### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 27, 20 06 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1303 7
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 31 1 C V-T-2 6M AP JAME S R. CO BB, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us TSI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., De fendant-Appellee.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida (M ar ch 27, 200 6) Before AN DE RSO N and DU BIN A, Circuit Judges, and AL BRIT TO N*, District Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ *Honora ble Will iam H. Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation.2

Appe llant J am es R. Co bb ( “ Co bb” ) ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of j udgm en t a s am at te r of

law a ga ins t hi m

in his r et al ia tor

y dis ch ar ge a ct iona ga ins t his form er e m

ploy er, defendant/appellee Sy niverse Te chnolo gies, Inc. , f /k/a TSI T el ec om m uni ca tio ns S er

vic es , I nc . ( “ Sy

niv er se ”)
. T he iss ue s C obb pr es en ts t o us
on a ppe al a re ( 1) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n ingr an tin g Sy niv er se ’ s m oti on t o e xc lud e the te sti m ony of Co bb’ s st at ist ic ian w itn es s; and ( 2)
w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d j udgm en t a s am at te r of lawto Sy niverse because Cobb could no t establish a prim a fa cie ca se of re taliatory discharge. W e re vie w e vid en tiary

r uli ngs fo r ab use of

dis cr et iona nd w ill r ev er se the di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on on ly in ca se s wh ere s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e ex is ts . Se e H

all v. Uni te d In s. Co . of

Am. , 367 F
. 3d 1 255, 125 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. I nde ed , “ [t ] he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s ar an ge of opt ion s; and s o lo ng a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt do es not
com m it a clear

err or in judgm ent, w e w ill affirm the district court’ s decision.” Young v. Ci tyof P alm B ay , F la. , 358 F. 3d 85 9, 863 (11th Cir. 2004). W e rev ie w de novo a district court’ s grant of j udgm ent as a m atter of law
un de r Ru le 50 , app lying th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e d is tri ctco ur t. Thosteson v. United States , 331 F. 3d 12 94, 1298 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). “ W e consider whether such suf fi ci en t c onf

lic ts e xis t i n th e ev ide nc e to n ec es sit at e subm itt ing the m at te r to the3

j ur y or w he the r the e vid en ce is so w ei ght ed in favor of one sid e tha t on e pa rty
m ust prevail as a m atter of law. ” Id
. ( ci tin g Mendoza v. B orden, Inc. , 195 F
. 3d 1238 , 124 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9) ( enbanc ))
. F urthe r, “ [w ] e shou ld r ev ie wa ll of the
ev ide nc e in the r ec or d and m ust dr awa ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of the
nonm ovin g party .” Cleveland v. Hom e Shopp ing Network, I nc. , 369 F
. 3d 1 189, 1192 -93 (11th Cir. 2004). Co bb f ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in gr an tin g S yniv er se ’ s m oti on in l im ine to ex cl ude the te sti m ony of his statis tic ian w itn es s. A ft er r ev ie w ing the record, we conclude that the dis trict court properly excluded the statisti cal
ev ide nc e. A dm iss ionof

the statis tic al e vid en ce w as sup er fl uous due to Sy niverse’ s stipu lation th at Cobb had a good faith belief that he w as discrim inated against based on his age. M oreover, we agree with the district court’ s finding that th e st at is ti cal ev id en ce was m or e p reju di ci al th an pro ba ti ve . See F ed
. R. E vid
. 403. Finally , e ven if we concluded that th e statistical evidence should be acc orded a sl ig ht bi t o f wei gh t, i t s ti ll ha d n ot hi ng to do wit h M ur ph y ’s m ot iv at io n. Co bb a lso a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in gr an tin g S yniv er se ’ s m oti on fo r j udgm en t a s am at te r of law be ca use he pr es en te d su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce of causation on his retaliatory discharge claim
. First, we conclude from the rec ord that Cobb failed to establis h that his lay off w as causally relate d to his internal4

com plaint. It is uncontested that, during th e second reduction in force (“ RIF” ) (Augus t 20 02) a nd b ef

or e Co bb f

ile d hi s in te rn al c om

pla int , Murp hy

a dvi se d hi m tha t S yniv er se w as c ont em pla tin g e lim ina tin g C obb’ s po sit ion
. I n a ddi tio n, Co bb filed his internal com

plaint in August 200 2, but wa s not di scharged until February 2003
. T his six m onths g ap be tw ee n th e tw o e ve nts is not “ ve ry c los e” a s to
es tabl is h t he ne ces sa ry

tem po ral pro xi m it y . See Clark County Sch. D ist. v. Bree den , 532 U
. S. 268 , 272 , 121 S
. Ct
. 150 8, 151 1, 149 L
. E d. 2d 5 09 ( 2001 ) (citing with approval circuit court cases invalidating tem poral proxim ities of three
an d f our m onths)
. T he re fo re , giv enthe f ac ts o f thi s c as e, w e co nc lud e tha t the six
m onths p er iod

be tw ee n C obb’ s in te rn al c om pla int a nd h is l ay of

f fa lls out sid e the pa ram et ers of e st ab li sh in g c au sa ti on . Second, it is undisp uted that Cobb ’ s EE OC charge w as actually filed afte r the de ci sio n w as m ad e to t er m ina te him
. T he re fo re , the re c anbe no p ar tic ipa tio n claim based on retaliation for filing the EE OC charge. Fo r the above -s ta te d r ea sons , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr

y of j udgm en t a s am at te r of

law a ga ins t C obb. AFFIRMED.