1867486, at *1 7– 18 . B e c a

us e Mc Cann

ha s n ot a dv anc e d a

rgume nts re latin gto t

his de te rm inatio n o n a

pp e a l, these a lleg ed ac ts will notbe conside red in e ither her discrimination or reta liation claims. 8 she w as f urthe r dis cr im inate d a ga ins t i n he r co m pe nsatio n be ca

use she w as not a l l o w e dt o wo rko v e rt i me f o r n i n e t y d a ys a s ar e s u l t

o f b e i n g s u s p e n d e d . F i n a l l y, Mc Cann a lle ge s th at

she w as dis cr im inate d a ga ins t be ca use he r sus pe nsi on resulted in her rec eiving an “ unsatis factory ” service rating, which disq ualified her fr om r ec ei vin g apr om oti on. T he r ec or d de m onstrate s th at Mc Cann f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inatio n f

or any of he r cl ai m s. Mc Cann i de nti fi es tw o c om parator s to 5 de m onstrate that whit e em plo y ee s c om

m itt ed sim ilar or

m or e se ri ous of

fe nse s and we re not sim ilarly

disciplin ed. Ne ither of these com parators, however, are ex am ple s of w hit e em plo y ee s w ho v iol at ed

the uni fo rm

dir ec tiv e, or

w ho s im ilarl y ab us edth e in di ci a o r pr iv il eg es of t he ir o ffi ce, b ut were n ot di sc ip li ne d. InJun e 2004 , Marn ita

Co le m an , aw hit e inm at e w ork su pe rv iso r, w as not sus pe nde d or

f orm al ly dis ci pli ne d a ft er

be ing c onvi ct ed

of dis or de rl y

c ondu ct and resisting arrest following a dispute with her daughter-in-law . An Inter nal Af fairs investigation determ ined that Colem an had engaged in un lawf ul condu ct and condu ct unbecom ing of an officer. McCann argues that Colem an wa s charged9

w iththe sam e of

fe nse and tha t the f

ai lur e to d isc ipl ine Co le m anis ev ide nc e of di sc riminat io n. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly f ound , Co le m an ’ s m isc ondu ct is not “ ne ar ly i d en t i ca l ” t o Mc Ca n n ’s , m ak i n g Co l eman an i m p ro p erco m

p ar at o r. Mc Ca n n ’s co n du ct o cc u rr ed i n p ub l i c a n dwh i l e s h e w as i n u n i fo rm, wh i l e C o l eman ’s conduct occurred at a private residence and in plaincloth es. McCann directe d her conduct at the sheriff of a neighb oring coun ty , while Colem an directed her co nd uc t at he r da ug ht er-i n- la w and “ on ly inc id en ta ll y ” atth e arr es ti ng de pu ty. Mos t no ta

bly , whil e Mc Cann i nvok ed he r of fi ci al pos iti on i n an e ff

ort t o ob ta in a pe rs ona l go al , Co le m andid not . In May 2005 , Jonathan Lindsey , a white c orrectional office r, m ade vulgar com m ents and un professional statem ents to a nurse attending an inm ate he w as es co rt ing . L ind say

r ec ei ve d aw ri tte n r ep ri m an d, but w as not sus pe nde d. A s w ith Co le m an , be ca

use L ind se y ’ s m isc ondu ct is not “ ne ar ly ide nti ca l” to that of McCann, it cannot be used as a com parator. L indseywa s on du ty and therefore wa s not in violatio n of the uniform directive. L indsey ’ s conduct was directed to warda ci vi li an an d n ot a hi gh -ran ki ng off ic er o f a n ei gh bo rin g c ou nt y . Furthe rm or e, L ind se y

w as not a dvanc ing apr ivate a ge ndain spe ak ing up o n behalf of an inm ate.Be cause McCann has not made out a prima fa cie c ase of rac ial discrimination, her 6 argume nt t

hat pr e te xt ca

n b e sh own thro ugh la

ngua g e de mon str atin gdis c ri min ator y anim us wi ll also not be re ache d. 10 McCann’ s conduct is qualitativelydiffer ent from that of the com

parators she provid ed because her conduct in volv ed an abuse of office , while the condu ct of the com

parators did not. Consequentl y , bec ause McCann has no t presented pr ope r co m

parator s, she ha s f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inatio n with respect to her

