FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 3, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 46 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 31 52 -ASG ARYS R. CABR ERA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STAT ES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 3, 2 01 2) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ary s R . Cab rera , a His pa ni c m al e o f Cuban n at io na l o rig in , app eal s t hedi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Sec ret ary of Tran sp orta ti on an d the U.S. Departm en t o f Tran sp orta ti on(co ll ect iv el y “ DOT”) in hi s n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on su itun de r Tit le VII. Aftera th or ou gh rev ie w of the reco rdan d the pa rti es ’ arg um en ts , we affi rm . I. Back gr ou nd Cab rerawork s as anairtra ffi c co ntro ll er i n M ia m i, Fl or id a. Inad di ti on to hi s re gu la r du ti es , Cab reraoc cas io na ll y ha d o pp ortu ni ti es to serve as aCo ntro ll er in Ch arg e (“ CIC” ) an d a n On th e Jo b Tra in in g In st ru ct or(“ In st ru ct or ”). The op po rtu ni ty to ac t as a CIC o r In st ru ct orari se s i f a s up erv is orreco m m en ds a co nt ro ll er fo r th e p os it io n. In di vi du al s wh o wo rk eit he r of th es e te m

po rary rol es are r eward edwith asupp le m en t i n p ay . On J ul y 29 , 20 06 , as p artof areg ul ar ev al ua ti on , Cab rerawas s ub jecte d t o a sk il ls ch eck . Unfo rtu na te ly, Cab rerade m on st rat edvario us de fic ie nc ie s i n t he ex am in at io n. Th e ex am in er’s rep ort n ot eda ne edto im pr ov e th e are as of “ co nt ro l jud gm en t,” “ m etho ds an d p ro cedur e,” an d “ co m m un ic at io n.” Acco rd in g t o DOT, ou t o f co nc ern forth e d em on strat edde fic ie nc ie s, o n Au gu st2, 2 00 6, anad di ti on al sk il ls ch eckwas a dm in is te red . In t he sec on d s ki ll s ch eckCab reraag ai n de m on st rat edde fic ie nc ie s. Aft er re vi ewin g t he res ul ts of the ev al ua ti on , supe rv is or s re vo ke d C ab rera ’s cert ifi cat io n t o wo rkas a n a ir t raff ic co nt ro ll er, an d 2he was re qu ire d t o u nd erg o re m ed ia l t rai ni ng . After s uc ces sf ul ly com pl et in g a sk il ls ch eckin Nov em

be r 20 06 , Cab rerareg ai ne d c ert ifi cat io n t o wo rkas a n a ir tra ffi c co nt ro ll er. Cab rerabe li ev es th e d eci si on to gi ve th e se co ndsk il ls tes t an d t o re vo ke hi s cert ifi cat io n was ba se d o n n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n. Acco rd in gl y , he f il eda co m pl ai ntwith t he Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on (“ EEOC”). Cab rerarece iv edhi s fu ll sal ary du rin g t he ti m e h e was de cert ifi ed , andhe co m pl ai ns th atdu rin g h is rem ed ia l t rai ni ng he was n otaffo rd edth e o pp ortu ni ty to actas t he CIC o r anIns tru ct or . Cab rerafurth er al le ge s t ha t af te r he fil eda co m

pl ai ntwith t he EEOC, DOT ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m

by refus in g t o a ll ow h im to lea d ato urof the co ntro ll er faci li ty andby dep riv in g h im of t he op po rtu ni ty to ac t as th e CIC or a n In st ru ct or . The to urin ci de ntaro se ou t o f Cab rera ’s ot he r job as a n a dju nc t p ro fes so r. Cab rera reque st edan d was gra nt edpe rm is si on to tak e h is stud en ts ona to urof t he co nt ro ll er fa ci li ty. Bu t wh enhe arri ve d t o l eadth e to ur , hi s s up erv is or s i nf orm ed hi m th atth e to urwou ldbe co nduc te d b y a di ffer en t co ntro ll er. Itwas e xp la in ed th atCab reraco ul d n otbe at t he faci li ty becau se he was o n m ed ic al lea ve . The m ed ic al lea ve was re la te d t o anx ie ty pro bl em s t ha t Cabr era d ev el op edan d a ps y ch ol og is t’s re co m