suspens ion, and the burden will not be shi fted to the appellees to pro vi de a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on forth ei r act io ns . Finally , Mc Cann alleges that she wa s discrim inated against because she was not pr om ote d. A s in dic at ed , Mc Cann’ s f ai lur e to e ar

n apr om oti on i s r el at ed

in part to the sus pe nsi on s he r ec ei ve d, w hic h w as not an a ct of a ct ion ab le dis cr im inatio n. F urthe r, apr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inator

y f ai lur e to p ro m ote re qui re s asho w ing that “ oth er e qua lly or le ss q ua lif ie d e m plo y ee s w ho w er e not m em be rs of t he pro te ct edcla ss were p ro m ot ed .” W il so n v . B/E Aero sp ace, In c., 376 F. 3d 1 079, 108 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . T he onl y e vid en ce pr es en te d by

Mc Cann dem onstrates that the two candidates prom oted wer e black, and thus , she has f ailed t o me e th e r

b u r d e n a s t o th i s c l a i m. 6 A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t ona ll of Mc Cann’ s r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n c la im s.11

II. R et ali at ion Title V II prohibits an em ploy er f rom retaliating against an em ploy ee

“ because [s] he has oppo sed any practice m ade an unlawf ul em ploym ent practice

. . . or be ca use [ s] he ha s m ad e a ch ar ge , te sti fi ed , a ssi ste d, or part ic ipate d inany m an ne r in an in ve sti ga tio n, pr oc ee din g, or he ar ing und er

thi s su bc ha pte r. ” 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-3(a) . “ To establish a prim a fa cie showing of retaliation under Title V II, the plaintiff m

ust sh ow (1) that she engaged in st atutorily protected expression; (2) that she suffer ed an adverse e m ploym ent action; and (3) that there is s om e ca

usa l r el at ionbe tw ee n th e tw o e ve nts . ” Co ope r v. S outhe rnCo . , 390 F. 3 d6 9 5 , 7 4 0 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). As wi t h Mc Ca n n ’s dis cr im inatio n c la im , if

the appe lle es art ic ulate le git im at e re as ons fo r the ir a ct ion s, Mc Cann m

ust the n “ showthat the e m

plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea sons f

or takin g th e adverse ac tion were actually a prete xt for prohibitedretaliatory conduct.” S ulliv an v. N at ’ l R . R. P as se nge r Co rp . , 170 F . 3d 1 056, 105 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . I n or de r to do s o, Mc Cann m

ust de m onstrate “ suc h w eakne sse s, im pla usi bil iti es , inconsi stencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the em ploy er’ s proffer ed legitim ate re asons for its action th at a r easonable factf inder could find th em un wor th y of c red en ce.” Co op er, 3 90 F.3dat 7 25 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . T h e ap p e l l e e s c h a l l e n g e th e th i r de l e me n to f M c C a n n ’s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m,12

which re quires a plaintiff to dem onstrate that “ the decision-m aker[s] [w ere] aw are of the pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct , and tha t the pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty and the a dve rs e ac tio n w er e not w hol ly unr el at ed . ” G utp a v. F la . Bd . of Re ge nts , 212 F . 3d 5 71, 590 (1 1thCi r. 200 0) ( al te ratio ns i n or igi na l) ( quot at ion s om itt ed ); se e al so G ri ff in v . GT E F la., Inc. , 182 F. 3d 12 79, 1284 (11t h Cir. 1999 ) (“ At a m inim um , [ a plaintiff] m ust sho wthat the a dve rs e ac t f oll ow ed the pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct ; this m ini m

um proof stem s from

the im portant requirem ent that the em ploy er w as actually

aw are of the protected expression at the tim e it took adverse em ploym ent action.”) (quot at ion s om itt ed ). W e ha ve f ound that “ ‘ cl ose te m

por al pr oxi m ity ’ m ay

be suf fi ci en t t o sh owthat the pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty and the a dve rs e ac tio n w er e not

‘ w hol ly unr el at ed . ’ ” G utp a, 212 F . 3d at 59 0 ( quot ing F ar le y v. N at ion w ide Mu t. In s. Co ., 19 7 F .3d13 22 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )). McCann alleges that she suffer ed retaliation after filing a wr itten grievance on Jul y 14, 2004, protesting her suspensio n. S he alleges that Bounds retaliate d ag ai n s th erb y s en d i n g o u ta mem o ra n du m o n J u l y 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , a d v i s i n g Mc Ca n n ’s superviso rs that suspend ed officer s wer e not perm itted to work overtim e, which af fe ct edh erco m

p en s at i o n . B o u n d s wa s l i s t ed as a r ec i p i en to n Mc Ca n n ’s grievance and appellees never state d that Bound s did no t rece ive it at ap p ro x i m at el y t h e t i m e i twa s s en t . Th u s , t h e f i v e d ays b et we en Mc Ca n n ’s13

grievance and Bounds’ overtim e m em orandum satisfies the “ close tem

poral pr ox im it y ” te st of t he cau sa ti on ele m en t. See McC an n, 2 00 6 WL 18 67 48 6, at *7 . B o u n d s art i c u l a t e dan o n d i s c r i mi n a t o ry r e a s o n f o r h e r me mo r a n du m, expla ini ng tha t e m

plo y ee s w ho are sus pe nde d sh oul d no t be able to re co ve r fo r the ir unp ai d le av e by

w orkin g ov er

tim e uponthe ir

r et ur n to w ork. Mc Cann atte m pts to showpr et ex t by

a lle gin g th at

e m plo y ee s of

no o the r de partm en t of

the Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e w er e fo rb idd enf

ro m w orkin g ov er

tim e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, how ev er , that a lth oughade partm en ta l po lic y ha d no t be enim

ple m en te d, Bo unds ’ supe ri or s ha d pr ev iou sly

dis cu sse d in sti tut ing thi s po lic y , but c oul d no t do so be ca use of sta ff ing sho rt ag es . A cc or din g to a t l ea st o ne sup er ior , Bo unds ’ dir ec tiv e w as c onsi ste nt w iththe ir pr ev iou s c onc lus ionthat this pol ic y w oul d be ap pr op ria te . T he pol ic y , w hic h w as a gr ee d up on p ri or to the gr ie vanc e, is en tir el y log ic al , a s it

e nsur es the sus pe nsi on w ill have it s in te nde d e ff ec t. Mc Cann the re fo re ha s f

ai le d to sho wage nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t tha t B ound s’ legitim ate re ason for her em ploym ent decision was pretextual. See, e. g., W ascura v. City of S. Miam i, 257 F. 3d 12 38, 1247 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (a ffirm ing su m m ary j udgm ent for em

ploy er where legitim ate re asons for the term ination decision were offer ed by

the defendant and em

ploy ee pre sented virtuallyno evidence, other thanMoreove r, the district cour t noted that McCann provide d no explanation for why 7 Bounds would have bee n motivated to retaliate ag ainst her, a s Bounds’ only involvement in the im p o s it io no f

th e s u s p e n s io nw a s to te s ti f y a b o u t t h e un if o r m d ir e c ti v e . Se e M c Ca

nn , 2 0 0 6 WL 1867486, at *8. The district cour

t determined that McCann’s two ac ts of alleg ed opposition to perce ived 8 rac e discrimination that occ urre d befor e her suspension, her f

iling of a Title VI Ilawsuit in 1999 and her submissi on of an of

fice r nar rative f orm on Fe bruar

y 18, 2004, occur

red too longbefor e her suspe nsion to support an infere nce of causation. McCann, 2006 WL1867486, at *6. Be cause McCann has not a dvance d arguments relatingto these ac ts on appea l, they will not be considere d. 14 tem poral proxim ity

of the events); G utpa, 212 F.3d at 590–91 (finding that al tho ugh the re w as c los e te m por al pr oxi m ity

be tw ee n th e adve rs e em

plo ym en t ac tio n and the pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty , e m

plo y ee f ai le d to c re at e a ge nui ne iss ue of m aterial f act that the em

ploy er’ s nond iscrim inatory rea sons for its action we re pretextual). 7 McCann also alleges that she rec eived an unsatisfactory service r ating that pr ev en te d he r pr om oti on. Mc Cann’ s se rv ic e ratin g is da te d Augus t 24 , 200 4, 8 w hic h is appr oxi m at el y