m en da ti on th atCab rerash ou ldno t wo rkas a n a ir t raff ic 3co nt ro ll er. The in ab il it y to lea d t he to urem

ba rras se d C ab rera . He bel ie ve s DOT’s de ci si on co nc ern in g t he to urwas a n e ffo rt t o re ta li at e ag ai ns t h im for fil in g t he EEOC com

pl ai nt . The di stric t co urt h el d tha t Cabr era fa il edto m ak e o uta pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on forva rio us reas on s: (1) th e ref us al to all ow Cabr era t o le adth e to ur

was n otanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , (2) Cab reradi d n otpre se nt su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atth e d ecerti fic at io n was a m at eri al adve rs e act io n, (3 ) Cab reraha d n otsh own th atsi m il arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees t ha t wer e o ut si de of hi s p ro te ct edcla ss were t reat eddi ffer en tl y , and(4) th ere was no t a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e fi li ng of t he EEOC com pl ai ntan d t he cla im edret al ia ti on . Add it io na ll y , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Cabr era d idno t p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce to sh ow t ha t t he pro ffer edreas on s fo r th e al le ge d a dv ers e act io ns were ac tu al ly pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on . II. St an da rdof R ev ie w W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ardus edby the di st ric t co urt. Jo hn so n v . Bd. of Rege nt s o f the Uni v. of Ga. , 26 3 F .3d12 34 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e draw al l fa ctua l in fere nc es in 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 1 24 2– 43 . Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y 4m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a). “ [C]on cl us ory all eg at io ns witho utsp eci fic supp orti ng fact s h av e n o pr ob at iv e v al ue ,” an d aparty who wi sh es to su cces sf ul ly opp os e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t “ m

us t m eetth e m ov an t’s af

fid av it s wi th op po si ng affi da vi ts se tt in g fo rth sp eci fic fact s t o s ho w why th ere i s an is su e fo r tr ia l.” Lei gh v. W ar ne r Bro s., In c. , 21 2 F .3d12 10 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . III. Dis cri m in at io n C la im s Tit le VII pr oh ib it s fe de ral ag en ci es fro m di sc riminat in g a ga in stem pl oyees ba se d o n t he ir n at io na l o rig in . Se e 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -1 6( a). The pl ai nt iff be ars th e u lt im at e b ur de n o f pr ov in g d is cri m in at ory tre at m en t b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Cr aw

fo rd v. Ca rr ol l , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 75 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To s etou t a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r di sp arat e tr eat m en t i n ana ti on al ori gi n d is cri m in at io n c as e, th e p la in ti ff m

us t s ho w th at : (1 ) he is a m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) he su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) si m il arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees, n ot of th e p la in ti ff’s p ro te ct edgro up , were treat eddi ffer en tl y . W il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Whe n acla im

is supp orte d b y

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt an al y zes th e cas e u si ng th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rksetou t i n McDo nn el l 5Dou gl as Co rp . v. Gree n , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S. Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3) . Und er McDo nn el l

Dou gl as , th e p la in ti ff b ears th e in it ia l b ur de n o f pr es en ti ng su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o al lo w a reas on ab le jury to de te rm in e th athe ha s s at is fie d the ele m en ts of h is pr ima fa ci e cas e. Id. at 8 02 , 93 S. Ct. at18 24 . If th e p la in ti ff p res en ts a pr ima fa ci e cas e an d t he em

pl oyer off

ers a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forth e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on , th e b ur de n s hi fts ba ckto th e p la in ti ff t o s ho w th atth e st at ed reas onis a m ere p ret ex t fo r un lawfu l d is cri m in at io n. Alva re z v. Ro ya l At l. Devel op er

s, In c. , 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). To s ho w pre te xt , th e p la in ti ff m us t p ro du ce ev id en ce t ha t re ve al s “ 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 s t ha t a r eas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi ndth em un worth y

of c red en ce.” Vess el

s v. At la nt a In de

p. S ch . Sys. , 40 8 F .3d76 3, 7 71 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Ass um in g ar