six w ee ks a ft er

she f ile d he r gr ie vanc e as to the s u s p en s i o n . As i n d i ca t ed , B o u n d s wa s an i n cl u d ed re ci p i en to n Mc Ca n n ’s gr ie vanc e an d no arg um en t ha s be enr ai se d th at she did not r ec ei ve it ti m el y . T he six weeks betwe en McCann’ s grievance and the service r ating arguably satisfies the pr oxi m ity

r equir em en t. S ee , e . g. , F ar le y , 197 F . 3d at 13 37 ( tim e fr am e of se ve n wee ks su ffi ci en tl y

pro xi m at e whe n e m

pl oyers awa re o f pl ai nt iff’s EEOC15

ch ar ge sho rt ly

a ft er it s f ili ng) ; D onne llo n v. F ru eh au f Co rp . , 794 F . 2d 5 98, 601 (1 1thCi r. 198 6) ( “ T he sho rt pe ri od o f tim e [o ne m onth] be tw ee n th e fi lin g of the dis cr im inatio n c om

pla int and the [ adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion ] be lie s any a sse rt ion by the defendant that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.”) Bo u n d s ’ pr o ff

er ed re as o n s fo r t h e l o w s er v i ce ra t i n g i n cl u d edMc Ca n n ’s chronic tardiness, her m anner of r equesting leave by calling in, and her sus pe nsi on. Mc Cann a lle ge s th at the se r ea sons are apr et ex t f or unl aw fu l re ta liatio n be ca

use she ha s a lw ay s r ec ei ve d satis fa ct or y se rv ic e ratin gs b ef

or e an d has been com

m ended by

other office rs on her w ork perform ance, other office rs ha d le ss l eave r em ai nin g th anMc Cann, he r sus pe nsi on w as due to of f- duty co nduc t and unr el at ed

to he r j ob p er fo rm an ce , and h er sup er vis or S er ge an t T ay lor ap ol og iz edforgi vi ng he r a l ow s erv ic e rat in g. Mc Cann h as f

ai le d to de m onstrate that B ound s’ r ea sons f or takin g th e adve rs e ac tio n w er e pr et ex tua l. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y f ound , “ [t ] he sa tis fa ct or

y r at ing s of

pr ev iou s su

pe rv iso rs c anbe of

no c onse que nc e w ith out a show ing that, w he n un de r the ir sup er vis ion , the pla int if

f ha d le av e an d tard ine ss is su es si m il ar t o t ho se no te d b y Bo un ds .” McC an n, 2 00 6 WL 18 67 48 6, at *1 0. Si gni fi cantl y , “ dif

fe re nc es in the e va luatio n of [ a pla int if

f’ s] pe rf orm an ce do n ot es ta bli sh a ge nui ne iss ue on p re te xt. D if fe re nt s upe rv iso rs m ay

ins ist upo nThis rea soning a lso applies to McCann’s cla im that Serg eant Ta ylor apolog ized for 9 g iving he r a low se rvice rating , as super visors vary

in their opinions as to what constitutes satisfac tory

employ ee pe rfor

mance . 16 differe nt standards o f behavior, and a new supervisor m ay decide to enforce policies that a previous supervisor didnot consi der im portant.” R oja s v. Florida, 285 F.3d 133 9, 1343 (11th Cir. 2002 ). T hus, the opini ons of form er supervisors an d c o- w orke rs that do not a ddr es s M cC an n’ s le av e an d tard ine ss i ssu es c an not de m onstrate pr et ex t. 9 McCann’ s attem

pts to s how pretext by

providin g the leave balances of other officer s and by

claim ing th at her suspension wa s unrelated to job perf orm ance ar e m isg uid ed . Mc Cann w as not r at ed uns at isf ac tor ily f or a lowle av e ba lanc e, but rathe r fo r the m an ne r in whic h sh e re que ste d le av e. Mc Cann a lso ha s pr ovi de d no ev ide nc e that he r sus pe nsi on f or of f- duty c ondu ct c an not be c onsi de re d in ev al ua tin g an of

fi ce r’ s se rv ic e ratin g, part ic ularl y w he n th e sus pe nsi on w as f or abuse of office. In fa ct, the Sheriff ’ s Of fice issued a standard operating procedure expli ci tly statin g th at

“ it is i nc um

be nt u pon ea chm em

be r an d e m

plo y ee to be co nti nuou sly

on g uard a ga ins t any

m an ne r of

unb ec om ing c ondu ct

or unpr of es sio na l be ha vio r” and tha t “ [c ] ondu ct or de portm en t tha t i s de te rm ine d to be pr ej udi ci al to the goo d or de r, e ff ic ie nc y and d isc ipl ine of

the Mo bil e Co unty Sheriff 's O ffice (MCS O) m ay

subject the off

ender to disciplin ary

action.”17

(Appellant’s App., Ta

b 82 at 1.) Finally , Mc Cann alleges that she wa s retaliated against w hen she was de nie d apr om oti on. Mc Cann v oluntari ly c onse nte d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t onthi s cl ai m a ga ins t a ll of

the de fe ndants e xc ep t B ound s. S ee sup ra not e 2 and accom pany ing text. As Mc Cann has not argued or presented any evidence that Bounds wa s connected to the prom otion decision, except in relation to the service ratin g, and the se rv ic e ratin g ha s no t be ensho w n to be the r es ult of a ct ion ab le dis cr im inatio n, sum

m ar y j udgm en t w as c or

re ct ly gr an te d a ga ins t M cC an n a s to the ret al ia to ry

fai lu re t o p ro m ot e cl ai m

ag ai ns t Bo un ds . Ac cordingly , Mc Cann has failed to m eet her burden to d em onstrate that her em plo y er s’ r ea sons f

or the ir a ct ion s a s to ove rt im e, pe rf orm an ce r at ing and prom otion we re a ctually

a prete xt for reta liatory

conduct. T he district court pr ope rl y gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t onMc Cann’ s r et al ia tio n c la im s. III. Hostile Work

Environm ent T itl e V II pr ohi bit s ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t i n w hic h “ a se ri es of se parate acts . . . c ollectively

constitu te one ‘ unlawful em ploym ent practice. ’ ” N at’ l R. R. Pas se ng er Co rp . v. Mo rg an , 53 6 U.S. 1 01 , 11 7 (2 00 2) (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00e -5 (e )( 1) ). A s op pose d to “ [d ] isc re te a ct s su cha s te rm inatio n, f ai lur e to pr om ote , de nia l of

tr an sf er , or r ef usa l t o hi re , ” a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im18

ad dr es se s ac ts “ di ffer en t i n k in d” who se “ ve ry na tu re i nv ol ve s re pe at edco nd uc t,” suc h a s “ ‘ dis cr im inator

y int im idatio n, r idi cu le , and i nsul t. ’ ” I d. a t 11 4–16 ( qu o t i n g H a rr i s v . F o rk l i f tS ys . , I n c . , 5 1 0 U . S . 1 7 , 2 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ) . T h u s , th e s e “c l a i ms ar e ba se d onthe c um

ulativ e ef fe ct of ind ivi dua l a ct s. ” I d. a t 11 5. T o e sta bli sh a hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im , Mc Cann m ust sho w :

“ (1 ) that [ s] he be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed gr oup; ( 2) that [ s] he ha s be ensub j ec t t o unw el co m e hara ssm en t; (3 ) that the hara ssm en t m ust have be enba se d ona protected chara cteristic of the e m ploy ee . . . ; ( 4) that the harassm ent was suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f em plo ym en t an d c re at e a dis cr im inator ily abusi ve w orkin g e nvi ro nm en t; an d ( 5) that the em plo y er is re spon sib le f

or suc h e nvi ro nm en t un de r ei the r a the or y of vic ar iou s or of dir ec t l ia bil ity . ” Mi lle r v. K en w orth o f D oth an , I nc . , 277 F . 3d 1 269, 127 5 ( 11th Ci r. 200 2) . D et er

m ini ng whe the r the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pervasive invol ves “ both an obje ctive and subjective com ponent .” Id. at 1276. In de te rm in in g t he ob

jecti ve ele m en t, a co ur t l oo ks to “ ‘all t he cir cu m st an ces ,’ inc lud ing ‘ the f

re que nc y of the dis cr im inator

y c ondu ct ; i ts s ev er ity ; whe the r it is phy sic al ly

thr eate nin g or

hum ili at ing , or

am er e of

fe nsi ve utt er an ce ; and whe the r it unr ea sona

bly int er fe re s w ithan e m

plo y ee ’ s w ork pe rf

orm an ce . ’ ” Mo rg an , 536 U.S. at 1 16 (qu ot in g Harris , 51 0 U.S. at23 ); s ee al so Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3dat 1 27 5.Although the se off ensive stateme nts occurr ed outside the statutory time period, as long 10 as “a n act c ontributing to the [hostil e wor k environment] claim occur s within the filing per iod, the entire time period of the hostile e nvironment may be conside red by