gu en do th atCab reracan m ak e o uta pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n, DOT ha s p res en te d l eg it im at e an d n on di sc riminat ory reas on s fo r it s ac ti on s, an d C ab reraha s n otoff eredsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atth os e reas on s wer e a p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. DOT de cert ifi edCab reraon ly after h e rep eat ed ly fail edto m eetest ab li sh edpe rfo rm an ce s ta nd ard s. Oth er tha n C ab rera ’s 6un supp orte d b el ie f th atth e sk il ls ch eck s wer e st ric tl y an nu al in na tu re, the re i s n o ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsh owi ng th atitwas i m pr op er fo r DOT to ha ve Cab rera un de rg o asec on d s ki ll s ch ecksh ortl y aft er h e d em on strat edde fic ie nc ie s. Add it io na ll y , th ere i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d t ha t es tabl is he s t ha t DOT ha d t o a ss ig n Cab rerask il ls en hanc em en t trai ni ng be fo re i t d ecerti fie d h im . W e ag ree wi th th e di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atCab rera ’s arg um en ts are n otsu ffi ci en tl y pro ba ti ve of pre te xtto withs ta nda m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. IV. Ret al ia ti on Cla im s Tit le VII al so pro hi bi ts em pl oyers fr om

ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t anem pl oyee who fil es a cl ai m

un de r th atAct. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a). In ord er t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r ret al ia ti on , a cla im an t m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) he en ga ge d i n a st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv it y ; (2 ) he su ffer eda m at eri al ly adv ers e em pl oym en t act io n; an d (3 ) th ere was a cau sa l l in k b etween th e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he ad ve rs e act io n. Golds mith v . Bagby Elev at or Co . , 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

“ The an ti ret al ia ti on pro vi si on 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 .” Bur li ng to n N or th ern & Sa nt e Fe Ry. Co . v. W

hi te , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 7, 1 26 S. Ct. 2 40 5, 2 41 4 (2 00 6) . A m at eri al ly adv ers e em

pl oym en t ac ti on is on e th at“ m ig hthave di ss ua de d a

7reas 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. at 57 , 12 6 S . Ct. at24 09 . W e co ns tru e th e cau sa l l in k e le m en t b ro ad ly so t ha t t he pl ai nt iff m erel y ha s to pro ve th atth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d the adve rs e act io n a re n otco m pl et el y un rel at ed . Olms te d v . Tac o Bel l Co rp . , 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 thCir . 19 98 ). The pl ai nt iff

can sat is fy

th is ele m en t i f he pro vi de s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t ha t t he em pl oyer kn ew of

th e p ro te ct edact iv it y

an d aclo se tem

po ral pro xi m it y

be twee n th is awaren es s an d t he adve rs e act io n. Sh ot z v. C it y o f Plan ta ti on , Fla . , 34 4 F .3d 11 61 , 11 80 n.3 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si onth atCab reradi d n otsu fferan ad ve rs e act io n wh enhe was d en ie d t he op po rtu ni ty to l eadhi s s tu de nt s i n ato ur . Whi le hi s embarra ss m en t m ig htbe ve ry real , den y in g a n e m

pl oyee th e o pp ortu ni ty to lea d ato uris no t t he type o f m at eri al an d s ub st an ti al act io n tha t wo ul d d is su ad e anem pl oyee fro m

fil in g aco m

pl ai ntwith the EEOC. Se e Bur li ng to n N or th ern , 54 8 U.S. at68 , 12 6 S . Ct. at24 15 . Mor eo ve r, Cab reraadm it s t ha t h e was on m ed ic al lea ve at t he ti m e h e p la nn edto lea d t he to ur , andhe ha s n otpo in te d t o a ny ev id en ce t ha t d is pu te s DOT’s cla im th atCab rera ’s em

pl oym en t s ta tu s was th e reas onhe was n otall owe d t o l eadth e to ur . Add it io na ll y , des pi te ou r effo rts to id en ti fy ev id en ce t ha t wo ul d a de qu at el y supp ort h is ot he r ret al ia ti on cla im s, we 8fin d n ot hi ng bu t Cabr era’s n on sp eci fic an d c on cl us ory st at em en ts . Cab rerahas fai le d t o p res en t s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t ha t h e su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on th atis rel at edto th e fi li ng of h is EEOC com pl ai nt , andhe can no t wi th st an d a su m m ary jud gm en t ch al le ng e. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof DOT. AFFIRMED .

9