a cour t for the pur

poses of dete rmining liability .” Morg an, 536 U.S. at 117. Thus, “[i]tdoes not matter . . . that some of the component a cts of the hostile work e nvironment fall outside the statutory time period.” I d. 19 Mc Cann a lle ge s sh e w as sub j ec t t o ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t whe re w hit e em ploy ees m ade derogatory rac ial com

m ents about b lacks, har sher disciplin e w as re ce ive d by

bla ck e m plo y ee s, and c om

pla int s of dis cr im inatio n w er e subj ec t t o re ta liatio n and n ot i nve sti ga te d. A cc or din g to Mc Cann, how ev er , the onl y r ac ia lly insensi tive com

m ents she heard betwee n 200 3 and 200 5 wer e w hen Bound s called he r “ gir l” and c al le d tw o m al e bla ck e m plo y ee s “boy s. ” Mc Cann a lso a lle ge s th at , at som e tim e prior to 2003, out of McCann’ s hearing, T illm an ref erre d to a form er bla ck e m plo y ee a s a“ nig ge r bit ch ” an d de cl ar ed that “ he ha d ne ve r re ce ive d th e

‘ nigg er vote’ and that he didn ’ t want it.” (Appellant’s Br . 33–34.) 10 A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y f ound , the r em ai nde r of

Mc Cann’ s a lle ga tio ns concern “patterns of discrim ination practice d against black em ploy ees, ” w hich co nst itu te dis cr et e ac ts tha t m ust be c ha lle nge d a s se parate statut or y dis cr im inatio n an d r et al ia tio n c la im s. Mc Cann, 200 6 W L 186 7486 , a t *1 9–20 ; se e al so M or gan, 536 U . S. a t 11 1–11 3. T he se c an not be br ough t un de r a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t claim that centers on “ discrim inatory intim idation , r idicule, and insult.” See Mo rg an , 53 6 U.S. at11 6 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) .20

Although offensive, such ins tances of ra cially derogatory

language alone, ex te ndi ng o ve r a pe ri od o f m or e than tw o y ears , are too spo ra dic and i sol at ed to es ta bli sh tha t he r em

plo y er s’ c ondu ct

w as so o bj ec tiv el y

se ve re or pe rv as ive a s to al te r the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f he r em plo ym en t. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y found, the onlyterm

ever dire cted at McC ann was “ girl” and the term “ boy ” w as use d on ly onc e in f ro nt o f he r. Mc Cann, 200 6 W L 186 7486 , a t *2 0. Mc Cann do es no t al le ge th atan y on e el se ev er u se d ra ci al ly dero ga to ry sp eech to ward s h er. A lth oughMc Cann h eard of r ac ia l e pithe ts b ei ng s poke n tw ic e by S he ri ff T ill m an , the se w er e ne ve r dir ec te d a t M cC an n, nor spo ke n inhe r pr es en ce . I d. ; se e al so Harris, 510 U.S . at 21 (finding that the “ ‘ m ere utterance of an . . . epithet which en ge nde rs of

fe nsi ve f ee lin gs i n ae m

plo y ee , ’ . . . doe s no t su ff ic ie ntl y a ff ec t the co ndi tio ns o f em

plo y m en t t o im

pli cate T itl e V II ”) ( quot ing Me ri tor S av . Bank, FSB v. V inson , 477 U. S. 57, 67 (1986)). Mor eover, althoug h McCann alleges that she was upset by

this langu age, she has not d em onstrated that the alleged en vir onm en t i nte rf

er ed w ithhe r j ob p er fo rm an ce . I n f ac t, Mc Cann a ct

ua lly te st ifi edth atitdi d n ot affe cthe r work. (Se e App el la nt ’s App ., Tab 1 at 3 3.) Co nse que ntl y , the e vid en ce pr es en te d by Mc Cann w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o supp ort a c la im of hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, and the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto th is cla im .21 CON CLU SION 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 a s to al l cl ai m s.